tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 9, 2015 8:00am-10:01am EDT
overseas. they were spending money and giving it to political organizations. they have a lot of shared services. i think that's a legitimate question as we look at the finances of an organization that is structured as a nonprofit organization. i was asking a direct question about the finances. aestimate i took the question given that's what the direction and the drive of the hearing was about. ..
i will work with elijah cummings and figure out the best course on what to do with these videos but just caution to members, that it is a bit of a stretch to say that i have done some conclusive investigation on all the actions of planned parenthood. did i look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? yes. was there any wrongdoing? i didn't find any. but i do think it's a legitimate question for all of us, why do we send money to an organization where the revenues exceed their expenses by $127 million? doesn't sound like an organization that needs to be supplemented by taxpayer
dollars? that was my point. happy to yield. >> i just want to ask the representative, whether or not you have any evidence whatsoever that planned parenthood has broken the law in any way? >> i think, i think some of the video that has been out there, the rumors that have been swirling, some of the testimony that we've heard causes a lot of people to legitimately ask and dive into whether or not what they're doing is illegal. i think it is a very legitimate question from an objective point of view without getting into emotions much it. i think there will be continue to be investigations. i voted in favor of the select committee which i believe has to bo further and dive deeper into the issues but i don't think the final chapter has been written on that. my point we were talking specifically about the finances. i would remind members, there were all this criticism we were going after women, that is so false.
what is the first not-for-profit organization that went after in the oversight and government reform committee? it was nfl. i called out the nfl. they were structured as not-for-profit organization. we called out roger goodell making exorbitant salary. to the nfl's credit, restructured. started first of july they are no longer a not-for-profit organization. in very bipartisan way with elijah cummings and democrat we worked on that issue and made a major transformation, major change. i think looking at another not-for-profit organizations taking a lot, hundreds of millions of dollars taxpayer money that is legitimate decision in the context of a 18 plus trillion dollar debt. and that is the discussion we had. i'm proud of it. i think we had a very good hearing. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> chair thanks the gentleman.
recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. stoltenberg, you want to look at one of the books you compiled. >> send it up to you? >> i will get someone to come down and get it. while we do that let me ask dr. levitino a question. is there any circumstance you would agree a woman should have a right to have an abortion to, abort a fetus that was, that arose from incest or rape? >> if i were a congressman, sir, i would support such a law. >> you would support a law that would ban -- >> not ban. allow. >> that would allow. so you believe that it's a woman, should have a right to choose in the case of incest or rape? >> if a woman is pregnant by incest or rape, her child is
innocent all the same. morally i have a great problem with that. politically, i would vote for such a law. >> and what about you, mrs. thayer? >> two wrongs don't make a right. sperm meets egg. unique dna. heartbeat at 21 days. never okay to have an abortion. we have 57 million missing people since 1973. >> so you went to work at planned parenthood knowing that part of the work that planned parenthood does is terminating pregnancies? >> actually, no, i didn't. >> you did not know that when you went to work? >> no, i started there as clinic assistant. >> let me ask you this question. you are a woman who was fired by planned parenthood and you are a disgruntled ex-employee, is that correct? >> well that is what they say, but i'm -- >> you were fired, correct? >> i was, they were downsizing.
>> you are now disgruntled is that not correct. >> no, that is not correct. >> so you love planned parenthood? >> i loved my work there. there were things that happened there i knew were wrong like making medicaid-eligible women pay for their pills. >> do you believe they should be defunded? >> indeed i do. i don't think one more dime of taxpayer money should go to an organization that is wrought with fraud. >> well, dr. levitino. thank you, miss thayer. you have a lawsuit pending. >> i do. whistle-blower. >> it's a case where you will make a lot of mon in. >> we haven't made talked about that. >> you will make a lot of money if you win, take it from me. >> i don't need a lamborghini. my ford fiesta is paid for. >> money doesn't matter to you. >> right. telling the truth is what matters. >> well, mr. left tino, as far
as you know, planned parenthood doesn't make political contributions, does it? >> i have no idea what contributions planned parenthood makes. >> or if they do make contributions? they don't do it, do they, mrs. fredrickson? >> i'm not familiar with the entire corporate structure of planned parenthood. >> all right. well, doctor, are you aware of the stories of the many women who have, whose lives literally been saved by planned parenthood? >> in what way, sir? >> well, that is not my question. my question is, are you aware of that being the case? >> hard to answer the question without knowing what context you're asking it. >> how about you, miss thayer? >> i guess i would ask the same question. >> you don't want to answer the question then. well, you haven't heard about the story of tiffany who was so
broke that she couldn't afford a regular doctors visit so, planned parenthood, was her only option. and, that a routine pap smear at planned parenthood diagnosed her with cervical cancer. the early discovery of which, saved her life. you're not familiar with tiffany's case? >> i guess i would ask how much money they asked from tiffany after they did her pap smear. >> i'm sure it was gladly payable for her life to be saved. >> it would be 50% of whatever her charges were that day. >> could not be more than the value of her life, i can guarranty you that. i'm sure she is quite happy that the little bit she paid. >> if she would have gone to federally qualified health center would have been free. >> maybe she could not have gotten transportation. >> well, in my town four blockses from planned parenthood. >> that is in your neighborhood. there are other people with different circumstances and shouldn't you be concerned about
them? >> well there is 20 free clinics for everyone planned parenthood. i mean, compared to planned parenthood, they're everywhere. >> the purpose of this hearing was to shut down planned parenthood because of abortion. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for five minutes. would you yield back to me briefly? >> i yield back. >> thank you. i just want to state for the record, regarding the point must thayer just made, in the state of georgia, there are four planned parenthood locations. most are all of which provide abortion services. in georgia there are 274 other health care alternatives that provide women's services that do not provide abortions. so in terms of convenience and location to get to, i think there would be a good argument there is much more convenience to get to health care facilities, public health care
facilities that do not include abortion services. the gentleman -- [inaudible]. >> thank you. reclaiming my time. miss thayer, there was some effort to cast doubt on your capabilities in working for planned parenthood since you were not an attorney. i don't know how many attorneys we have running planned parenthood facilities but, i hope there aren't many. >> there is typically one probably per affiliate. >> really? one lawyer per planned parenthood affiliate? >> yes. they do lobbying. they run the pac, the political action committee. >> planned parenthood has a pac? >> yes indeed. they make donations -- >> how ma'am mammograms do those pacs do no. >> planned parenthood does not do mammograms. >> so if we cut federal funding for planned parenthood across
the country, how many women would not, would be denied mammograms? >> zero. >> but if we cut funding for planned parenthood, there would be some lawyers that do lobbying and, some people that get political donations that would not be getting those political donations and lawyers that would have to look for some other form of money and financing, right? >> yes. >>, my friend from california hadn't indicated, there was a myth that if we defund planned parenthood that we could provide services to all the women that planned parenthood had been helping. and yet, when we hear the actual facts, it turns out, wow, if we
provided the money directly to health care facilities that do nothing but help women with the full range of services for women, including mammograms and things, that planned parenthood never does, it sound like that women would have even better services, more services, even though a lot of hearts would break for the lawyers that would not be able to get the federal funding and be able to lobby and donate to our democratic friend. i was so pleased with the comment from my friend from tennessee that benghazi was politics. that is exactly what we have been trying to get to. it was politics! you had people meeting here in america in washington while people were dying, while tai
woods was gathering david and glen doherty and going to the rooftop to man guns trying to protect people in those facilities. yes, benghazi was about politics. and i would love to know what the president was doing that night because i can tell you, if i had people that worked for me, my personal ambassador is missing, i could not go to bed! and yet, apparently there was plenty of rest before he went to the fund-raiser in las vegas the next day. yes, my colleague is right, benghazi was about politics and we need to get to the bottom of why those four people were killed. while nobody in washington that knew what was going on lifted a finger. and why david oben doesn't get
an american plane. somebody else has to provide a plane. he is on a gurney and they're beating his leg blown off against the sides of that little plane, while somebody in washington knows but they're doing nothing. you bet it was politics. and a lot, four people died and a lot of people suffered because of that politics. this is a hearing about planned parenthood. my colleagues want to keep talking about benghazi. i felt like if they're going to bring it up, we need to say yes, that was politics and we need to find out why it was so political instead of coming together as americans and protecting those people harmed. my time expired. >> the chair recognizes gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, remarkable to me the two most important issues majority colliding into one hearing. a planned parenthood hearing has
become a hearing on benghazi. yesterday the house create ad select committee to investigate abortion practices. meaning today's hearing is even more pointless than it was before. house judiciary committee one of four committees here in the house investigating planned parenthood. what exactly are we investigating today? let's be clear, no one said this yet but we just need to be clear about it. the goal of the the ma is to return to a nation where roe v. wade is not law of the land and where women do not enjoy constitutional right the supreme court made clear they have to make decisions about their own body. that is what this is about. i don't know why we're hear. we're not here to talk about fruitless investigations undertaken by six different states including my own that failed to find any illegal wrongdoing by planned parenthood. we're not here to discuss merits of fetal tissue donation given "new england journal of medicine" wrote virtually every person in this can country
benefited from research on fetal tissue. we're not here to discuss a court order mandate center for medical progress turn over misleading and fraudulent documentation. this is only here to smear a provider helps millions of women each year, enjoys higher approval rating than i guess any member in this body enjoys. now as this committee contemplates medical ethics of women's reproductive freedoms, i ask this question, where are the medical ethics not holding any hearingses on gun violence epidemic that claims the lives 30,000 americans every year? what are the medical ethics of not holding a hearing on the 12,000 homicides and accidental gun deaths and 18,000 gun deaths by suicide that occur every year? what are the medical ethics of states trying to ban pediatricians discussing basic gun safety measures with parents? this house judiciary committee
has held zero hearings on gun violence epidemic that claims american lives every day. every day. an average of 88 americans die of gunshot wounds. nor has this committee held hearings on deadly mass shootings inflicted so much grief in communities across america. not after tucson. not after aurora. not after newtown. not after santa barbara, and none scheduled after roseburg. not after 200 or more mass shootings occurred in 2015 alone. october is domestics violence awareness month n 2013 alone, more than 1600 women were murdered by men and 94% of them were gun deaths. while this committee continues redundant attacks against women's health, it ignores reality every day american women are murdered due to domestic gun violence. as congress works to assure that women face more humiliating obstacles to abortion access,
stand idly by and people skirt background checks and get guns to commit horrific crimes. the american people are rightly frustrated with congress, taking any action, basic action closing gun show loophole in aftermath of so much devastation. there are dozens of bills that deserve hearings in this committee of their jurisdiction, this one, judiciary committee. i don't have the time to name them all. i will name a few. there is bipartisan public safety and second amendment protection act introduced by congressman thompson and king that would close gun sale loopholes with comprehensive background checks for all purchases. there is congressman quigley's trace act that to empower law enforcement to stop the flow of guns to our streets by traffickers make a living selling guns to criminals. there is congresswoman maloney's legislation lift ban on federal reserve on gun violence and how to best curb it. there is my own legislation, the safe and responsibility firearms transfers act to prevent guns being sold without background
checks. not one of those bills, not one, has been the subject of a hearing from this committee, mr. chairman. not even a hearing where the majority can bring in witnesses tell us why bipartisan proposals supported overwhelmingly by american people an gun owners are somehow too extreme. there has not been a single hearing in 114th congress on any common sense improvements to our gun laws. the american people are already frustrated with congress for failing to act on gun violence. the time for silence on this issue is over. you know, at the beginning of the hearing today one of my colleagues talked about the self-imposed blindness, self-imposed blindness. that is the self-imposed blindness congress has to gun violence. he said that the humanity of the victims, hopes, becomes so glaring that it moves an entire generation of the american people. i can only hope that the humanity of the victims of the thousands, tens of thousands of
lives lost to gun violence might move this confess to finally take action. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, five minutes. would the gentleman yield to me briefly? yes i will. >> i would like to say there are right now on the books hundreds of federal gun control laws and regulations and yet in the last six years the enforcement, prosecutions for violations of all those laws are down by 30%. it seems to me that an administration that is led by an individual who calls for more laws every time we have one of these tragedies, ought to go look in the mirror and determine what is the appropriate to. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will not yield, gentleman's from idaho's time. >> it is -- >> it is problem that can be
addressed with the laws that exist now. there are, by the organization that is actual subject of this hearing today, 350,000 plus or minus, abortions conducted by this organization every year. nearly 1,000, nearly 1,000 a day. that's why we're here, focused on this hearing today to make sure that we're aware of whether more laws are needed to protect the lives of unborn. i yield back to the gentleman from idaho. i thank him. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for making that point that i was also going to make. hard to sit here and be lectured about something like that when apparently there is no concern for the lives of children, babies, babies born alive. doctor levitino, can you tell me how many babies are aborted every single day, do you know. >> i have no idea. >> do you know miss thayer? >> there is 3 in iowa every day. think of it as kindergarten
class every day. >> do you know how many late-term abortions in iowa. >> no, not exactly. >> miss fredrickson? >> first, i don't think late-term is actual a technical term so i don't know how to respond to that but i don't know the number of abortions that take place every day in america is. >> you don't. you're an expert on issue. >> i'm not here to talk about medical procedures. i'm here to talk about the law. >> i was just lectured at the number of deaths and i just wanted to know if the panel knew how many children who are being killed every single day, that we know. do you know? >> i believe it is almost 4,000 a day, not by planned parenthood but by the abortion industry. >> do you know how many late-term abortions over 20 weeks. do you know those numbers? >> no. >> thank you. continue to emphasize this is not simply question of legality of planned parenthood's actions. we may never find the answer it the questions whether they're legal or not legal.
reducing human beings to commodities. by selling fetal body parts for profit i think everyone should agree is morally reprehensible. based on testimony presented today, it would also appear that planned parenthood has participated in other suspicious behaviors and all of that at the expense of the american taxpayers. i am not convinced that planned parenthood would cease to exist without taxpayer funding. furthermore i am not convinced that revoking taxpayer funding for planned parenthood would disadvantage to the women's health to my colleagues would like to claim. talk about my home state of idaho. it has three planned parenthood locations. two in the boise area. one in southeastern idaho. if you look next to that, it has 129 better health care alternatives. all three of these centers are within 136 miles of each other, in a massive state that
stretches for thousands of miles, includes a vast amount of rural areas. according to planned parenthood's own data the three centers in idaho served 7,000 patients in 2013. alternatively the state of idaho has 76 federally qualified health center service sites that served a little over 13thousand patients in 2013. look at that. the difference between three and 76. the difference between 7,000 patients and 13thousand patients. anybody making argument they're not going to receive health care is really lying to this committee. these services sites cover much broader cross-section of the state and have the capacity to serve a diverse population of idahoans seeking medical care. miss fredrickson, can you walk us through the services planned parenthood provides once again. >> well the vast majority of planned parenthood services are
related to reproductive health care. they provide family planning counseling and contra separative care as well as cervical cancer tests and breast exams. >> how is that different, how is that different than the other federally qualified health centers. >> 2.7 million women in america use the planned parenthood facilities every year. it is an absolutely critical part of our health care infrastructure. >> but, more women use the other federally health centers is that not correct. >> public health experts say the no way the public health system can absorb the capacity would be lost in planned parenthood was not funded. >> but the numbers just don't speak to that. >> i defer to the expert, as i think congress should. >> name one expert. >> i named in my testimony. >> can you name one right now? >> american public health association. >> okay. thank you. took awe couple of seconds there the chair recognizes gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez,
for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, it is legal in the united states of america to have an abortion. it is the law of the land. and, we all took an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of this land. i'm going to do that. now, it's clear to anybody listening to this procedure that this is about planned parenthood because planned parenthood offers abortions. but they're not doing anything illegal when they do it. no one here has testified that they're doing anything illegal. they object to the fact that they offer abortions because that is their point of view. they don't like the law. they can't change the law. they can't undercut the constitution of the united states and supreme court. so what do they do? they try to sully the reputation of an organization. you know what? you guys have opened one big pandora's box here because on
repeated occasions here today, the minority and their witnesses have questioned the integrity of members of the minority panel, by questioning who it is we receive campaign contributions from. so from here forward, we should just open it up, mr. chairman, every time. on any issue, i want to know how much you get from the nra? i want to know every dollar you receive from every -- we should open it up. that would make -- i'm not that worried about it. i tell women of america, you are safe. because you have a president of the that will veto any legislation comes out of this committee and might make it to the floor of the house. he will veto that legislation. there is nothing you can do about it. so veto that legislation, they will be safe. i'm not worried. they can't pick, they have 250 members, and they can't figure out how to pick speaker of the house. you think they will turn back the clock on women in america? they can't pick their own leaders. i'm not that worried where we're going.
i will stand up for women. seems what we're really talking about here today is turning back the clock. turning back the clock, a clock i grew up. when i was born in the united states of america, separate but equal was still law of the land i was born. the only day i was white, the day i was born. they put it on my birth certificate. apart from that i was never treated equal. certainly separate but not equal to everybody in this country. women, yes, had to go to back alleys and cross state lines and had to lose their life in order to get reproductive health care rights in this country. that's true. we all know it. let me suggest the following. my mother only option was one option the government of the united states gave her. which was sterilization. and for hundreds of thousands of puerto rican women, that was only option. there were other options that my wife and i had.
we have two wonderful daughters, two brilliant -- let me just say something. i respect my daughters and i trust my daughters to make decisions as i do for all women in this country. we should all respect women to make the decisions that they fundamentally have to make about their lives and their future. but moreover, you know something? there is an eight years difference between my first child and my second child. and the reason was because my wife had control over her productive system. and she could have a life. she could take her education and have a life and have a career and be everything she could be. my mom didn't have that ability. and my daughters have greater rights and greater abilities. and i will be damned if i am going to allow on my watch for the right of women especially the women so important to me and in my life to be turned back that clock. we're not going to turn back the clock. as much as you wish to turn back
the clock. gay people are not going back in the closet. latinos and asian immigrants aren't going to disappear. and women are not going to get back alley abortions and put their lives at risk again while americans are standing up for a better, more inclusive egalitarian future future for everybody in this country. look, nothing here any of the witnesses have said, even those afforded by minority will change anything. we're good. we're in a good place because there is a new, growing, coalition in america. we all know what it is. it is people who care about mother earth. people who care about women and their rights. people who care about gays and lesbians. it is people who care about immigrants. people making sure we have fair and decent salaries. you want to know something, donald trump likes to talk about the polls. well i got a poll. and in my poll, the vast majority of the american people want to move forward and not turn back the clock.
thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. powe for five minutes. would you yield to me very briefly? >> i yield to the chair. >> i just want to make one point that when we passed the pain capable abortion act, we introduced into the record, evidence that in every demographic group, men, women, people of various races, age, in every demographic group, a majority of the people in this country support prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. i thank the gentleman. yield back. >> thank the chair. want to try to get back on the subject that we've been talking about. when mr. johnson on the other
side asked, does planned parenthood do political contributions, if i remember the testimony, two of you said that he, the planned parenthood didn't give contributions to anyone. miss thayer, do you know whether planned parenthood contributes to federal candidates? >> yes, they do. they have a pac. >> and, it is, what is the name of the pac, do you know? >> no. i don't remember. just called the pac. >> planned parenthood pac? >> uh-huh. >> would it surprise you in election cycle 2014 planned parenthood pac contributed a little over $400,000 to federal candidates? >> no. that wouldn't surprise me at all. >> 138 federal candidates, would that surprise you or not? >> no. >> $400,000, seems like you could do a lot of other things with $400,000 instead of giving it to people running for congress? >> one thing they could do with it, take some of the money, to
put doctors or nurse practitioners in rural centers. in planned parenthood in iowa, we had nurse practitioner two hours a week. in my almost 18 years there we had doctor in the facility, probably three or four times. so all those pills are being dispensed by non-medical people. that would be much better use of their money. >> since the minority did bring it up, mr. chairman, i would like to introduce in the record the open secrets document, contributions by planned parenthood pac. >> without objection, will be made a part of the record. >> the, talk also has been about, and i resent the other side talking about generalizing those of us over here are against women. i resent that. i have four children, three daughters. i have 11 grandkids, seven daughters. one of those is adopted.
and, i am not a female. i agree with that comment. but the idea that we don't like women is absurd. i think many of us are trying to look out for the life of new women coming into the world. what about those women? and i think they're women. when they are harvested for their body parts. i'm concerned about those women. so i'm not going to put up with saying that me, that i'm opposed to women. let's talk about those women. if congress doesn't speak for them, who speaks for them? i menial speak for them. so, i know that is not the issue. the issue is planned parenthood. it is also i think, planned parenthood seems to do a pretty good job of marketing planned
parenthood, would you agree with that miss thayer? >> yes, very much so. >> do you have any idea how much money planned parenthood spends on marketing planned parenthood? >> in iowa they marketed family planning waiver, spent lots and lots of money at expense of staff raises that year. made it sound like the family planning waiver was their own creation. it was actually state dollars. >> i want to apologize to you for the insinuation that you did something wrong by being a whistle-blower and you're being attacked because you talked about or brought evidence about an organization. that is what we do unfortunately. we attack whistle-blowers across the board seems like. also comment was made that we have got to have planned parenthood or there is no other answer. well, i had this chart, maybe it is on the screen, mr. chairman, of texas where i'm from. and most of these, can't see
them too well, will be on the far right on the screen, the planned parenthood areas are, in the metropolitan areas. 38 of them. most of texas is not in the metropolitan areas. texas is vast state. there are parts on other side, white dots where you have federally funded health care centers. i would submit to you, and to the record, there are places in texas that there are federally funded health care centers that are not on google maps. they're in remote districts like where louie gohmert is from. or west texas in small little towns. that is not an accurate portrayal of women's health care in the country. federally funded health care units are everywhere, rural, city and planned parenthood is in texas anyway is just in the metropolitan areas. is that the way you understand it, miss thayer. >> well -- >> the time of the gentleman has
expired. miss thayer will be allowed to answer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> in is important to remember all those fqhcs have doctors there. they don't charge medicaid-eligible women unlike planned parenthood. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just clear up some things that, mr. chairman, you volunteered some statistics and on how many gun laws we have. that is exactly why we're asking for a hearing. this committee could great things. we had hearing on gsa failure to meet needs of judiciary which was cost of courthouses, building a courthouse in members districts. so we could really do big things but we waste it on things like this. and, my colleague on other side said what he resents. i resent a whole bunch of stuff. and if people say you oppose
women, i didn't say it but that is between you and women. but what i won't have is you saying planned parenthood may or may not have donated someone affects their positions on choice and other things because i think people make those decisions long before they get to congress. other thing i would say, that hypocrisy in the room is unbelievable. this year in the state of the union the president mentioned that abortions were at a all-time he low, which i would think is our goal. everybody in the room, the goal is to get to zero. the president announces it is at al-time low. not one person on the republican side stood up or cheered. there are a bunch of ways try to get to zero. you can try it by doing a law. rich will fly out of the country to still have them. poor go into alleys to risk their life so they can have
them. we can still invest in prenatal care, paid leave. invest in foster care system. invest in ways a woman can raise a child. we could invest in all those things but we're not. we're stuck on saying i'm pro-life until the baby is born. until the baby is born, you're like you're on your own. we'll not help you do anything. so, if we're going to have a conversation, and if it is about roe v. wade, we can't do anything about it. as much as other side would like to be the president, tell them how to handle immigration and benghazi, you're not the president. as much as you would like the court to overturn roe v. wade, none of you all are on the supreme court. you're able to run for president and you're able to express interest in supreme court. but we in congress have a bunch of things we could be working on and having a meaningful hears to figure out how we get to the
ultimate decision, ultimate desire that we want. if it's zero abortion, then let's talk about how we get there. but you know you're not going to everyturn roe v. wade. so, i just hate that we come here and we drag witnesses here, and put them in the position of testifying on things that they can't control just so we can do messaging. and that is the problem in this country, when we could be actually trying to accomplish something. we keep talking about benghazi. i'm okay with letting facts play out how they will play out because i think it is important for the american people to see how government works and when there is something wrong you figure out what went wrong and try to fix it. but too often we play gotcha moments when there are no gotcha moments, instead of being
respectful for the deceased, people who gave their life for this country, to figure out how we prevent things like that from happening again. so, you know, let me just say, and, i will ask miss stoltenberg since i do have a minute, do you at this that if the law just said you can't have an abortion we would go to zero abortions? >> no, i don't believe we would go to zero abortions but i believe there are many women dying today from legal abortions, probably more so because there are more abortions being done than there were than back alley and more women maimed and hurt and harmed like i was. >> do you think the law of the land would have made a decision on your decision? >> i don't understand? >> if it was illegal then, a decision, made in your decision? >> my decision. most definitely. i didn't do illegal things. so i would not have a abortion and see who my children are
today. >> but you do agree some woman, would, would still have it, even if it was roe v. wade was reversed you agree some women would still have them in back alleys? >> would still have abortions? >> yes. >> probably would. >> the rich would still fly out of the country and have them in other places? >> possible think they could. there would be many lives that would be spared, many. >> mr. chairman i see my time's expired. so i yield back. >> recognize miss debonet from washington. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm deeply disappointed this committee is holding another one-sided hearing more about politics than fact-finding. the attacks on women's health just never seem to stop. meanwhile, we're ignoring a long list of bipartisan policies that deserve our attention.
right now we could be talking about the much-needed updates to email privacy laws. we could be talking about leveling the playing field for brick-and-mortar stores. or we could finally get to work on our country's broken immigration system. instead we're wasting even more time on an investigation the majority clearly prejudged before receiving a shred of evidence from planned parenthood. it is shameful, mr. chairman. this committee should be focused on facts, not ideology. so far there are no facts to substaniate claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. no evidence that planned parenthood engaged in unlawful activity, period. let's talk about what we do know. we know that 2.7 million americans receive essential health care every year through planned parenthood. 78% of planned parenthood patients are low income with incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. in my home state of washington,
planned parenthood annually provides more than 34,000 cancer screenings. and across the country, the services provided by planned parenthood helped prevent more than 500,000 unintended pregnancies every year. that last number should give my colleagues pause. if we want to reduce the number of abortions provided in this country, attacking planned parenthood is certainly not the way to do it. but at this point it is clear that this investigation isn't about gathering facts at all. it is just about an extreme idealogical agenda to defund planned parenthood, and take away a woman's constitutional right to choose. miss fredrickson, your testimony mentions that planned parenthood provides birth control and family planning counseling to 2.1 million patients each year. could you speak about how women's access to birth control is related to their economic security. >> absolutely. it is a vital part of women's
economic security. women being able to control when, whether, they have children, has been a critical part of them being able to enter, not quite into equal status in american economy unfortunately but they're on their way. women are doing better. women are able to provide better for their families by insuring that they have the families they can, at the time, when they, want to have families or not to have children or don't want to have children. >> what would be impact on women if access to birth control from planned parenthood would be restricted? >> there would be many more unintended pregnancies and ultimately many more abortions. consequences of defunding planned parenthood would certainly be to lead to increase in abortions in this country. it would certainly undermine women's access to basic contraceptive care which would undermined their ability to earn a living and control their own economic well being.
>> and, so you believe that it would be harder for women to plan their families, plan their careers if congress decided to defund this organization? >> has been a vital part of women being able to have independence, to be able to exercise, to determine their own fertility, to determine when and whether they have children? it allows them to enter into the workforce. it enables them to take care of children that they have. it enables them to be treated more fairly in the work place because they do have the choice about whether and when to have children. >> and, my colleagues have been across the aisle have been talking about how if planned parenthood wasn't, if planned parenthoods were not available in their regions it would have no impact on women's access to health care. again i ask you, what would be impact on women throughout our country if planned parenthood was not available for health care? >> i think the fact that already weave discussed how one in five
american women, that is 20% of american women in their lifetime will use planned parenthood's services. that is enormously large number. 2.7 million people per year use planned parenthood services. the loss of those, the ability to use a planned parenthood health center would be enormous. >> and i think you referenced the study that says there are not other community health centers or other places who would be able to serve that same population? >> the expert opinion of the american public health association says there is not the ability to absorb that capacity. those women would just go unserved. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i yield back. >> chair now yields to mr. jeffries from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. you know this is enormous waste of taxpayer money for us to sit
here at this hearing, and when we realize or should realize this is not at legitimate congressional exercise. this is not a fact-finding hearing. this is theater. this is a charade. this is stage craft. this is nothing more than a political hit job on a woman's right to choose. which by the way is constitutionally protected. i've got the benefit of least senior members here. so i get to sit through much of the hearing. there are only one or two of us left. this hearing has gone on for hour after hour after hour. and yet no one has presented a shred of evidence, a scintilla
of evidence, that planned parenthood has done anything wrong. so i've got a few moments. let me see if i can uncover some evidence of wrongdoing. the hearing is called, planned parenthood exposed. dramatic. examining abortion procedures and medical ethics at the nation's largest abortion provider. so dr. levitano, you're the only doctor on the panel, correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you have any evidence that any planned parenthood doctor, nurse, physician, has engaged in wrongdoing, violated medical ethics or lost their license? >> i do not have such evidence. >> and you're only doctor on the panel, correct? >> correct. >> is anyone else on the panel have any evidence that someone violated their medical ethics?
>> well i would consider it violation of medical ethics to webcam abortion without ever seeing the client. >> i appreciate -- >> or expecting non-medical people to do medical procedures. >> let's have a discussion. >> okay. >> you were at planned parenthood for 18 years is that correct? >> yes. >> you were terminated? >> yes. >> one of my colleagues asked whether you were a disgruntled employee correct. >> that already came up, yep. >> you disagree with that characterization,. >> they were downsidessing let me go. >> now you alleged that planned parenthood was wrought with fraud is that correct? >> correct. >> and in fact you brought a federal court action claiming that they have engaged in fraud, true? >> correct. false claims act. >> now under the false claims act you would be what is called a relatetor, correct. >> correct. >> and the government has intervened as well in that action true?
>> what? >> the government intervened in that action? >> yes. >> okay. this was brought where? in the southern district of iowa? correct. >> uh-huh. >> now, you testified earlier that you had no idea if you prevailed, whether you would receive monetary benefit. did i hear that correct? >> i said we had not discussed it. i have not discuss it with my attorney. >> you have not discussed that with your attorney? >> no, sir. >> you alleged in this action that planned parenthood engaged in $28 million of fraud, correct? >> correct. >> and, as a relatetor, you're entitled, under federal law to between 15 and 25%, correct? >> i don't know. we never discussed that. >> so you have a licensed attorney who has never discussed with you the fact that if you were to prevail, in this
lawsuit, where you allege $28 million, that you could receive as much as $7 million? that is your testimony here under oath. >> sir for me this is not about the money. it is not about the money. i'm here to tell the truth about planned parenthood and what i experienced in all those years there. >> now, you don't have any evidence that planned parenthood engaged in frauds correct? >> i, i engaged in fraud every single day i was there. >> was your action dismissed? >> was -- >> at district court level? >> it was dismissed district court and reinstated by the 8th circuit court of appeals? is inaccurate. i have got the decision right here. i want to place it into the record. >> first of all the district court judge dismissed your action because you had no evidence of fraud. by the way, it was a judge appointed by gw bush. you then appealed it to the 8th circuit. they affirmed the decision that you have got no evidence of fraud, remanded on a separate ground. good luck.
but i will point out that the 8th circuit court judges concluded, based on district court's decision, you failed to plead fraud with specificity pursuant sue -- >> gentleman's time expired. >> it's a matter of public record. i yield back. >> the gentlelady can answer the question if she needs to. >> sir, the 8th circuit court of appeals reversed district court. is now back in district court. we're awaiting on ruling from them. >> i would just ask the chair, because you didn't respond to my request, sir, to enter as matter of record, both the -- >> without objection. without objection. >> and 8th circuit court decision. thank you. >> gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the witnesses. i now sat through the entire hearing and i still don't exactly know what we're doing here. it isoclor that this is not a hearing about the wrongdoing of planned parenthood because there
is no evidence of wrongdoing. there is no testimony that has been presented that, planned parenthood engaged in any wrongdoing. there have been six states that have reviewed this and concluded that planned parenthood has done nothing wrong. seven other state cited a lack of evidence of wrongdoing and declined to investigate. and, so it is, so it is, some suggested well, it is about defunding planned parenthood. i'm not sure. what i think the hearing is about as best i can tell having listened to every single one of my colleagues is, fundamental view of some of the witnesses here that roe vs. wade was wrongly decided. you have a right to that opinion. what you don't have a right to do is smear a vital health care organization to advance that argument. there are people, and i respect deeply, there are people who have different views whether or not roe v. wade was rightly decided. whether women should have full control over the reproductive health.
i happen to think it was properly decided. you may disagree. what i think is wrong and really regrettable, rather than having a hearing that says, was roe vs. wade decided properly? we could have public forum and have a debate about it. but this hearing is entitled, tries to insinuate that planned parenthood has done something wrong. the title of the hearing is, in fact, planned parenthood exposed, examining abortion procedures and medical ethics at nation's largest abortion providers. so the hearing is intended somehow to suggest, that by just attacking planned parenthood, we can undermine the decision of roe vs. wade. i think it is very clear that planned parenthood provides critical services to women all across this country. 2.7 million individuals access health care through planned parenthood. that includes, by the way, and i
specifically, miss fredrickson, that includes arrange -- a range of breast cancer screenings, pap smears, exams for sexually transmitted diseases, hiv tests, cervical cancer, a whole range of services, is that correct? >> yes, sir. that is the vast majority of what planned parenthood does. >> 97% of the services they provide, is that correct? >> yes. that's correct. >> and planned parenthood is a respected health care organization and some have suggested, well, if we just close planned parenthood, people can get services elsewhere. but as you have indicated in your written testimony, the experts who looked at that said it is ludicrous and people that make such a claim fundamentally misunderstand the health care system, is that correct? >> that is absolutely correct.
>> so we're left with a hearing that lasted several hours in which people have made some assertions, played videos, some which had nothing to do with planned parenthood. presumably made some claims that have nothing to do with the procedures followed by planned parenthood. in an effort to bolster their position against the decision roe v. wade. what i think is regrettable. that i think planned parenthood, has demonstrated unequivocally it is a vital health care organization, that millions of women and families rely on planned parenthood. that the individuals who work there are professional, individuals of integrity, who do their jobs and take their jobs seriously. there was suggestion they're all motivated by profit. i've been to planned parenthood. i've been to a clinic. i spoken to individuals, men and women who work there. my experience has been just the opposite. these are dedicated, committed professionals and i think it does a disservice to the seriousness of the debate about the issue of abortion to malign
an organization that does important work and is saving lives. we can have a real debate as to whether or not the supreme court should change the decision on reverse sudden wade. i think they shouldn't. it is settled law. it is the law of the land. the way you challenge that, you bring a case, make a different legal argument. you don't attack individuals following the law, who are performing a legal medical procedure that is saving lives of women in this country. i regret that we spend time doing that. i thank the witnesses for being here. i hope ha we focus on real issues that were mentioned, immigration reform. pass the marketplace fairness act. dealing with scourge of gun violence this country. the agenda of this committee is very long. let's get to work an issues that matter to the american people. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. this concludes today's hearing. thanks to our audience and without objection all members
will have five days legislative days to submit additional questions for witnesses or additional materials for the record and with that, thank you, this hearing is adjourned. >> today, two former nasa associate administrators testify before the house science subcommittee on space on the impact of nasa's trimmed budget on deep space exploration. we'll bring that to you live at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- c-span3. c-span's road to the white house coverage continues today with republican presidential candidate ben carson talking about his new book, "a more perfect union" and taking questions from a national press club audience. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3.
>> this monday on c-span's new series, landmark cases, in 1830 dred scott was enslave to u.s. army surgeon john emerson. during his enlistment in the army, emerson was assigned duties in several free states, during which dred scott married harriet robinson. he tried to buy his family's freedom from the widow emerson. she refused and he sued. follow the case of scott versus sanford, in c-span new series. landmark decisions. with our special guest george washington university professor, christopher bracy, martha jones, legal research and history professor at university of michigan law school will explore the historic supreme court ruling by revealing life and time of people who were plaintiffs and lawyers and justices in this these case. landmark cases live 9:00 p.m. eastern. .
>> thank you. [applause] thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you for the wonderful, wonderful welcome. and i'm so proud to be standing here in front of you today back in government and not just any government, a majority
conservative government. [applause] to the people in this hall, i want to say thank you. you are the greatest team a prime minister could ever have. and to the british people, when you put your cross in the conservative box, you were putting your faith in us. to finish the job we started. to back working people. to deliver security for you and your family. and i'll tell you now, we will not let you down. [applause] but just for a moment, think back to may 7th. i don't know about you, but it only takes two words to make m -- chewed me up. -- cheer me up.
exit poll. and then what happened that night, the conservatives, winning across wales, on the march in the midlands. bolton west, derby north, berwick, wells, conservative once more, gower for the first time ever. the north, more tory, the south, the east, almost a clean sweep and cornwall, that wonderful county, 100% conservative. [applause] as dawn rose, a new light, a bluer light, fell across our isles. and i will never forget that morning. getting back to london. seeing many of you. then sitting down in the flat at number 10 with sam and the kids getting ready for school. there we were, surrounded by half-packed boxes and bin bags. well, you have to be ready for anything. i was writing my speech and preparing to go and see her majesty.
and i thought, i'll just lie down and let it all sink in. as i shut my eyes, ed balls had gone. and when i woke up and i switched on the radio, nigel farage had gone too. there was a moment when thought i had died and gone to heaven. [applause] but there's a serious point. why did all the pollsters and the pundits get it so wrong? because, fundamentally, they didn't understand the people who make up our country. the vast majority of people aren't obsessives, arguing at the extremes of the debate. let me put it as simply as i can, britain and twitter are not the same thing. [applause]
the british people are decent, sensible, reasonable, and they just want a government that supports the vulnerable, backs those who do the right thing and helps them get on in life. good jobs, a decent home, better childcare, controlled immigration, lower taxes so there's more money at the end of the month, an nhs that's there for them, seven days a week, great schools, dignity in retirement. that is what people want and that is what we will deliver. the party of working people, the party for working people, today, tomorrow, always. a. [applause] ten years ago, i stood on a stage just like this one and said if we changed our party we could change our country. we've done that together. i didn't campaign on the nhs alone. you joined me. it wasn't just me who put social justice, equality for gay
people, tackling climate change, and helping the world's poorest at the center of the conservative party's mission, we all did. and i didn't select our candidates, it was you. look who was elected in may. nusrat ghani, whose parents, just a generation ago, were living in a small village in kashmir. seema kennedy, who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary iran. five years ago, johnny mercer was on his third tour of duty in afghanistan. caught in an ambush, he was left cradling a dear comrade as he lay fatally wounded. just days before the election, scott mann was doing his postal round in cornwall, delivering not just his own campaign leaflets, but his rivals' too. [laughter] [applause]
you wouldn't catch a lib dem doing that, would you? [laughter] different journeys, often difficult journeys, all leading here. so let us hear it for them now, the new generation o conservative members of parliament. [applause] round the cabinet table, a third of my colleagues are women. a few months ago, we were discussing childcare. this item was introduced by the black british son of a single parent, sam gyimah. he was backed up by the daughter of gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from east africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in, priti patel.
and the first speaker was sajid javid, whose father came here from pakistan to drive the buses. this is what we've done together. and now with couples married because of us, working people backed because of us, the nhs safe because of us, and children in the poorest parts of the world saved because of us. everyone in this hall can be incredibly proud of our journey, it is the journey of the modern, compassionate, one nation conservative party. [applause] so as five years of government stretch out before us, what do i see on the skyline? i love britain. i love our history and what we've given to the world. i love our get-up-and-go, that whenever we're down, we're never
out. i love our character, our decency, our sense of humor. country. england, scotland, wales, northern ireland, we are one nation and i will defend our union with everything i have got. upon th every day, in every way, great britain lives up to its name. and i know this, we can make it greater still. a greater britain. where people have greater hope, greater chances, greater security. i really believe we're on the brink of something special in our country. this year, we've seen more people in work than at any time in our history, more of our children starting university than ever before, more british entrepreneurs setting up shop than anywhere else in europe.
wages are rising. hope is returning. we're moving into the light. but we're not there yet. we're only halfway through. for me that has a very literal meaning. i can say something today that perhaps no prime minister has ever really been able to say before. i'm starting the second half of my time in this job. as you know, i am not going to fight another election as your leader. so i don't have the luxury of unlimited time. let me tell you, i am in just as much of a hurry as five years ago. securing our country, growing our economy, jobs, exports, growth, infrastructure. these are the stepping stones on the path to greatness for our country, and we've been laying them every day since we came to office. we will continue to do so.
but to make britain greater, we need to tackle some deep social problems, problems we only just made a start on, as we focused on the economic emergency that faced us. the scourge of poverty. the brick wall of blocked opportunity. the shadow of extremism, hanging over every single one of us. a greater britain doesn't just need a stronger economy, it needs a stronger society. and delivering this social reform is entirely fitting with the great history of the conservative party who have always been the optimists, the agents of hope and the leaders of change. that's why i joined it. that's why i wanted to lead it. and now, in my final term as prime minister, i say, let's live up to the greatest traditions of conservative social reform. [applause]
in all the challenges we face, we will be guided by our conservative values. our belief in strong defense and sound money. our belief in an enterprise economy, that if you set free the ambition that burns so deeply within the british people, they will strike out on their own, take on new workers, take on the world. our belief in equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome. not everyone ending up with th a same exam results, the same salary, the same house, but everyone having the same shot at them. now some people may argue these things are obvious. i have to tell you, they're not. it becomes clearer by the day that the labour party has completely abandoned any notion of these ideas. so let us resolve here, at this conference, to do what we've always done, to prove our
conservative truths, to save britain from the danger of labour and to rebuild britain so it is greater still. a greater britain, that is our goal. [applause] it begins by making the case for strong defense. my first duty as prime minister is to keep people safe. some of the loneliest moments in this job are when you are reading intelligence reports about plots being planned against the british people. this summer i was told that reyaad khan and junaid hussain were in syria planning terrorist attacks on uk soil. of course, i asked all the proper questions. how do we stop them? is there another way? do we have that capability? is it legal?
i knew that whatever action i took would provoke a big debate. but my job as prime minister is quite simple, really, ultimately, it's not to debate, it's to decide. and the choice i faced was this, act, and we could stop them carrying out their plans. stall, and we could see innocent people murdered on our streets. so i took decisive action to keep britain safe, and that's what i will always do. [applause] and on the subject of protecting our country from terrorism, let me just say this, thousands of
words have been written about the new labour leader. but you only really need to know one thing, he thinks the death of osama bin laden was a tragedy. no. a tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in new york. a tragedy is the moms and dads who never came home from work that day. a tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit. my friends, we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathizing, britain-hating ideology on the country we love. [applause]
another big judgment call to make is when a refugee crisis confronts our world. like most people, i found it impossible to get the image of that poor syrian boy aylan kurdi out of my mind. we know in our hearts our responsibilities to help those fleeing for their lives. but we know, too, that we must keep our heads. let's start with a simple fact. twelve million people have been made homeless by the conflict in syria. and so far only 4% of them have come to europe. if we opened the door to every refugee, our country would be overwhelmed. the best thing britain can do is
help neighboring countries, the syrian people and the refugees in the camps and when we do take refugees, to take them from the region, rather than acting in a way that encourages more to make that dangerous journey. as we do this, let's remember something else, we haven't only just started caring about syrians. we've been helping them over the past four years, giving more in aid to that part of the world than any other country except the united states of america. and we have been able to do that because this party made a promise and kept a promise, to spend 0.7% of our national income on aid. other countries made that promise. but they didn't keep it.
i say to them, if britain can keep her promises, so should you. [applause] but the real answer to the refugee crisis lies in helping countries like syria become places where people actually want to live. that means having a government that's not terrorizing its people, and that's why assad must go. in its place, we need a government that can be our ally in the defeat of isil, because we will never be safe here in britain until we eradicate that death cult. some people think we can contract that out to america. we shouldn't. we must play our part too. and we can, because of that commitment we made this summer, yes, we will spend 2% of our gdp on defense this year, next year, throughout this decade.
[applause] in the coming years, we'll be launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history, a new class of hunter killer submarine, new joint strike fighter jets, improved apache helicopters, a new fleet of drones, and because our independent nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy, this government will order four new trident submarines. [applause] in government, i have a great team who keep us safe at home and abroad. justine greening, michael fallon, philip hammond and
theresa may. but above all, we have britain's armed forces. let me tell you this, in the last year alone they tackled ebola in west africa, protected the skies over the baltic, flew missions over iraq. they built defenses against isil in lebanon, trained army officers in afghanistan, and patrolled the seas around the falklands. there they were in the pacific, flying supplies to cyclone victims, in the atlantic, shipping assistance to those hit by hurricanes, in the med, pulling people out of sinking dinghies. little england? no. never. great britain. and with armed forces like that, we can be greater still. so let's stand and thank them for everything they do to keep us safe. [applause] thank you.
a greater britain is one that is strong in the world, and that should mean one that is strong in europe, too. it comes back to those conservative values, our belief in the nation state, but also in free trade. we all know what's wrong with the eu, it's got too big, too bossy, too interfering. but we also know what's right about it, it's the biggest single market in the world. now, some people say take what we've got and put up with it. others say just walk away from the whole thing. i say, no. this is britain. we don't duck fights. we get stuck in. we fix problems. that's how we kept our border checkpoints when others decided to take theirs down. it's how we kept the pound when
others went head first into the euro. because we do things our way. we get rebates. we get out of bailouts. but do you know what? it's not just what we get out of, it's what we get europe into. who do you think got europe to open trade talks with america, which could be the biggest trade deal in our history? who do you think got europe to agree to sanctions on iran, which brought that country to the negotiating table? us. britain. we did. believe me, i have no romantic attachment to the european union and its institutions. i'm only interested in two things, britain's prosperity and britain's influence. that's why i'm going to fight hard in this renegotiation, so we can get a better deal and the best of both worlds. let me give you one example. when we joined the european union we were told that it was about going into a common
market, rather than the goal that some had for an ever closer union. let me put this very clearly, britain is not interested in ever closer union, and i will put that right. [applause] a greater britain needs a dynamic economy. today, it's a beacon in an uncertain world. we've got more foreign investment flooding into our country than anywhere else in europe, anywhere in the world except for america and china. but if anyone thinks the battle on the economy is won, they need to think again. the battle has only just begun. we still need to find savings and produce more, still need to become more competitive, still need to make the most of our
whole country, and build the northern powerhouse. and all at a time when our opponents have given up any sensible, reasonable, rational arguments on the economy. we live in a country where the main opposition party, let's not forget, the alternative government, believes in nationalizing industries without compensation, jacking up taxes to 60% of people's income, and printing money. there's an academic called richard murphy. he's the labour party's new economics guru, and the man behind their plan to print more money. he gave an interview a few weeks ago. it was a very frank interview. he admitted that labour's plan would cause a sterling crisis, but to be fair. he did add, and i quote, that it would pass very quickly. well, that's all right then.
his book is actually called the joy of tax. i've read it. i took it home to show samantha. [laughter] it's got 64 positions, and none of them work. [applause] this is actually serious. i tell you, our party's success in growing our economy and winning the economic arguments has never been more vital. nothing less than the security of every single family in our country depends on it. and as we do that, i know that we will have on our side not just the british people, not just british business but our iron chancellor, george osborne. [applause]
you know what makes me most angry about labour? it's not just that their arguments are wrong, it's the self-righteous way they make them. the deficit-deniers, who go around saying we're hurting the poor. hang on a second. who gets hurt when governments lose control of spending and interest rates go through the roof? who gets hurt when you waste money on debt interest and have to cut the nhs? who gets hurt when taxes go up and businesses start firing rather than hiring? no, not the rich. it's poor people, working people. the very people labour claim to be for. well let's just remember, labour ideas don't help the poor, they hurt the poor. that's right, labour, you're not for working people, but hurting people. if you want a lecture about poverty, ask labour. if you want something done about
it, come to us, the conservatives. [applause] thank you. but there's another argument we also need to win. there are some people who understand the deficit needs to come down, but don't get why we need a surplus. i'll tell you why. i don't stand here like a former prime minister did and say i remember him? we can't just be thinking about today, we should be thinking about the rainy days that could
come, just like a family does. they put something aside, take out the insurance plan, pay off some of the mortgage when they have something spare. that's what we should do as a country, making sure we are ready to deal with future crises. there's a word for those who say live for today, forget about tomorrow, it's selfish. i'm not here to mortgage our children's future. i'm here to insure our childrens future. [applause] but for me, there's one big piece of unfinished business in our economy, housing. a greater britain must mean more families owning a home of their own. it goes back to those conservative beliefs, reward for hard work. if you've worked hard and saved, i don't want you just to have a roof over your head, i want you to have a roof of your own. in the last five years, 600,000
new homes have been built. more than 150 people a day are moving in thanks to our help to buy scheme. and in our manifesto, we announced a breakthrough policy, extending the right to buy to housing association tenants. some people said this would be impossible. housing associations would never stand for it. the legislation would never pass. let me tell you something. greg clark, our brilliant communities secretary, has secured a deal with housing associations to give their tenants the right to buy their home. that will mean the first tenants can start to buy their homes from next year. as we said in our manifesto, 1.3 million to be given the chance to become homeowners. a promise made. a promise kept by this government. ..
something else. for years politicians have been talking about building what they call of affordable homes but in many ways the phrase was deceptive in that basically meant homes that were only available to rent. people want a home they can actually own. think about it after all the officials that prepare the plans, the developers that build them into the politicians that talk about the most of these people own the homes they live in. don't they realize other people want what they've got, a home of their own? [applause] so today i can announce a dramatic shift in housing in the country. the rules say you can build on the site but only if you build affordable homes for rent via replacing them with new rules you can build here and those affordable homes can be available to buy from generation
brand to generation -- generation buy. [applause] a more prosperous burton but we must not stop there as we build a greater burden. we are not a one trick party. for us economic success isn't the finished obstacle is the foundation of which we can build a better society. our patriotism has never been a grand notion of ruling were riding high in the money market is but a deep compulsion which says you make the country greater by making life better for its people. and today that means entering those zones where politicians often do not dare to venture
into taking on the social problems of extremism. so when a mom looks at her newborn baby the most precious thing she's ever seen and she vows to provide for it she knows that she can. when a girl sits in her school classroom during studies i want her to know she can make it to the very top of the child of immigrants see our flag i want them to feel loyal to the country to want to put on a uniform to defend it. that is what fires me up, people. and to those that say our social problems are too big and there is no way you can sort them out i say you set our party would change in change and it did come use our economic plans would work but it is. you said we wouldn't win the election but we did so we are going to take on those problems and just you watch us.
[applause] central to that is an all-out assault on policy. conservatives understand that if we are serious about solving the problem we need to tackle the causes. homes where no one works, children growing up in chaos, addiction, family breakdown. today a teenager is more likely to own a smartphone than to have a dad living with him. think of your own child. think of the day they were born. think how fragile they were an event sink every day three babies are born in britain
addicted to heroin. we will never deal with poverty unless we get to grips with these issues. we made a start in the last five years with our troubled families program and it's already turned around alliance of over 100,000 families and you know what one of the central themes is? very simple get to adults at job because we know the best route out of poverty is work so that's why we reformed welfare and helped create 2.5 million jobs. but it's not enough simply to have a job work. it's got to pay. nearly two thirds of children in poverty have parents who are in jobs. for them, work hasn't worked. that's why we've cut taxes for the lowest paid and we will keep doing that and from next year people take a giant leap forward. the new national living wage.
and 80-pound a week pay rise for the lowest paid in the country for millions of people in the country selected message about if you work hard and you want more money at the end of the month the party for you is the party right here in this hall. [applause] but being out of work is only one of the causes that we must tackle. children in care today are almost guaranteed to live in poverty. 84%, eight out of ten lead school. 70% of prostitutes were once in care and tragically for times more likely to commit suicide than anyone else.
bees children are in our care. we are their parents and what are we setting them up for? the streets come in early grave? i tell you we will put it right. just as we said at the failing schools. they would improve or be taken over just as we said. [applause] just as we got the best in the teaching of the most difficult schools let's get the best and brightest to the front lines of social work but frankly we must also stop children needing to be
in care at all. when we came to the office the adoption rate was a scandal. that has gone up and we were helping but there is so much more to do. so today let us in this hall think of all the children desperate for a family and all the families yearning for a child. we are the ones who will bring you together. [applause] there's another service run by the state and often entering just poverty. i believe if you've committed a crime, punishment must follow and then it is serious enough let's not forget since we came to office crime is down by a quarter of the system is still not working.
harmful criminal offense within a year of being released. many go into prison with no qualifications and many come out with none either in all the problems that may have led led it into into the life them to that life with a drug addiction and mental health problem, the childhood abuse they remain unchanged. we have got to get away from the sterile lock them up or let them out. we've got to get smart about this. when prisoners are in jail we've got their full attention so for heavens sake that street that problems can educate them and put them to work when we restrict someone's freedom outside prison we can make sure they are working rather than spending 30,000 a year keeping them in a cell. so let's use those electronic tags to keep people safe and get clean. and when the prisons are relics from the time it is time to sell them off and build the new ones that actually work.
[applause] now this is going to be a big area of social reform in the next years and i've got just the man for the job. the man that takes every vested interest and gives everyone a chance and that began the great transformation of the education system is now going to do the same for prisoners. the great conservative reformer. [applause] if we tackle the causes of poverty we can make the country greater but there is another big social problem that we need to fix. when politicians speak a lack of social mobility. and people are unable to rise from the bottom to the top or
even from the middle to the top because of their background. listen to this, britain has the lowest social ability in the world. here the salary you were in is linked to what your father got paid then any other major country. and i'm sorry for us, the conservatives, the party investigation we cannot accept that. we know that education is a springboard to opportunity into the reforms are already working. more children studying math, all learning in engineering, more doing the extracurricular activities to teach confidence and build characters. recently i went to a school in 53 of the children went on to universities. 52 of them were the first in their families ever to do so. that's why i am so passionate about academies. the teachers are growing in
confidence of the local council control. they are raising ds privations not just of children but parents in all communities and sweeping across the country. so my next ambition is 500 new preschools come every school in and academy, and yes local authorities running school is a thing of the past. [applause] but let's be honest. for too many people come even a good education, that's not enough. there are other barriers that stand in their way. picture this you graduated with a good degree and you send out far and wide but you get a rejection after rejection. what's wrong? it's not the qualifications were
the previous experience. it's just two words at the top, first name, surname. in our country today even if you have exactly the same quotations , people with a white sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get a callback for jobs than people within ethnic sounding name. this is a true story. one young black girl had to change her name to elizabeth before she got any interviews at all, this this in 21st century britain is disgraceful. [applause] we can talk all we like about opportunities that it is meaningless unless people are judged equally. think about it like this. opportunity doesn't mean much to a british muslim if he walks
down the street and is abused for his faith. opportunity doesn't mean much to a black person constantly stopped and searched by the police because of the color of their skin. opportunity doesn't mean much to a person rejected a job because the person they love. it doesn't mean much to a disabled person prevented from doing what they are good at because of who they are. i am the dad of two daughters in opportunity won't mean anything to them if they grow up in a country they get paid less because of their gender rather than how good they are at their work. the point is so important. [applause] the point is you can't have true opportunity without really quality and i want our party to get this right. yes, the party of the charts for the party of the equal shops with a party that doesn't care where you come from but only where you are going.
i want us, the conservatives come to end discrimination and finish the fight for real equality in the country today. [applause] tackling the causes of poverty, fighting for opportunity and there's one more big social reform in the mission to rebuild britain button as an even greater country. we need to confront, and i mean really confront extremism. when i read what some young
people brought up in this country are doing it makes me sick to my stomach. girls not much older than my daughter swapping loving family homes and futures for a life of servitude of isis in the land of violence and oppression. boys can do anything they want but have benefited from what country stands for instead of ending up in the desert building a knife. this ideology of this disease view of the world has become an epidemic infected minds to the bedrooms in birmingham. and here's what we need to do. tear up the narrative that says muslims are persecuted and the west deserves what it gets. nevermind the biggest effort.
no one should get away from the politics of grievance anymore. [applause] number two, take on extremism for violent and nonviolent. people don't become terrorists from a standing start. it begins with a preacher telling them christians and muslims will live together and to people perhaps in the community the same as the security service is responsible and it progresses to a website telling them how to fight in syria and before you know what a young british boy barely 17 is strapping bombs to his body and blowing himself up in iraq. we've got to stop this seed of
hatred alone allowing us it to grow. number three, we need to tackle segregation. there are parts of britain today you can get by without ever speaking english or eating someone from another culture. zoom in and you will see some institutions that actually help integrate these divisions. in our country there are some children who spend several hours each day and let me be clear there is nothing wrong with children learning about their faith whether it is out of the dross or sunday school but in some we've got children being taught they shouldn't mix with people of other religions, being beaten, swallowing conspiracy theories about jewish people. these children should be having their minds open about how there her eyes in their broadened and not having their head filled
with poison and hate. [applause] so i can announce if we are teaching children intensively, then whatever its religion, we will like any other school make it register so it can be inspected. and be no doubt, if you are teaching intolerance, we will shut you down. [applause] and this goes to a wider truth. for too long we've been so frightened of causing that we haven't looked hard enough at what is going on in our community. this is passive tolerance and i will tell you where it leads.
it leads to british children going to pakistan before they even started and it leads to british children having their genitals mutilated in the back streets. it's turned us into a less integrated country and our children in danger. it's unforgivable select me say right here no more passive tolerance in britain. [applause] we passed the law and now i want
an enforced. people that organized the marriages i want them prosecuted. appearance of take their children, i i want them interested and as we do that we should just be saying what is wrong with these practices. we should be saying what's right with freedom, democracy, equality. these are precious. on the beach is 30 years later and in the suffrages and pride half the world is crying out and they see what we've achieved with them. free speech and the best literature in the world. freedom of religion and many religions and living side-by-side peacefully freethinking in medicine and technology. a free economy and standards of living our grandparents clearly have dreamt of. i want my children to know they are proud part of something big.
that's why we are making sure. that's why. [applause] we got the national citizen service to bring different people together. i wanted to go out of our country. that is right. less fashioning them a more national pride come our way to on our way to thconservative wake up and the only way. [applause] so, my friends big battles and arguments in a greater britain, keeping our -- so those that never has to come if you believe in strong defense and helping the poor most desperate people in the world for if you want to
those that are there that stretch for the children and understand but none of that is possible without a strong economy and if you believe we can become the enterprise capital of the world, if you believe that the fight against extremism is the fight for existence if you want us to be the generation that end discrimination, if you want these things, the party you need is the party right here and it's never too late. he wrote to me and said age 82 this is possibly my last election. in my life i voted labour labor believing that asserts the working class. how wrong i was. it is against all that i aspire to and i am 100% for the united kingdom, sound economy, free enterprise and a decent standard
of living. you found the right party and i want many more to follow in your footsteps. [applause] i believe we can make this a defining decade for the country. the turnaround decade, the one in which people will look back and say that's the time when the tide turned when people no longer felt that her into going against them but working with them. he can be that greater britain because we know nothing is returned. we have proved it in schools across the country that the poorest children don't have to get the worst results. they can get the best. over the next five years we will show the problems in our society. they are not inevitable that a
child in care doesn't have to mean a life of struggle. but being in prison doesn't mean you will go in to do the same thing all over again. being black or asian or female or gay doesn't mean you will be treated differently. and if we are to be the global success story we need to write many of these individual success stories. a greater britain made on greater expectations where renters become home owners and employees become employers. an island becomes an even bigger economy and extremism is defeated once and for all. no more pressed to the window as they watched the world moving ahead without them with its people raising a new height area that is our dream to help you realize the dream of the greater britain and greater security so
the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, october 9, 2015. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeff sessions, a senator from the state of alabama, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, october 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, october pro forma sessions are scheduled for tuesday and friday of next week. the senate is back in session for work monday october 19 in the senate will take up