tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 28, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
from iranian circle outside hear the regime is an inverted. you remove the capstone and it falls apart. i its unclear if the row russians see it the same way. some want to preserve the regime at the expense of assad and his family. others fear the way the regime is constructed is indeed -- makes it galvanized or makes it -- gives structure that resists a peaceful transition. i think russian intervention will not end the war, but there could be a silver lining. russia could help stabilize some areas under the regime's control in order to avoid the injureddist take over of damascus. i'm. no say they're going to take over damascus, i always doubted that. but on the bright side, if the united states is worriedes less bass damascus falling to
jihaddist, perhaps they, work on stabilizing other parts of syria under the opposition control and that might be a good thing. last but not least, i think that russia's intervention on behalf hoff bashar al-assad means that syria will be partitions for the foreseeable future if not permanently. iranian and russian logic is to prop up the assad regime in the west but either -- i don't think -- i aggrieve with jeff -- i don't think they're able to commit the kind of soreses that would retake all of syrian territory. in discussions about isis, i often ask the question, what force is going to go goo into the euphrates valley and run out the isis forces of the question is can we all find a force that can do that i think we're years away from that and unfortunately i see many black days ahead in the syrian war. thank you very much. >> thank you, andrew.
syria. revolution inside all of the opposition to russia is -- we can fight them. consider bash schad al-assad except that the army to give back all the country. but i don't think that putin wants to involve this army in a new afghanistan. i think that the russian world is to protect the coastal region and to act bar shall al-assad in keeping syria -- but not to get back all syria because i think -- i don't think -- because of the problem. so, i have most of the --
nothing in syria, the sunni population is two-thirds of the population. slight difference. you also kurdish about -- [inaudible] -- [inaudible] christian and other on the best, and all syria is sunni. so, is one percent russian troops inside syria, find people to stop him, i don't think kurdish want to -- why not.
but in the arab population they will not find anybody to support them. [inaudible] syrian army. -- because assad is controlling west part of syria because in this area they are the minorities. should be the next target of another offensive. bashar al-assad is to continue providing syrian people support. when explaining his army was tired, and lacked fuel. that is why government looked --
[inaudible] last june i was in -- and people were really afraid. the evening -- we can hear the rocket noise and cheering -- [inaudible] at the east of latakia, and i think look at latakia -- in june, people -- [inaudible] -- because latakia not exactly stronghold. the city is divided between -- and sunni. 2010, about 60%, 40% sunni and
the other christians. the city between latakia on the turkish border, the population is sunni, and also it was -- many religions speaking turnyear -- turkish in the area, and of course this syrian issue are -- [inaudible] the men are fighting against the syrian armies. moreover you have 300,000 refugees in the lat -- latakia province.
[inaudible] -- province 800,000 people. so 300,000 refugees, -- [inaudible] is sunni and we know that there is families, the men are fighting and the families out in latakia, and latakia, very huge threat, huge fear of those, does it mean if -- people from different -- [inaudible] -- it's like this that the syrian army -- because in fact since few months people from daesh --
the otherwise to get the armies, the christians and -- so religions -- so, a bit -- [inaudible] this is the sect in syria, you can see the minority mostly on the west part of syria, and with where the syrian army is located, you can see there is a very clear difference between syrian army and mostly sunny, daesh controlling.
the decline of the otherwise -- facility, that's why also empty in the mountains because otherwise are making operation in comparison, -- [inaudible] children and women, and if they are out, 10% of the population-christian fighters, sure, it's a 20 year will be no more altogether minority. and in comparison with the demography of the sunni changed, the people -- you have to change the people. refugees to burn -- push out
five or six million people. you can revamp -- [inaudible] why -- concentrated on -- in latakia, develop the education in latakia, because he knows he is -- control syria, but the consequence of this social movement is when you are -- [inaudible] it's a problem if complain because his army lack of fuel, because there is no --
to bashar al-assad we don't want another -- be sure what you would have a lot of -- let mass discuss, aleppo, and come back to protect the population. that's why even in spring, when fall, many, many say to assad, you must protect the coast because if you don't protect the coast, we will who will protect you? anyway, we abandon damascus and come back to the coast, and decided to build a new militia, as a shell of the coast, not succeed very much, and i think it's a good reason for mr. putin to send troops in latakia
because there is a fear that latakia fall in the arm of the rebels because the syrian army is clearly unable alone to protect latakia. and damascus homes are protected by the hezbollah, but iran, because it's strategically very important for the hezbollah and iran to be in indianapolis discuss to be close to the -- to be in the area of -- to protect what i call the hezbollah, and latakia is not so strategic for iran. it's not strategic for russia because military base in -- also russian navy and the international airport of latakia, and the russian want
also to have submarine base [inaudible] -- and i think that mr. putin want to do in the syrian coast what the did in georgia, to have a foot in the region, and will not try to invade all of syria because it would be useless for him. probably it would like to help the syrian army to protect aleppo, because aleppo is completely surrounded by -- i don't know if you want to enter in the game with the kurdish.
the kurdish want to have this continuum from tigris, and to know succeed to joan kobani, and still an area between kobani and -- it's not a kurdish territory. arab sunni. the kurdish want to join all this territories, and i don't know if putin will help them to succeed because is not very agree with this strategy, but the only mean to destroy the syrian opposition -- military
opposition in the north of syria, it's to close the border. you cannot successfully counterintelligence policy if the border is open so you can use the kurdish to close the border if turkey still continue to support the military opposition. so, i think that russia have two scenario in syria. one which is the syrian coast, russia protect, and offensive scenario which is offensive around aleppo. damascus is under the iran umbrella. latakia will be under russian
umbrella. russian troops, i think latakia could fall or could be divided in the sunni rebel area and otherwise area, and if latakia fall it will be of course less easy to protect the territory to create this military -- like i said, it's sure that you will have soldier, many officer, refuse to fight in damascus and aleppo, and will come back to the village to protect their families, because it was very clear in june, the people that i meet, say we don't want anymore.
thank you. >> very good. thank you very much. actually, it's -- your description of demography was fascinating, not least because if you read or listen to what putin had to say today, there was a pretty powerful echo where -- in his discussion of how you deal with refugee problem coming from syria. putin said, the way to deal with refugee problem is to give comprehensive assistance, economic assistance, especially to the people who won't abandon their country, namely, give economic assistance to the people lift -- left in syria because everyone else abandoned them. making syria strong is the way to make sure you don't have any further refugees leave. of course this plays into the assad strategy you referred. to let me just pose a couple of questions and then open the
floor to your questions. jeff, could you just give us a very quick comment on precisely how russian military deployments restrict the potential for american or western ideas that have been floating around, including the creation of safe zones. >> sure. first of all, if the russians begin flying outside of latakia with combat aircraft and so on it's going to impinge on the u.s. able to fly over northern syria, unless there's a serious decon flix. if the russians choose to start triking in northern syria, for example, some of those targets could be in areas where the coalition flies and that would
force the united states to react to it in some way or maybe it would simply acquiesce. the united states -- depending on how well decon flix goes the united states michigan have to change the tactic the way it operates and supports flights over syria, the environment with russian aircraft in it would be much more dangerous or potentially dangerous, doesn't mean they would be fight but something the u.s. has to think about. on the ground, if russian forces become involved on the ground, there is the risk, depending on what happens, of course, buff its in aleppo or some other places, say, around in dara or southwest or indianapolis discuss, then you have a situation where russian forces could be fighting against u.s. supported forces. cia supported forces primarily.
if the russian are striking under their broads def notification who is to terrorist and the united states is support thing people, what happens is the u.s. government going to authorize strikes against russian forces or take other kinds of actions to disrupt russian military efforts. these are the kind of things you could see. may not happen but the potential is there. >> and just one more for you, jeff. can you say a word about this announcement of military coordination -- i'm sorry -- intelligence coordination between iran, iraq, syria, and russia? >> with the exception of iraq, i think this kind of coordination has been going on forever effectively. who their partners and many things, they talk to one another. syria and iran effectively have an alliance, military kind of alliance.
russians are involved in that and also includes hezbollah. so the fact they're coordinating this -- talking to one another about intelligence isn't really surprising or even new. the context is somewhat new. the iraqi context is different. have to see what comes of that. but the issue becomes really difficult, if it moves beyond intelligence cooperation into military operations. then you have another situation where the u.s. and the russians could be flying in the same or adjacent air space. there's a possibility of conflicts there as well. so it's a complicating factor to me but not a lightning bolt that's going to radically change the situation in my view. >> andrew, in his speech today, president obama referred to the
process of managed transition, and invited the russians and the iranians to be partners in helping to bring about this outcome. how would you characterize the state of u.s. diplomacy on this issue? >> i mean, i think that it's not a secret that there's a fundamental disagreement between iran and russia on one hand and the united states on the other about what a transition looks like, because there's severe disagreement on what a stable end state would look like. with the iranians and the russians on the one hand saying that assad has to stay because of the structure of the regime, and that this would be the basis for some sort of preservation of syrian institutions, which putin talked about during his speech, and this would allow through this process over time to use military force, combined with
economic incentives to put the pieces of syria back together again. obama was very clear. he said we are -- we cannot go to the status quo and to try to look at the way things were before because of bashar's choices during the war, and the syrian opposition agrees with him on that and most syrian does because he only controls 20% of his territory. i do not think there's any agreement on this whatsoever. i think there's some agreement on the threats come out of syria. there is some talk in the last few days about assad going later rather than sooner, in terms of the timing and the mechanism, and i think that was put forward by secretary kerry but threat not new. that's been floated out there for a few months. i don't think there's really -- anything has changed the divisions in terms of an end state. that severely complicates any
kind of diplomatic effort on syria unless of course you're willing to accept partition, and that is something that the united states refuses to accept for obvious reasons. beyond the security reasons. but absent some sort of common ground on the end state, i think we'll have a divided syria for some time. >> speaking of the concept of partition, fabrice mentioned a met -- met terrainan -- does that resonate in the russian context and how the russians may be viewing what the opportunities and what the end goal might be here? >> this certainly resonates very well with how the russians view the creme lip's approach to international affairs. this idea of creating frozen conflict in one form or another is consistent with putin's approach to international affairs. so, i think what -- it's interesting to me is in my
conversations, especially with the liberal opposition, they keep waiting for the to say something, to give a little bit more pushback on russia, and they keep hoping that, for example, one person i spoke to recent live privately said, america won't have a russia hezbollah alliance. that just can't happen. so, it resonates, but the liberal elites are hoping there will be some pushback for putin in this regard. >> okay, let's turn the floor over to you to your questions. start over here with robert freedman on my right and we'll work around. ...
it may well have been but it does then the russians will respond there. to have the attack helicopters so a the first responses air power on the grounds it is the regime forces. it is very likely it will embed the ground forces with machine troops. i am disinclined at this point that they will go one search and destroy a missions. given the buildup of with satellite mistreat - - imagery is a battalion to be reinforced so i think there
will respond carefully but if it becomes a problem the russians will respond. it is not first and foremost, a political force. >> here on the left. >> syria press secretary at the british embassy. and before we came into this event as suggested launching his own campaign as the primary allies in that connection. in your view does it
genuinely belief in the analytical way that they can somehow manage the situation that i still can somehow wind of four? were the british government tuesday we will never defeats isil that it is about lot setting precedent. deep down to daisy isil for j really think it is that victory in syria? >> i could take a stab first.
it is hard to tell think the conversations that i have had so that is the basis so now that is the rhetorical position because it goes with the vagal structure and the legal reasoning that putin outlined today. but with the every tsa looked at it as a dividing country so they see their interest in syria. that is primarily in the western part of the country that keeps damascus from catastrophic collapse but it doesn't solve the isis problem.
if russia was not intend to there would be on the hook. i think they have accepted taken only influence part of syria not all of it. >> it is a little hard to tell based of the rhetoric to be clearly convinced there behind most ills of the world. >> but before they turned violent a resonated and how that could happen to him. and then to preserve himself as well. even the approval ratings.
but the kremlin has a realistic approach that if you saw the interview on "60 minutes" whenever asked a few questions are and syria or ukraine and said tell me what you think to support the opposition and what will happen after words? and then talk about the border to say you have a presence in europe so for him they match whenever we do he has to do as well and that is the calculus. >> so based on serious day are not to win in the sense
of conquering syria but to fight the regime. and i think they have a fair chance because of the military balance with the dynamics of though war i think they have a reasonable prospect of securing that. my sense of russian military is not that great but i think they're careful with the military force. they have a long tradition to think about operations and military strategy. so i think they have a good notion how to do this. they probably thought it through.
>> retired state department officer. we talk about the of complexion of the united states and american forces falling prime minister that audion whose visit to talk with president putin they announced they would put together a day complexion mechanism so my question is to you or a new nose wish to speculate how such a mechanism might work and sent with russia primary purpose to support the a sod regime could you speculate on potential friction the what has been talked about to put a coordination cell
inside the ministry of defense to do the deed complexion that is the means we saw one report that says that has been done. that is of logical thing to do to put the officers with the communications package and the complexion that way but it think they will find that perfectly useful but the second part gets to the real rub of what could have been. is really is like to go around syria to bomb places where they think weapons may be moving from in or out there also like to bomb the syrian positions so in my
mind the russian presence eventually be chosen a more airstrikes in the province they will not say okay come bomb 10 miles from our facility because it makes you feel good or you thank you have reason so my sense is that is out that there be very cautious to fight the russians or a engaged them but their real situation is what happens in southwest of damascus especially if iranians are conducting attacks on israel for code to they provide any cover or not? my sense is probably not. remember that agent history
when the israelis and the egyptian shot it out and they killed the soldiers inside egypt. i think they are reluctant to repeal that to come to fruition. >> bed just one more sentence about that the complaint has to do with a ration of weapons to syria that are diverted or sent to hezbollah and they denied that the syrians say they have the end users certificates but the israelis have good evidence they're sitting with hezbollah. there is a lot of room for back-and-forth to ensure the security of these weapons. melissa.
>> i but like to ask the other side of the question. to the russians really think they can prevail and we take all the territory. the flip side is do they deliver the regime? it is the anti-a isil coalition are they capable to deliver the other pieces of a complex political landscape? >> easy question. >> day you know, all five? know they're not capable to
bring anyone from the opposition. be honest. of a giant problem however the opposition has spent going along with our diplomacy most recently. so it is almost a fixed player so the opposition ability is light and the trade and equip program is going very bad they. and the larger concern that i had when the troops were
attacked edits a huge problem and unless the united states will make political concessions to its allies in the region with the fate of the regime so now we're at a crossroads because it is now propping up the regime. i do think we have the answer to that question yet. >> the position is so divided it is very difficult
they know very well but it is the key to the system but it is the key. the system could be destroyed. with the east and west don't have anything to urdu. but to be a of parts of the solution and after. >> on that note we will bring the panel to a close. i am quite sure this topic will be with us for some time. please join me to thank our panel with russia deployment
>> the annual documentary competition is an opportunity for students to do think critically of issues to creative five for seven minute documentary they can express their views >> we want students to be involved in gives them a platform to have their voices heard. the way that can express those views by creating a documentary.
>> we have a wide range of entries the most important aspect is going to be the content. we have others that have used a cellphone others that have more high tech equipment but it is the content that matters. >> their response from students has been a great over many different issues. we have topics ranging from education comedy economy and the environment in a wide variety used to better serve the acuity inside of it. >> we have come to the consensus humans cannot run without food to. >> with disabilities education act children's disabilities are not given the opportunity of an education.
>> what is the most important issue you want the candidates to discuss in the campaign? it is full on into the campaign season with mindy issues but one of the key requirements but to further there porridge of fear and and that dominates of video it is a great way to include more information. >> the first bill is the water resources reform and development act. >> we heard the jokes about school with the mystery meat tacos. >> there is a role the government plays that is especially vital for students with disabilities. they can go to the web site to have more in affirmation
but also of a teacher tips and rubric for the classroom but bid deadline is jane marie which is exactly one month away from the next presidential the inauguration. >> jan you look awesome in your red blazer. >> with a nice color. >>lesat is a nice colo >> tonight the rules committee will consider h.r. 4935 the women's public health safety act of the basic principles of federalism the state granted
the discretion to withhold medicaid funds from the clinic or a doctor that provides abortions services. straightforward for core represents a continuation of efforts to do plan legislation for those that were present the sanctity of human life and that we heard from the pope how important all life is it gives an opportunity for states to use federal funds accordingly. with the gentlewoman from tennessee, marcia blackburn and joining her is her colleague we have orange and red today. before we have the wit is is that comfortably to differ to my dear friend for the opening statement. >> i welcome you both. i want to say for the record
the lot is no federal funds could be used for abortion and i want to remind my republican colleagues we're only-- away from another government shut down and the last one cost the american taxpayers 24 and a million-dollar so i have a hard time thinking preventing medicaid patients from seen their doctors is the best use of our time you are in charge and run the show saliva for word to the testimony. >> briefly i would like to address the issue that gentleman brought up. we are very concerned and recognize the constitutionality of what we are trying to do as well. vera glading at this time for the united states senate who was gaining their momentum to do decide a piece of legislation.
you will find we will be asked to come back to the rules committee sometimes as quickly that the senate does their work there working on these issues diligently having discussions working with each other and trying to do the same over here i do appreciate the gentleman we will be off the floor and we will be a talking about the importance of nurturing this government funding stream continues and you have my highest of commitment from the rules committee side knowing we will as quickly as we can call a hearing and not delay to do the work that needs to be done so we can act accordingly. >> i appreciate your reassurance but as recent history has taught us just because the rules committee
considers it doesn't mean the republican conference except sit and we've found ourselves coming back to the rules committee to manage a crisis. i hope we can keep a the government to open that is where our priorities should be browbeating a bomb for women is not a constructive use of our time. >> i appreciate you very much. ladies please feel free to come to the witness table. both if you are no strangers to the committee and to your friends to give expert went - - witness testimony also a the graciousness to represent yourself and your party and ideas. you have been a pair plenty of times but we tried to deal with difficult subjects and a polite and respectful
way and you will be afforded that also. mrs. blackburn represents thoughts and ideas that i airdrie with but even when i don't you will be given and the assurances to be dealt with fairly. anything you have a rating will be entered into the record. we have an awesome stomp and we encourage you to speak into the microphone. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to come before you on h.r. 3495 the women's health and safety act of bill that mr. duffy of third am brought to us at the energy commerce committee we have issued an amendment that
will become the bill as your appropriately stated, it is about flexibility to give the states more flexibility as to who they choose to include in their medicaid program health care providers and then those that do not want to participate. we have states that have sought to end the medicaid contracts and they have been blocked by doing so. currently we have four states in litigation louisiana arkansas alabama and end the utah over rudi issues. this is a step that we can take to say give the states the flexibility that they are requesting and that they need. they are proven that they
need this flexibility and allow them to make these decisions and with that i yield back. >> will come. please make sure your life is on. >> thanks for allowing lee to testify in opposition to 3495. here we go again. considering legislation that is supposed to protect women but this is another attack of women's health and their ability to make their own choices the misleading name is the target to exclude providers anyone who will normally support or is involved that provides abortions of participating in the attic -- medicaid even though not one federal
dime is spent to provide that abortion i have been calling this and other radical assault on women's health care. this would permit the states to provide a provider to provide access to safe and a legal abortion without regard to leave no recourse for that provider. solely on the basis it is bad enough that the legislation does not stop there it would allow a state to terminate a provider if they had been the sort of participation with an abortion. what constitutes participation that is completely undefined and be
clear the blackburn amendment does not change touche have the underlying purpose or intent or the devastating impact. it gives states the ability to establish criteria to determine if the provider that performs or participates of abortions would be allowed in the medicaid program. the broad language gives states the authority to exclude any provider the state defines as participating without consideration to the health needs or concerns. some examples of how far this criteria could go the state could exclude a hospital for offering lifesaving care as required under the federal emergency medical treatment lot. if they determine the care is provided with there was
not the immediate threat to her life but was a serious health care threat, or entire hospital systems could be excluded because many hospitals to provide abortion services. not only could they lose access to their choice of medical providers of health care services. that could be harmful in rural areas where fewer hospitals to serve communities. this bill allows the government unprecedented involvement of her personal health care decisions. that is why historically federal medicare -- medicaid rules provide the right of beneficiaries to seek care from a trusted the medically qualified provider. this bill is and no long
list of republican assaults in rigo this legislation was enacted in the past month but governor jindal tried to kick planned parenthood out of medicaid. they're only 29 providers left to serve more than 5,000 additional patients. louisiana is not unique two-thirds of the 91 counties, planned parenthood would serve bevies half of all women obtaining contraceptive care. and their 1/5 it is the sole safety net family planning center. that statutory provider is there for a reason. is a protection against the in ideological and political whim this of politicians. the claim that it seeks to
protect women is further from the truth for the fundamental protected right for saving and the eagle abortion undermine though woman's right to reduce to provide access to safe and legal abortion. i yield back. >> this is an issue back home for me also and i am sure every one of the our members whether from new york gore dallas texas, has strong opinions. i believe state legislatures know a lot about this issue. i learned that there is no planned parenthood organization in the country that has a mammogram available to its. i thought that was women's health care.
so we have isolated it down and die a believe you said it is about abortion services and i think the states should have been given that latitude so they can for bringing the bill and thank you the vice-chairman is now commit -- recognized. >> in the interest of time i will say i will associate myself with your remarks on why we are here today the concerns the people in the district have on this issue. the number one issue that i hear from everyone and we are doing the right thing with this legislation and i think mr. duffy for introducing this. i respect our colleague but
i totally disagree with her and i yield back. >> day ranking member is recognized. >> paying q. somehow afraid throw something out like this then maybe it may assuage people somewhere but they're not getting a great clamor. i am not sure that the mammogram issue either because they know planned parenthood does a lot of cancer screenings. we do need to check on that but in any case. >> without objection. >> i have this to research into the record. >> opposes h.r. 3495 it would restrict women's health and reproductive choices. h.r. 3495 with stop paying
any cover benefits provided to eligible individuals by qualified health providers with those that involve with the portions. longstanding federal policy already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except rape or incest or when the life of the of woman is in danger. by permitting withholding of funding for those providers or clinics or hospitals, hr 3495 would limit access to health care to local communities across the nation with a disproportionate impact of women on low income individuals and undermine a woman's right to held by the supreme court to make our own tauruses and of the president were presented
with hr 3495 he would veto the bill and a question never by to ask, is this constitutional? >> we have the requirement they you have to state. >> your rules committee handles the check. irish sure they can present that to you but they would restrict them every single time so this is just another case? >> i don't think so at all. of the absence of the bill and i said earlier, there are four states currently in litigation right now.
because they were trying to do restrictions on providers >> if this is federal court do you know that deportation ? >> i think the point is this would not just take away the funding for that portion of the services, that means a provider, a clinic or entire system that would provide all of the services. >> it is graphic to assuage people that they can vote. we know why we are here and
also alert to show that we beg to read you that here because it makes it illegal for those four states? or would that not still be constitutional? >> what we are hearing is they want the flexibility to determine who is the provider for the medicaid program? as you will remember in the mid 90's ministates went through the waiver process in order to urdu experimentation with the delivery system for health care. >> it doesn't have anything to do with a constitutional questions. >> this has to do with the and termination for those
who are providing services. >> but to restrict a woman's right or access to abortion, absolutely. >> but not with a hospital or health care clinics. >> where and 70 is repositioned the funds and that is exactly but we have done the community health centers planned parenthood. >> there is no question. it has nothing to do with abortion so to talk about reposition so really what
you do take away needed health services also the men who come for services ever since we pass the health care bill i dunno why you want to take it away from people is beyond me that you are out of luck as far as congress is concerned. >> shields back the time. and the gentleman is recognized. >> i apologize something must have been discussed that i am unaware of their last my colleague, i have read this legislation from front to back and i don't see any language closing any facilities for anybody.
>> there is nothing in here that closes any facility to allow zero the flexibility for utilization in the medicaid delivery system as parent -- planned parenthood to do with men and most health care services are outsourced if he will. that they say we really need more flexibility. so as we look at the funding to make certain it will get to the point to meet the needs of those communities
and it is helpful in in that regard. >> i am a big fan of local control but there are some moral issues that we deal with. providing critical care to keep ladies that deed it is one of those. i was looking to the mandate >> it is of flexibility requirement. when it came to energy and commerce is section into an increase of state flexibility to participate in the performance of abortions a you have the insertion into ruth a. allocation of this funding stream.
>> and the reason to bring the bill for word. >> talk about the fights and how to love on each other and what that looks like when it comes to health care i feel certain i appreciate you. >> i feel is important to say for the record some '02 screened for cancer with aristide to prevent unintended pregnancies. more than 90 percent of services are preventative including primary care services such as
contraceptives inspection and testing and treatment of cervical and breast cancer screenings each year provides 400,000 cervical cancer screening in san nearly five and 2,000 breast cancer screenings. so on behalf of planned parenthood to say when i was 23 found a long by made in the apartment and the nurse practitioner found it and arrange for my first mammogram i had a biopsy and though long proved it came back negative they put me in contact the army would have cost 1200 by paid to hundred bridges all i could afford we could not get the procedure otherwise to stay healthy. but whether or not this would shut down a hospital
denying medicaid reimbursement at a minimum that somehow it is okay to shut off health services for poor women. and to have preventive care that it is offensive. now i am doing quite a bit in this category but does anybody believe then regular order any more? >> give the fact this bill does that have to be voted on today. it could be next week. were there any hearings?
>> wade did not do a hearing on this specific bill. rehab the done america. added is regular order. and some of the critiques to make a the broad use of language ago you control the house but is it too much to grow through the process? people ago on these committees for reason to have a say in a legislative process.
and to take away their access to health care. bringing data before the rules committee. and dave be nothing. i yield back. >> you will be pleased with legislation to give a specific intent to the energy commerce committee to appropriately look at it in detail this issue. but to be generally available. >> if that committee could
look at this it sounds like a waste of money but with the red jurisdiction already but to do that before you bring in legislation to the floor. >> is far enough that the state could get the flexibility gingrich chooses not to take it up diplomatic dead it. >> if you have the a governor or state legislature that basically wants to take away that right of the woman to make a very difficult choice with regard to abortion. and the health care provider
provides services which is legal that the legislature should take away medicare and medicaid reimbursement and the bad news beating up on for women i think it is wrong but i have said enough i yield back my time. >> but we do believe than regular order to have the detailed analysis they q very much. >> you know, governor perry did decouple the funding through the medicaid system through planned parenthood v will only pay for those
services not associated that provides abortions services and as a consequence it speaks volumes than generally is not tied to do a conservative thought with the head of the texas alliance for life that it is at historically high levels over the next legislative session because on to note those texas lawmakers will appropriate more services them before the additional $50 million. looking at that statement at
historically high of lovell's ended up making that claim as true. it is not kind to those on that side. with that energy commerce committee i want to submit florida record the health program provider surveyed capacity reports that was two years after the governor period decoupled planned parenthood and medicaid funding so there was concern that perhaps it would drop off. the conclusion of the texas women's health program providers survey was overall
the results are positive that they have that capacity to serve even more women in the 2013 and reference to the public a fact article to increase in additional $58 million to say that it can be done we don't have to tax the american taxpayer to find a procedure they find abhorrent and this is not been effective. >> will you yield? there is no federal funding that can be used that is the lot. >> you note the money is fungible can be used for anything within the organization so i think for the people of texas governor perry set us on a good path
and it provides flexibility for other governors to do the same my you grateful for the witnesses and the presentation i yield back my time. >>. >> in the movie frozen i have had the good fortune and to see several times with my grandchildren, as the character saying's the song i wish i knew all of the words. but in the movie the character sings the song of latigo.
not with this particular measure but there is the obsession that i have witnessed over 22 years of involvement of a of a woman's right to virtues and i associate myself with his remarks. the dramatic thrust always seems to go towards for women and at least my reasoning allows them rich women that have abortions don't have this problem and if we would listen to people i guess they figure they don't have abortions i think i told the story when wealthy women got pregnant
pregnant, they would go to europe on vacation for a period of time. so my question is to representative blackburn i have of respect for her passion their bibles mine on the opposite side. the planned parenthood is the only place for safety net recipients to receive family planning care but if they seek treatment of the provider has been expelled from the state medicaid program? but some don't have them. >> one of the things with mr. hastings you have 13,000
community health and federally qualified health centers in the country. with planned parenthood we have a much smaller number of facilities. with data availability tremendously one of the things we have seen as it has ben outsourced of their resources your community health systems and those that have been picking up the slack. >> but you answered what you wanted to answer but, my question. when no facility exists exists, rather than plant km >> been underserved area i am not aware of any county. >> there are counties they
have no with the qualified help centers to be more readily available than they are through the 5500 affiliate's around the country. >> i agree if you look at the overall number. >> yes. the access is greater. >> we were still not getting to the root of the problem. >> want to make the point it does not specifically mention planned parenthood so there are counties and community health centers that do with their own money or private insurance money money, provide abortion services. this legislation could also of take those providers out
of the system. this deals with anyone comment it is the of legislature if they decided the cook county health system clinics and hospital could not be medicaid recipients because with non federal money for poor women it does provide a range of services. to say it should not be available and that is that and is essentially you allow them to exclude any provider or entity that has provided for an abortion or any provider it that has had any
involvement with abortion but listen to the language and i ask unanimous consent over the letter of the signature. >> without objection. >> he is the president of obstetricians and gynecologists dances of the half of american congress to representing 57,000 positions of women's health i urge you to vote no on the women public health and safety act. this intentionally vague bill should not be enacted into law and full or for some is federal health care legislation and policy to scare providers away from
comprehensive compassionate care to leave women without the care they need. america needs more ob/gyn purchases the dash participating in this bill does the opposite. when it comes to the house floor, i don't be fooled. this legislation is nothing more than this latest of a string of attacks against women's health. . . denies federal medicaid coverage of abortion and that congress currently imposes unfair limitations on insurance companies of abortion, federal dollars are with held from covering a woman's abortion except in limited circumstances
and we all know those and federal insurance coverage of abortion is restricted. i don't know why we're here other than what miss slaughter said, i'd like to associate myself with her remarks, all we're doing is giving some currency to those who don't want to vote for a clean cr. i might add, mr. chairman, i'm full leaving the six committee rule for congress to form a committee to go on yet another unnecessary fold into not only an organization but just to give them, given to the feelings of some. i don't want a special committee to preserve our providers. i don't need a committee to
preserve what is the law the land. ultimately what you all seek to do, and it is that you continue down this path, is to set the stage ultimately for the overturning of roe v. wade and that is basically not this provision here. this is one of many over 22 years leading in that direction and i strongly urge that because some people have a few that is different than mine does not make my view be the prevailing view but the prevailing sentiment in this country is that women should have the right to control their bodies and to make a determination as to who it is they wish to associate with as a physician and for a law that limits that association
flies in the face of all if they anti-talk about obamacare worth people were talking about you won't have your right to choose your own physician and then you come here and say to poor women hell no you don't have that right to go to the provider in that area. we should be ashamed of ourselves, putting ourselves in that position and i certainly will stand in complete opposition to not only this legislation but the ultimate aim that you have and that is overturning roe v. wade. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back is time. do any other republicans seek time click seeing none, i would would -- the gentleman from colorado seek time? the gentleman is recognized. c thank you mr. chair. ms. schakowsky i wanted to see if i'm understanding how this bill works. the other week there was a
specific bill around planned parenthood funding. this bill now doesn't mention planned parenthood but it could actually defund the community health fund which last week if i recall many of the republicans were arguing don't worry about health care the community health clinics will serve all the women and now they are doing a pill that seems to defund the health centers so my understanding is these two together would cut off access for poor women's health care. >> well, could. if those clinics which we have in cook county and some other places in the state in illinois also were to dare to participate , that's the words i'm not sure exactly what that means, and abortion services,
they could be cut off just as easily as a planned parenthood clinic could be cut off and he funded and understand that there are many many poor women for whom these clinics are the lifeline. that is what we are talking about about. we talk about medicaid, yet to me fairly strict income and asset requirements in order to get on the program and they rely on these medicaid providers. any one of them could be. >> what might that were participating main? would that mean that the doctor says their pregnancy could be dangerous to your health you might need to look at alternatives as a non-viable fetus and all of those things could be considered participating? >> i'm certainly confused some of that could mean. >> if they doctor knew of pregnancy could be
life-threatening for the mother if they were to inform her of that would that be participating and therefore the potential loss of funding? >> i would show you page two where you will see again as i have said previously this is about flexibility for the state. states that have sought to end their medicaid contracts have been watched from doing that i see ms. they are seeking help from us. this is a way to make that happen. we have four states that are currently in litigation. >> one moment. which part of the bill, your amendment or the underlying bill you are referring to? >> the amendment. >> in which aligns? >> page two, line three.
>> exceptions. >> what you will see is this allows the state to choose -- choose to establish criteria regarding participation in its medicaid program. whether it's agencies or entities this is something that they say we would like to have with flexibility and it gives the state a maximum flexibility so the state can come in and work with these providers. dr. burgess gave us a great example. when they did the decoupling in texas we knew it worked and access to care increases when you allow the states that flexibility. the staff that comes from texas are proof of that. we can look at some of the faith-based community clinics that have provided necessary outreach and the way their numbers -- >> there's nothing to stop any
of these clinics from doing outreach. this refers to potential loss of funding for clinics that have a series of health services that you disagree with. the exception you have pointed to is only for a life endangering physical condition not for a health endangering physical condition and it would require a very high word and on an eminent danger death unless on abortion is performed. you know often when they doctor is working with the patient one of the reasons this is not a good area for government to get involved with is it's a lot more nuanced than that. the doctor might alert the woman that there are higher risks with a particular pregnancy or that the pregnancy could have severe health implications. it may or may not reach the standard of immediately life endangering physical conditions.
there is a lot darker set of circumstances which are customarily in fact the responsibility of the doctor with the hippocratic oath to make sure that the mother is aware of the impact on their health. i really see these bills from last weekend this week is a double whammy. one specifically. the second one threatening to undercut the system of community health. last week they were touted as a potential alternative to planned parenthood for when then insufficient as they are but not ruled last locations serving the women currently plan -- or by planned parenthood. we will be talking about another select committee for special committee shortly. again my view on that is the only committee of jurisdiction on these matters is a woman and her doctor and god and any other legislative lattes don't have jurisdiction and i yield back.
>> the gentleman yields back is time. seeing no time being requested by another member want to thank both of you for taking the time to be with us as we spoke upfront to say it's an important sensitive issue and i appreciate our witnesses appropriately expressing their views with respect to each other to each other in this committeeman thank you both very much for your time. please save anything for our stenographer anything you had in writing and thank you very much. this closes the hearing portion of h.r. 3495 the women's health and safety act in the chair will receive a motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina the vice chairman of the committee mrs. foxx. >> thank you mr. chairman. i moved the committee grant h.r. 3595 the women's health and safety act closer role.
and ranking minority to committee on energy and commerce for their respective designees. the rule provides the amendments printed in the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted in the bill as amended should be as red. the rule has provisions of the bill as amended through the rule provides motion to recommit with or without obstruction. finally section 2 of the rules waive close save requiring a two-thirds vote on the same day as reported from the rules committee. any resolution reporter from the rules committee through the legislative day of october 1, 2016. >> you heard the motion from the gentlewoman from the woman from north carolina as well as a straight or word expiration of the rules. are there amendments or discussions? the chairwoman is recognized. >> astra chair i have an amendment to the rule. h.r. 3495 is another build that
is failed on regular order. there've been no hearings or mark-ups on this bill. meaning we have not heard from expert witnesses and no one has had an opportunity to even offer an amendment. today's rule self acid gets a hand picked for denying members to vote -- an opportunity to vote on anchuts on the process by the author born at 34 members. in indiana that led to an hiv epidemic and i know we all know about that. in texas the lead to tens of thousands of women not getting care and in tennessee it led to 1400% drop in services. is it too much to ask that we follow regular order to work its
will on a measure of such importance? open rules while members post sites of the house have an opportunity to offer amendments on the floor's. >> you of heard via amendment. those in favor signify by saying aye. as opposed, no. the gentleman asked for roll call vote. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
>> the clerk will report the total. >> 40 yeas, nine yeas. >> the agreement is not adopted. the gentleman from colorado. >> i wanted millage a special guest tonight. my sister is here. i wanted to welcome her to the rules committee. >> well that's awesome. [applause] so we have had your dad. we have had your son. it's a big month for family mr. chairman. >> gets it big month for family mr. majority leader i mean mr. chairman. >> this is awesome and we are delighted to have her. i'm delighted. where's she from? she is from boulder colorado. >> older colorado, while thank you very much. no further amendments on the discussion. those in favor signify by saying aye. as opposed, no. the ayes have it.
the gentleman asked where roll call vote. bro. [roll call] >> the motion is agreed to two. the gentlewoman from north carolina the vice chairman of the committee mrs. foxx will be handling this for republicans. and get tastings for the democrats. i would like to is i can be as clear as i can be not knowing when the senate will perform their duties knowing that rather quickly as soon as we receive it
we will want members to know put us on notice that our next scheduled meeting is for wednesday at 3:00 knowing that if the senate gets their work then we would come in as quickly as possible. i will deal with hopefully. [inaudible] because of the timing i would anticipate that but i know miles and you will be in contact and i will do my very best to get with you. i know you will and me too. thank you very much. this finishes the committee work for the day. thank you very much. >> the president of planned parenthood cecile richards is on capitol hill tomorrow to answer questions about her groups use of federal funds. we will have live coverage of the house oversight committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org.
>> tonight on c-span2 donald trump unveiled his tax reform proposal or the senate debates a temporary spending measure to prevent an imminent government shutdown. discussion about russia's increased military involvement in serious civil war. >> new look of the role that the supreme court is going in our society now our history series had to have relevance. as we thought about what can we do to give relevance to our current programming our series on the court made no sense in the world. >> the court is an equal branch of government. it's the third granted government. it still has fundamental impact on american slides. >> inside this elegant building is a courtroom for cases are heard and in decisions are made that impact all of our lives. there are so many incredibly interesting cases in the courts history. we have all heard about roe v.
wade. we have heard about round versus board of education but for so many people they are just names in a textbook and we want to do is really talk about the legal side of the cases and the people involved in the cases. they are human beings who felt so passionately that they are being wronged and thereby stripping a bridge that they brought their cases to the court >> i think what people will find the most fascinating about these cases are the personal stories. one of my personal favorites is matt versus ohio. i think this personal story of this woman and the situation they will fall in love with but these cases. they will feel passionate about what happens in the court and why they matter and why you should care. >> picking the 12 cases is a really difficult and arduous task. those 12 cases represent our evolving understanding of rights in america.
>> today republican president to candidate donald trump releases plan to overhaul the tax code. his proposal would eliminate estate taxes and income taxes for couples earning under $50,000. he and bill this planet trump towers in new york city. this is half an hour. >> so we are going to be discussing something so important for our country, for our economy and for getting us all working again and working well again. it's the tax reform that i think will make america strong and great again. too many jobs are being shipped overseas and too many middle-income families cannot make ends meet. this plan directly meets these
challenges and the challenges also up business. it will provide major tax relief for middle income and for most other americans. there will be a major tax reduction. it will simplify the tax code. it will grow the american economy at a level that it hasn't seen for decades. and all of this does not and for our deficit but i will also be discussing some of that at the end because we have to make much better deals. we have to negotiate much harder and get our economy strong. changes for individuals will be at levels that you haven't seen in a long time. we are going to cut the event --
individual rates from seven brackets to four. 25%, 20%, 10% in zero. if you are single and earn less than $25,000 per year or married and jointly, and jointly make 50,000 so very important. if you are single and burn less than 25 thousand or married and jointly or in less than 50,000, you will not pay any income tax. nothing. this eliminates very strongly and quickly the marriage penalty , the very unfair penalty. it eliminates the amt which is the alternative minimum tax. it ends the death tax, the double taxation.
a lot of families go through hell over the death tax. it reduces or eliminates most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interests and to the very rich, which is actually true, while preserving charitable thing in mortgage interest infection which is very important. it ends a hedge fund folks that i've been talking about for quite a while who make a lot of money. so ends the current carried interest suspected of partnerships that did not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital. changes for business. now, so important because it's
all about business. it's all about jobs. we have 93 million people in this country that are in serious trouble that want to work. they cannot work so for business, no business of any size from a fortune 500 company to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living from week to week of pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. a big production. a one time repatriation of corporate tax held overseas significantly, coming back at a significant discount. so it comes back to discounted and it's tax rate and ends that deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
now it's called corporate inversion. it's a huge subject grade-a been watching politicians for years. all talk, no action politicians. i've watched him for years talking about bringing this money back. the numbers probably $2.5 trillion. everybody agrees it should come back. republicans, democrats, everybody. they don't know how to go about making a deal. the companies are bringing it back is the taxes owners. it doesn't exist. in fact many companies are leaving the united states. they are leaving our shores to collect their money. they are going, actually moving out of the united states for two reasons. the taxes are too high and because they can't bring it back into this country when everybody wanted to bring it back in. we will have that money brought back in.
as an example i've millions of dollars overseas. i can't bring it back in. we filed papers. we have been doing this for your nap maybe we can get back in. so the money saved in other countries, that's what happens. it's not good for us. the level of leadership that we need to get things like this done is so important but this is something the end i've been watching it for a long time. everybody agrees. they also reduce or eliminate some business loopholes, many of them actually and deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on business income. the tax rate now is so low which are complicated which don't make sense and which are unfair argon. the deductibility of the
business interest expense. so we are going to give you, we have papers that actually business is not so complex and we are going to hand them out right now to the press and i think you will see. we have an amazing code. it will be simple. it will be easy. it will be fair. it's graduated. as you get up and in calm you pay a little more. some of the very unfair deductions that certain people have been given to make a lot of money will not be available any longer but i actually believe they will do better because i think the economy will grow rapidly and we will have something very special. with all of that being said and before we take some questions, we have to discuss the cost was going on in this country. if you look at what we are doing in the money we are spending, i
read where the washer, you know but a washer is. it extends from one state to another. it was a 19-cent washer and it cost 900 some odd thousand dollars. and there are many examples. we will run the country properly. there is so much money to be saved. we are reducing taxes but at the same time if i win and if i become president we will be able to cut so much money. we won't be losing anything other than we will be balancing budgets and getting them where they should be. so, this is the plan. it's simple. it's a major reduction in predicting people are going to be very happy.
we have already had some great reviews. i did the plan with some of the leading scholars and economists and tax experts that there are in this country. they love it very they say why hasn't this been done before. and this is what i do well. economy is what i do well. whenever they do polls i always come out way ahead on the economy and leadership by the way but i won't say that. so if anybody has -- [applause] thank you. that's amazing. some of the press was actually clapping. i don't think i've ever seen that before. why don't we take some questions from the press. yes, go ahead. we have soe