Frank Pallone

It seems to me that the trust between a provider and a patient is at the heart of quality family planning.

It seems very clear the rule was written to open the door to ideological providers and completely walks away from our commitment to be client-centered in family planning care.

So for all of those reasons, of course this rule steps into the relationship between a patient and a provider.

I certainly agree with healthcare leaders that say that the administration should retract its regulation because family planning policies shouldn't be--should be driven by facts, evidence, and necessity, not politics and ideology.

I am just afraid that you know they are just going to give out Title X funds to some group that you know just wants to narrowly focus their medical advice or whatever, or their advice on just a few things and not the full range of options…

Well I understand what you are saying but I mean the problem is you know you go in to do these proposed rules, you are trying to say, accomplishing something which we don't even know whether or not there is a problem.

But I mean were there any OIG audits?

Now you said, I guess in response to Dr. Ruiz, that there has been confusion whether Title X funds have been inappropriately used to perform abortions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am obviously opposed to this rule but the thing that strikes me is how it is totally unnecessary.

The Final Rule would create a class of women who are barred from receiving care consistent with accepted and established professional medical standards.

The Administration's proposal not only threatens the purpose of Title X, but the health of every low-income woman and family that the program is intended to serve.

HHS's response to these negative health outcomes is one of silence and indifference.

By targeting entities that provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare services, the Administration's Title X Gag Rule stands to destroy the intent of the Title X program.

Today's hearing is the latest step in this committee's ongoing work to hold the Trump administration accountable for the dramatic changes it has proposed to our nation's Title X Family Planning Program.

I mean, in my opinion, what good does it do the public to have a rulemaking process that goes on and on and never produces a rule?

This is neither novel nor ambiguous and, in my view, it will certainly improve accountability and safety.

Applying an ambiguous legal standard of recklessness will not advance pipeline safety.

I hope and expect that the final product the committee reports will be a strong bipartisan bill.

I commend the bill sponsors for their thoughtful effort and I am hopeful we can include several ideas from their proposal in a final pipeline safety reauthorization bill.

I have no intention of allowing a pipeline safety bill to be used as a vehicle for stifling legitimate dissent and protest.

The proposal also restores the mechanism for citizens to pursue legal action to compel PHMSA to fulfill its statutory duties.

A major overarching problem with the Federal pipeline safety program is that it takes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration--PHMSA--too long to finalize congressional mandates.

Preventable incidents still occur and we must do everything in our power to ensure our national pipeline network is as safe as possible.

Today's hearing focuses on two legislative proposals to improve pipeline safety in America.