tv House Rules Meeting on Planned Parenthood and State Medicaid Programs CSPAN September 28, 2015 5:00pm-8:01pm EDT
again, as we hit 5:00 here in washington, waiting for the house rules committee to gavel. they will consider rules on debate on a bill that would give states flexibility in denying funds under medicaid to planned parenthood and other groups that provide abortion services. while we wait, news to report from capitol hill. on the next election for house speaker, majority leader kevin mccarthy officially announce the this afternoon he will be a candidate for that position. in a tweet, congressman mccarthy posted, i'm running for speaker to work with my colleagues is make the case to the american people for conservative principles. according to "the washington post," republican representative daniel webster of florida is the only other candidate at this point to declare a bid for the speakership. we don't know when that election
this meeting by the house rules committee expected to get under way shortly. they'll consider the rules for debate on a bill that would gave states flexibility in denying funds under medicaid to planned parenthood or other groups that provide abortion services. that bill coming to the house floor tomorrow. the legislative agenda in the house today includes a couple of bills that make changes to the 2010 health care law, religious measures, other would revise the definition of small employer to having 50 or less employees. votes in the house are scheduled for 6:30.
we have that live on c-span. senate's in session today. considering a temporary spending bill that would fund the government beyond september 30th. senators will be voting on whether to advance that bill in about a half hour at 5:30. 60 votes are required for the bill to move forward. and as we wait for this rules committee meeting, let's show you some debate over government funding from this morning. "washington journal." >> first guest, paul singer, usa today, washington correspondent. good morning. >> good morning. what's the likelihood the government will be shut down by the end of the week? >> pretty low, i believe, at this point. it seems that particularly with the departure of mr. boehner on friday, the pressure has sort of relieved for the shutdown vote. we anticipate a vote in the senate today to move that process forward, to fund the government. we expect a vote in the house probably by wednesday and this
thing, we believe, we believe, we believe, that by wednesday evening they will come up with a short term solution. this is what we call a clean continuing resolution. what that means, just extending the current budget through december 11th, with no policy changes. importantly, not including the language that conservatives were looking for to defund planned parenthood. that was the sticking point to this point. looks like they're going to try a different approach to that problem and just fund the government to december, while they figure out what to do then. >> senate side, what happens to folks like ted cruz who have said they would rise up in opposition and senator -- and rand paul. >> rand paul, yeah. >> that is likelihood set to happen or things put in place to keep that from happening? >> votes are going forward to move forward with a clean bill, because rand paul and ted cruz don't have enough votes to force that issue on to the floor.
the senate, of course, operates in this weird world, minority senators can complain a lot but at some point you have to get 60 votes to support you -- sorry, 60 votes to decide to move the bill to the floor. if they can't get votes to move the bill to the floor, then it just dies. it looks like that's what's happening in the senate at this point. >> you said short term than brings us to december. what happens in december? >> i cancel holiday travel plans, i recommend you do the same. we really don't know. in december, we're going to face a number of things at once. government funding will be again expiring so they'll need to figure out what to do. the second problem that is we will at that point hit the debt ceiling and they'll have to figure out whether or not to raise the debt ceiling yet again. this becomes one of those issues where, for conservatives, this a fundamental argument about going into more debt and you'll hear the whole argument how we are mortgaging our future to china
and yet, the democrats argue frequently, and usually with success recently, that you can't default on old promissory notes by failing to take the debt and spend the money. so that will be a december battle. we have a highway bill funding that has to come up some time between now and then. would not be surprised to see that roll into the same pile in december. so, there's a whole bunch of stuff that is going to have to be hammered out over the next few months and keep in mind, we don't know who the speaker is going to be and who the rest of the republican leaders are going to be some they're going to spend significant quality time arguing over that first, before they even get to the substantive issues. >> as far as they come to december, a possibility they pass another short-term extension if they wanted to. >> sure, sure. yeah. the way congress operates, they're best when they are kicking things down the road until later, they could
certainly punt on a funding bill for another week, another two week, another three weeks. my recollection is that last year, it was middle of january before they finally got the bill passed. they can do whatever they want to do. the debt ceiling is a bigger issue. they have less flexibility there. the treasury department always has some emergency tool at their disposal to try to stretch this deadline out -- >> you look good in burn orange. >> jan you look awesome in your red blazer. >> with a nice color. >> that is a nice color. >> the rules committee will consider hr 3495 women's public health and safety ability, bill's based upon the basic principles i believe of federalism under this bill, a state would be granted the discretion to with hold medicaid
funds from a clinic or doctor that provides abortion services. pretty trait forward. hr 3495 represents a continuation of efforts to pass meaningful legislation that prioritizes opportunities that represent values and sanctity of human life, which we believe is important and we heard from the pope last week how important all life is. this gives an opportunity for states to use federal funds accordingly. with us today, the gentlewoman from tennessee, marcia blackburn, energy commerce commit were. joining her, her colleague jan schakowsky in red. we are orange and red today. before we are both witnesses to come forward to give testimony i'd like to defer to my dear friend, gentleman from massachusetts, he'd like to make -- >> i welcome you both here today. i want to state for the record that the law in this country is that no federal funds can be
used for abortion and i just want to remind my republican colleagues that we are only days away from another government shutdown. and the last government shutdown that my friends thrust upon the nation caused the american taxpayers $24 billion. so i have a hard time believing that preventing medicaid patients from seeing their doctors is the best use of our time. but you're in charge. you run the show. i look forward to the testimony. thank you very much. >> i thank you very much. i'd like to just briefly address the issue that the gentleman brought up, it's a good point, and that is we are very concerned and recognize the constitutionality of what we're trying to do as well as the calendar. we are waiting at this time the united states senate, who is gaining their momentum to decide the piece of legislation. and you will find that we'll be
asked to come back to the rules committee some time as quickly as the united states senate does their work, they had been working on these issues diligently, holding vote, having discussions, working with each other. we're trying to do the same over here. and i do appreciate the gentleman, i know he and i will be on the floor, mrs. slaughter, judge hastings, talking about the importance of ensuring that this government and the continuity of funding streams continues. you have my highest of commitment from, i believe, the rules committee side, knowing that we will, as quickly as we can, be calling a hearing, we will not delay at all work that needs to be done and get it to the floor so this pod q. can act accordingly. i appreciate the gentlemen. >> i appreciate the gentlemen's reassurance but, as recent history has taught us, just because the rules committee considers something and even reports on a rule doesn't mean
that the republican conference accepts it. we have found ourselves in a -- on a number of occasions coming back to rules committee with -- trying to manage a crisis. i hope we can keep the government open but i think that's what our priorities should be. again, beating up on poor women is not my idea of a constructive use of our time. i yield back my time. >> i thank you very much. i appreciate the gentlemen very much. ladies, please, if you'll feel free to come to the witness table. both of you are no strangers to the rules committee, to your friends that count on you not only being here and giving us expert witness testimony, but also the graciousness that you bring representing yourself, your district, your party, and your ideas. and as mrs. blackburn knows, mrs. schakowsky, you've been up here plenty of times we try to deal with difficult subjects in
a polite way. you will be afforded that also. and mrs. blackburn, represents thoughts and ideas i agree with, but even when i don't agree, you will be given the assurances that you'll be dealt with fairly up here. i want to thank both of you for being here. without objection, anything in writing will be entered into the record. we encourage you, we have an awesome stenographer, give her whatever you want and encourage also to speak into the microphone with that green light on when you're give than time. the gentle woman from tennessee, wife of mr. chuck blackburn, my dear friend, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate the opportunity to come before you on hr 3495. this is the women's public health and safety ability. it's a bill that mr. duffy authored and brought to us at energy and commerce committee. we have, as you see before you, an amendment that will become the bill.
as you appropriately stated, this is a bill about flexibility and about giving the state more flexibility as to who they choose to include in their medicaid program, health care providers. and they may want to have people who do not perform or participapar participate in the performance of elective abortions. we have some states who sought to end medicaid contracts and they've been blocked from doing so by cms. currently, we have four states in litigation, louisiana, arkansas, alabama, utah, are in litigation over these very issues. so this is a step that we can take that says, let's give the states the flexibility that they are requesting and that they need. they have proven that they need the flexibility and let's allow
them to make these -- make these decisions. and with that, i will yield back. thank you very much. miss schakowsky welcome. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you so much for allowing me to testify, once again. i am testifying in opposition to 3495. here we go again. to consider legislation that is purported to protect women but the truth is that this bill is yet another attack on women's health and their ability to make their own choices. the misleading name,women's public health and safety act, seeks to target and exclude abortion providers or anyone who will even remotely support or is involved with a provider or entity that provides abortions from participating in medicaid even though not a single federal dime is spent on providing that abortion. in fact, i've been calling this
legislation yet another radical assault on women's health care. this bill would permit a state to terminate a provider from medicaid solely on the basis that the provider also provides access to a safe and legal abortion without federal dollars, without regard for impact on access to care and leaving no recourse for that provider. excludeing a provider from medicaid solely on the basis that the provider also provides access to safe and legal abortions would be bad enough, but the legislation doesn't stop there. this legislation would allow a state to terminate a provider from medicaid if that provider has had any sort of, quote, participation, unquote with an abortion. what constitutes participation on the part of an entity is completely undefined. let's be clear, the blackburn
amendment does not change hr 3495 underlying purpose, intent, or its devastating impact. the blackburn amendment gives states the ability, to, quote, establish criteria, unquote for determining if a provider, quote, performs or participates in the perform 'of unquote abortions would be allowed in the medicaid program. this broad language would give states an unchecked authority to exclude any provider the state defines as participating without any consideration to the health needs and concerns of its medicaid enrollees. some examples of how this -- how far this criteria could go, a state could exclude a hospital for offering life saving care as required under the federal emergency medical treatment or mtola law. if a state determines care was
provided went there was not an immediate threat to the woman's life but instead a serious health care threat or entire hospital systems could be excluded because many hospitals provide abortion services. this would not only mean medicaid patients could losing asa s access to their choice of medical providers for all of their health care services but particularly harmful in rural areas, where there are fewer hospitals to serve communities. this bill allows the government unprecedented involvement in a woman's own personal health care decisions, right down to who she chooses as her provider. that's why historically federal medicaid rules have always regardless of which party is in power provided the right of medicaid beneficiaries to seek care from a trusted and medically qualified provider of their choosing. this bill is one more assault in the long list of republican
assaults on women's health. we know that if this legislation had been enacted in the past month when governor jindal tried to kick planned parenthood out of medicaid, there would have been only 29 providers left across the state to serve more than 5,000 additional patients. louisiana is not a unique case. in two-thirds of the 491 counties in which they are located, planned parenthood health centers serve at least half of all women obtaining contraceptive care from safety net health centers. one-fifth of the counties in which they are located, planned parenthood sites are the sole safety net family planning center. the medicaid statutory provider choice protections are there for a reason. that language protects against the ideological and political whims of politicians at the expense of women. the claim that this legislation seeks to protect women could not be further from the truth.
this is yet another attempt for republicans to erode the fundamental constitutionally protected right for safe and legal abortion, this legislation which would undermine the right of a woman to choose her own provider or the right of a provider to support or provide safe action to legal abortion a yield back. >> thank you very much. this is an issue back home for me also. and i have, i'm sure every one of our members, whether from new york, whether from dallas, texas, have strong opinions. i believe state legislatures know a lot about this issue. they know a lot, for instance i learned other day there's no planned parenthood organization in the country that has a mammogram available to it. i thought that was women's health care. so we have isolated it down, and
miss schakowsky i believe you appropriately said it this business abortion services. i believe the stated could be given latitude therein. i respect you being here. miss blackburn, i thank you for being the bill. i'd like to say thank you to both you the gentle woman from north carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman. in the interest of time i will say that i will associate myself with your remarks on why we're here today and the concerns that the people in our districts have on this issue. it is the number one issue i hear from everyone in my district and i think we are doing the right thing with this legislation. i thank mr. duffy for inducing it and miss blackburn for bringing it here. i respect our colleague, miss schakowsky, but totally disagree
with her. i yield back. >> gentlewoman yields back the time. mrs. slaughter's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. appreciate that. i know we all know very well why we're here, trying to get enough votes to pass the cr. if we throw out something extraneous like this may assuage people somewhere but i'm not getting any great slclamor and never had about this. i'm not sure about the mammogram issue. i know planned parenthood does a lot of cancer screening. i ask unanimous consent to put this statement -- >> without objection. >> let me read it. administration strongly opposes house passage of hr 3495, because it would restrict women's health and reproductive choices. hr 3495 would permit a state medicaid program to stop paying for any covered benefits providing to eligible
individuals by qualified health care providers solely because providers were involved in abortions. longstanding federal policy which we already know, already prohibits use of federal funds for abortions. except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother would be -- woman would be endangered. by permitting withholding of federal medicaid funding for those providers, clinics or hospitals, hr 3495 likely would limit access to both critical women's health services and health care throughout local communities across the nation. and would have a disproportionate impact on women and low income individuals. moreover, it would undermine a woman's right upheld by the supreme court to make her own choices about her body and her health care, and if the presidewere presented with hr 3495 he would
veto the bill. i the question i would like to ask, is this constitutional? >> thank you, miss slaughter. we have the requirement by house republicans that you have to state the constitutionconconsti. the rules committee handles that check. i'm sure they can present that to you. >> since this is a protective right under the constitution, re-v. wade, it seems odd. i know every time they try to do cases where they change the limits of how long first trimester is, permitted that the courts restrict them every single time. i guess this would get, what, another court case, if it were to become -- >> no, ma'am, i don't think so at all. the absence of this bill is called the court cases. as as said earlier, you have four states currently in litigation now. >> because they tried to pass a bill like this?
>> no, ma'am. because they were trying to do some restrictions on their providers. >> and they will -- is this federal court, miss schakowsky, you know about the four cases, four states? >> i think that the point is also, this would not just take away funding or that portion of the services that a health care -- >> planned parenthood -- >> that means -- >> close down a hospital. >> -- it would close down a provider, clinic or entire health care system that for all -- >> for all medicaid patients? >> yes. that would provide all services. >> certainly is drastic, to try to assuage people's concerns so they can vote for the cr. we know why we're here. we don't have any misunderstanding about that. we are here to, on our side, show that we show up for rules
committee. but i will seriously, because four states trying to do it, you want to do it here because you think that would make it legal for those four states? >> i think that what we're hearing -- >> or would it not still be a constitutional issue? >> what we're hearing from states is they would like the flexibility to determine who is the provider in their medicaid program. now, as you will remember, back in the mid '90s, the many states went through the cms waiver process in order to be able to do experimentation with the delivery systems for health care. >> right, that doesn't have anything to do with constitutional question. >> what this has to do with is the determination of how the states utilize their funds, that they are receiving. >> but you do restrict it to people who are providing services for women's
reproductive health. >> there is nothing in this that restricts a woman's right or access to abortion, absolutely nothing. >> it does, if you take away the people who provide it. if you shut down a hospital or health care clinic. you don't think so? >> you reposition that. when something is important -- >> you reposition it. >> you reposition funds. exactly what we have done. >> good grief. >> the community health centers, see planned parenthood -- >> planned parenthood -- let's -- let me reclaim ply time. there's no question here. community health centers made it perfectly klee they can take it on. >> they do. >> 99% done by planned parenthood the one you want to fight has nothing to do with abortion. a number of planned parenthood centers don't do abortions at all. and so what you're saying here, when talk about repositioning it, i think what you really are doing is you're taking away needed health services.
they also serve men who come to planned parenthood for services in health diagnoses and things, medicines they're allowed to have. something i've been absolutely -- ever since we passed the health care bill, it is absolutely astonished me, and i can't for the life of me understand why you all want to take health care away from people. it's beyond me. people who can afford it, can get it. if you don't come in that category, you're out of luck as far as congress is concerned. i yield back balance of my time. >> thank you very much. gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i apologize for being late. there must have been something discussed i'm unaware of. i'll ask my colleague, miss blackburn, i have read this legislation from front to back and i don't see any language closing any facilities or anybody, but that's the conversation i walked in on. has something been added to the bill that would close a facility?
>> mr. woodall, there is nothing in here that closes any facility. what it does is to allow the states the flexibility they have asked us. if they could get for utilization of those funds, and participants in their medicaid delivery system. and as we have seen as planned parenthood has reduced services that they offer to women, and most of the women's health care services now are outsourced, if you will. and it's important the states are saying, we really need some more flexibility and, as i said, there are four states who are ready in a lawsuit over this issue. so, as we look at the funding on women's health, what we want to do is make certain that the money is going to get to the point where it will meet the needs of those communities and flexibility is helpful in that regard.
>> i'm a big fan of local control, but there are often some moral issues that we do deal with here. i certainly think life is one of those. i think providing critical care to communities that need it is one of those. i was looking for the mandate in this language. is there a requirement that a state -- >> no, it's a flexibility requi requirement. mr. duffy had done the bill. when it came to energy and commerce, we did an amendment that becomes the bill. and as you can see, it is section 2,en creasing state flexibility in determining participation of providers who perform or participate in the performance of abortions. and so what you have is the insertion of flexibility into the allocation of this funding stream. that is something that the states would like to have. it's how you move money forward to meet the greatest need and
it's the reason for bringing the bill forward. >> i tell constituents back home, when they talk about the fights that happen in washington, sometimes we are just fighting about how to love on each other and disagree what loving on each other looks like here. when it comes to health care and issues, as difficult as some of these are, i feel certain that there's no one in this room going to love on the constituents of georgia more than the folks who run the georgia medicaid. appreciate you bringing the bill to give them flexibility. i yield back my time. >> mr. mcgovern. >> i just feel it's important to state for the record so people understand, each year planned parenthood offers preventative services for women to screener to cancer, sexually transmitted infects and prevent unintended pregnancies more than 90% provided by planned parenthood are preventative, including primary care services such as contraceptives, sexually
transmitted infection test, treatment, cervical and breast cancer screenings. each year planned parenthood health centers provide nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings, nearly 500,000 breast cancer screenings, i'm look at some of the testimonies on behalf of planned parenthood, i have testimony from a woman named ashley, quote, when i was 23, i found a lump in my breast. i made an appointment at planned parenthood, nurse practice in additioner in found the lump and arraigned for my first ma'am grap. i had a biopsy and lump removed. it came back negative. planned parenthood put me in contact with a group to help me pay for the procedure. normally it would have cost 1200 but i paid 200, which was all i could afford. if it weren't for planned parenthood i would not have been able to get the procedure and keep myself healthy and go on and on about this. but whether or not this would shut down a hospital if you deny
the trite medicaid reimbursement or a health care system, it might very well, mr. woodall depending on the hospital we're talking about. but at a minimum what you're saying is that you -- that somehow it's okay to shut down health services for poor women because medicaid serves low income populations. what you're doing is denying access to, in many cases life-saving preventative care to poor whip which i think is quly. we have more bills that fall into the category, but does anybody believe in regular order anymore or -- >> yes, sir. i do. >> well, you know, again, given the fact this bill, i mean, doesn't have to be voted on today, i mean, you could do next week, but i mean, were there any hearings on this bill? was there a mark-up? miss blackburn, do you recall a
hearing or mark-up on this bill? >> we did not do a hearing on this specific bill but we have -- >> no mark-up either? >> new york we haven't done a markup. we have done lots of hearings on the issue. >> that is regular order and again, i know, you know, some of the critiques of this bill are that the -- that you knyou broa use of language could have unforeseen -- my colleagues on the republican side i know you control the house, is it too much to ask we go through the committee process to ask some of these concerns? i know you guys think you know everything and you -- everything to you is really clear. but there is -- people go on these committees for a reason so they can have a say in the legislative process and routinely they get blocked out. here we are with a bill that is not urgent, not gone through the committee process, not gone through any markups, designed to
punish poor women and take away the access to health care, and i just think this is a lousy process. it's a lousy bill. but at a minimum, even if you bring lousy legislation before the rules committee it ought to go through regular order. the committees ought to mean something in congress swin creaand increasingly they mean nothing. >> we will do exactly that, we give specific intent to the energy and commerce committee to appropriately look at in detail this issue so facts and figures are available not just within committee but become generally available for the entire -- >> that is your special committee on planned parenthood you're talking about? >> i think you'll see -- >> what -- i'm going to follow the same things -- >> if you get a former committee to look into this, i think, you know, it would make more sense for you to report legislation
out after the committee work i think sounds like a waste of money, but you ought to -- you committees in jurisdiction already. you have to have hearing before you bring legislation to the floor. >> i appreciate the gentlemen. he's far enough along if the state wants flexible the state can get flexibility. if the state chooses not to take up flexibility they won't get the flexibility. >> if you have a governor or a state legislature than basically wants to take away the right of a woman to make this very difficult choice with regard to abortion, then they can -- they will do it. notwithstanding what the supreme court has said. you somehow think that's okay. or if a health care provider provides abortion services to women, which is legal, that you
are saying that the state legislature should have the right to take away all medicare -- medicaid reimbursement to the health care system for kracancer screenings other preventative care. come on. the good news is this is going nowhere. the bad news is that it continues this drum beat, you know, beating up on poor women. and i think it is -- it is wrong. but i have said enough. i yield back my time. >> gentlemen yields back his time. the point is we believe in regular order and believe that we will have a detailed analysis and report that will be available from the committee system. thank you very much. the gentlemen from louisville, texas, dr. burgess. >> thank you mr. chairman. of course, mr. chairman, as you know, in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding and said we're only going to pay for services that are not associated
with an institution that provides abortion services and, as a consequence, in fact, i think the figures sort of speak volumes about that, that there are now increased dollars going for women's health that are not associated with those that provide abortion services. now, the publication politifact is not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement by joe oman head of the texas alliance for life, who said that texas funding for women health services is at historically high levels and in fact increased another 50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including additional $50 million. so politifact look act the statement that texas is funding women's health services at
historically high levels, actually ended up rating this claim as true. again, politifact not generally one that is kind to people on the conservative side. so i thought that was significant. now, we did have a hearing along a similar issue in the energy and commerce committee, last week or the week before, and i want to submit for the record the texas women's health program provider survey patient capacity report. this is from january of 2013. that was two years after governor perry key coupled planned parenthood and medicaid funding some there was concern that perhaps the level of care was going to drop off. the conclusion of the texas womens health program providers survey was that, overall, texas women's health program patient capacity results -- the results
are positive. in most areas survey found that the state has the capacity to serve even more women in 2013. again, reference the politifact article that the last legislative session in 2015 increased that additional $50 million. all this is to say it can be done. we done have to ask the american taxpayer to fund a procedure that they find abhorrent, and the funding for women's health care has not been affected in the state of texas even though governor perry decoupled. >> will the gentlemen yield in there's no federal funding that can be used to perform abortion, that's the law. but decoupling -- >> we have been through this before. you know the money's fundable, can be used for anything in the organization. so i think actually, for the people of texas, governor perry has set us on a good path and this provides flexibility for other governors to do the same.
so mr. chairman, i'm grateful to our witnesses, grateful for the presentation today. i thank you for having the hearing. i yield back my time. >> thank you, gentlemen, very much from louisville, texas. the gentlemen from florida. do you seek time? >> yes. >> the gentleman's recognized. >> in the movie "frozen" which i've had the good fortune of seeing several times with my grandchildren, both grant daughters, the character elsa sings a song, i wish i knew all of the words -- >> excuse me, judge hastings. is your microphone on? they're saying they cannot hear you. >> i'm saying that in the movie "frozen," the character sings a song that says "let it go" and "let it go" is what the republicans need to do, not just with this particular measure but
there seems to be this obsession that i've witnessed now for 22 years of involvement with what a woman's right to choose is. like mr. mcgovern i associate myself with his remarks. the dramatic thrust seems always to go toward poor women. and that by at least my reasoning allows rich women that have abortions don't have this problem and if we were to just listen to people, i guess we figure that rich women don't have abortions. i think i told a story when i was a child, when a wealthy women got pregnant, it was they would go to europe on vacation
for a period of time. well, my question, i guess, to representative blackburn, i have great respect for her legislative skills and passion on this issue it rivals mine on the opposite side, and i appreciate that, but in some counties, miss blackburn, planned parenthooder is the only place for safety net recipients to receive family planning care. and so where do you recommend that they seek treatment if the provider has been expelled from the state's medicaid program? i heard you earlier say that they would go into the system but there's some counties that don't have community health facilities. >> one of the things that we have found, mr. hastings, is that you have over 13,000 community health and federally
qualified health centers in the country and then with planned parenthood you have a much smaller number of smaflts. the community health outreach outnumbers the planned parenthood availability tremendously. one of the things that we have seen also is planned parenthood has curtailed and outsourced many resources, is that your faith-based clinics, your fqhcs, community health systems are the ones that have been picking up the slack on those. >> but you -- you answered what you wanted to answer. you did not answer my question. when no facility exists, or other than planned parenthood, where would you have women -- >> in rural and underserved areas, i am not aware of there being any county in this country where there is only -- >> are you aware of counties where there is no community
health center it. >> i'm aware there are community health departments and federally qualified health centers and services are available through those. they're more readily available than they are through the planned parenthood centers. we have 55 planned parenthood affiliates around the country. some of them have as many as 20 different clinics. >> i want to claim my time for a moment. i agree community facilities if you look at the overall number outnumber the number -- >> yes, and the access is greater. >> you still are not getting to the root of my problem. >> i want to make the point, this bill does not specifically mention planned parenthood. so there are counties and there are community health centers that do with their own money or private insurance money, whatever, provide abortion services. so this is legislation that could also take those providers out of the system.
this deals with any one -- the state -- for example, cook county, if the legislature decided that cook county health systems, and that's clinics and it's also the hospital, could not be a medicaid recipient because with nonfederal money for poor women, it does provide the whole range of services, including abortion services. the state legislature, i guess, posing as doctors, you know, would decide that this health service should not be available. and that would be that. >> it would seem that the legislation it itself is incredibly far reaching and would essentially allow a state to exclude any provider or entity that has provided an abortion or any entity or provider that has had any sort of association or involvement
with abortion. listen to the language, and i ask unanimous consent to include a letter over the signature of mark defrancisco. >> without october, it will be entered into the record. >> who is the president of the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists. he says, on behalf of the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists, representing 57,000 positions and partners in women's health, i urge you to vote no on the women's public health and safety act. this intentionally vague bill should not be enacted into law. in falling far short of any standard for sound federal health legislation and policy it would serve only to scare providers away from providing comprehensive compassionate care
to women and leave women without the care they need. america needs more obgyns participating in medicaid program, in the medicaid program. this bill would do the opposite. when it comes to the house floor, i urge you to vote no. don't be fooled by the title of this bill. this legislation is nothing more than the latest in a string of attacks against women's health. i find it strange that where current law 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 in full disagreement with foreman waiving the six committee rule for energy and commerce to form some committee to go on yet another unnecessary probe into not only an organization, but just to give vent to the feelings of some. i don't want a special committee to preserve our providered.
i don't need a special committee to preserve what is the law of the land. ultimately, what you all seek to do, and it is that you continueo down this path is to set the stage ultimately for the overturning of roe v. wade and that's basically not this little bitty provision here. this is just one of many over 22 years leading in that direction. and i strongly urge that because some people have a view that is different than mine or 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 of the anti talk about obamacare where people were talking about you will 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 providers that are 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'll yield back. >> ventleman yields back his time. any other republicans seek time? i see none. i would -- does the gentleman from colorado seek time? >> yes. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. 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 defund the community health clinics which last week, if i recall, many of the republicans were arguing how don't worry about planned parenthood, the community health clinics will somehow serve all the women. now they're doing a bill that seems to defund -- the community health clinics rely on -- my understanding is these two would cut off access for poor women to health care? >> well, it could, if those clinics, which we have in cook county and some other places in the state of illinois, also were to dare to participate -- that's the word. so i'm not sure exactly what that means, in abortion
services. they could be cut off just as easily as a planned parenthood clinic could be cut off and defunded. and understand that there are many, many poor women for whom these clinics are the lifeline. that's what we're talking about. we talk about medicaid, you have to meet fairly strict income and asset requirements in order to get on the program. and they rely on these medicaid providers. and any one of them could be gone. >> what might that word participate mean? would that might mean if a doctor says your pregnancy could be dangerous to your health and you might need to look at alternatives if it's a nonviable fetus, could all those things be considered participating? >> i'm certainly confused on what that could mean. >> ms. blackburn, if a doctor
found that a pregnancy could be life threatening for the mother, if they were to inform her of that, would that be participating and, therefore, render the clinic of a potential loss of finisheding? >> i'd direct you to page two of the bill line three and reading through the end of the bill where you will see that flexibility is given there. and again, as i have said previously, this is about flexibility for the state. we have states that have sought to owned their contracts, their medicaid contracts. they've been blocked from doing that by cms. they are seeking help from us. this is a way to make that happen. we have four states that currently are in litigation. >> one moment please. which part of the bill. i take it your amendment or the bill you're referring to? >> the amendment. >> and which lines? >> page two, line three and
reading to the end. >> exception, okay. in fact, what you will see is that this allows a state to choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its medicaid program. whether it's institutions, agencies, entities. this is something that states have said to us, y we'd like to have this flexibility and it gives the state a maximum flexibility so they can come in and set these programs, work with these providers. in texas, dr. burgess gave us a great example of when they did the decoupling in texas. we know it worked and that access to care increases when you allow the states that flexibility. and the stats that come from texas certainly are proof of that. you can look at some of the faith-based and community clinics that have provided necessary outreach. and the way their numbers have --
>> there's nothing to stop any of these clinics from doing outreach now. this refers to potential loss of funding for clinics that have a series of health services that you disagree with. the exception that you pointed to is only for a life endangering physical condition, not for a health endangering physical condition, and it would require a very high burden on an imminent danger of death unless an abortion is performed. often when a doctor is working with a patient, one of the reasons this is not a good area for government to get involved with is it's a lot more nuance in that. the doctor might alert the woman there are high risks with a particular pregnancy or that the pregnancy could have severe health implications. it may or may not reach this standard of immediately life
endangering physical condition. there's a lot broader set of circumstances which are custom ear customarily to make sure that the parent -- the mother is awear of the impact on her health. i really see these bills from last week and this week is a double wammy. one targeting planned parenthood specifically. the second one threatening to undercut the very system of community health clinics last week which were touted as potential alternatives to planned parenthood for women, insufficient as they are with not enough locations to serve nearly the number of women that are currently served by planned parenthood. these two bills are currently the wrong direction and we'll also be talking about another select committee or special committee shortly. agon again, my view is the only committee of jurisdiction on these matters is a woman, her doctor and god and any other
legislative body simply doesn't have jurisdiction. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. seeing no time being requested by any other member, i want to thank both of you for taking time to be with us as we spoke up front. this is an important and sensitive issue, and i appreciate both of our witnesses appropriately portending their views with respect to each other and this committee. i want to thank both of you for your time. if you'll please make sure you say anything that you came in writing with. this is the women's health and safety act and the chair will be in receipt of a motion for the gentlewoman, the vice chairman of the committee mrs. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move the committee grant hr-3595, the woman's health and safety act a closed rule. it provides one hour debate
equally dividing control of the chair and ranking minority member for their respective desing inys. all points of order. the rule provides the amendment printed in the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered read. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. finally, section two of the rule waives clause 68 of rule 13 requiring a two-thirds vote to consider rule on the same day as it is reported from the rules committee. against any resolution reported from the rules committee through the legislative day of october 1, 2015. >> you heard the motion from the gentle woman from north carolina as well as what i believe is a straightforward explanation of the rules. amendment or discussion to that? >> yes, mr. chair. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment to the rule.
hr-3495 is yet another bill that has failed to go through regular order. there have 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 amendments to improve this bill. even worse, today's closed rules self-executes a hand-picked republican amendment denying members the opportunity to vote on it and completely shuts down the amendment process for the other 434 members. and i would like to put on the record the statement about what happened in other places where they tried to shut down the planned parenthood providers. in indiana, it led to an hiv epidemic. we all know about that. in texas, it led to tens of thousands of women not getting care. and in tennessee it's led to a 1400% drop in services. is it too much to ask that we
follow regular order and allow the house to work its will on a measure of such importance. mr. chairman, i move the committee grant hr-3495 and open rules so all members, both sides of the house, have an opportunity to offer amendments on the floor as we were elected to do. >> you've heard amendment and the discussion, further discussion by any member of the committee? seeing none the vote will be on. those opposed no? the gentlewoman asked for a role call. >> ms. fox? >> no. >> mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> mr. burgess? >> no. >> mr. stiver? >> no. >> mr. collins? >> no. >> mr. burn? >> no. >> mr. newhouse? >> no. >> ms. slaughter? >> yes. >> mr. mcgovern? >> aye. >> mr. hastings? >> aye. >> mr. chairman? >> no.
>> what's the total? >> four yeaayes, nine nays. the gentleman from colorado? >> i have a very special guest tonight. my sister is here. i wanted to welcome her to the rules committee. >> that's awesome. >> so we've had your dad. we've had your son. >> it's a big month for family. >> big month for family. >> it's a big month for family, mr. majority leader -- i mean mr. chairman. >> this is awesome and we're delight audio. >> currying a little favor over there. >> i know how that works. where is she from? >> she's from boulder, colorado. >> boulder, colorado. great. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> no further amendments or discussions? the vote will be on the motion from the gentlewoman. aye? >> aye. >> those opposed no.
>> no. >> roll call vote? >> ms. fox? >> aye. >> mr. cole? >> aye. >> mr. woodall? >> aye. >> mr. burgess? >> aye. >> mr. stivers? >> aye. >> mr. collins? >> aye. >> mr. burns? >> aye. >> mr. newhouse? >> aye. >> ms. slaughter? >> no. >> mr. mcgovern? >> no. >> mr. hastings? >> no. >> mr. polis? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. >> nine yeas, four nays. >> the gentle woman from north carolina, mrs. fox, will be handling this for republicans. >> and mr. hastings for democrats. >> and judge hastings for democrats. i'd like to, if 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 would want members to know, put us on notice. but our next scheduled meeting is for wednesday at 3:00. knowing that if the senate gets their work done, we'd come in as quickly as possible. i'll deal with hopefully this -- >> it is probably because of the timing, because of the timing, i'd anticipate that. but i know miles and hugh will be in contact. i'll do my very best to get with you. >> can't wait to see what's in it. >> i know you will. me, too. thank you very much. this now finishes the committee work for the day. thank you very much.
>> we'll hear more about planned parenthood tomorrow when the organization's presidenty is se cecile richards comes before the committee. that hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. eastern. we have live coverage here on c-span3. tonight on the communicators, we'll talk with the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers or ican about how the internet is governed. >> governments today has an advisory role in ican. they do not directly make
policy. they cannot have a seat on our board of directors. this is very much, in fact, a triumph of showing how the private sector led institution that has the government as an important advisory body, but that has a broader base of decision-making that is private sector led, including input from the technical community and civil society and the academics, et cetera. but that advice that informs the policy and the board activities are anchored in the fact that governments are continuing to play an advisory role to what we do. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "the communicators" on c-span2. the data transparency coalition hosted an event that
brought together leaders from the public and private sectors. part of the event included a discussion with entrepreneurs talking about challenges with access to data and efforts to streamline the process when working with federal government. this is about 30 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. for those of you who have not been outside in the last few hours, when you get outside you'll find we're at the epicenter of entrepreneurship. just about on every corner and at the top and bottom of the metro center escalator, there is a vendor with a pope francis t-shirt. so that's entrepreneurship. what we're finding is that the pope's picture is open data. it ties together here. we have a stimulating panel for you today on entrepreneurship in the world of open data.
hudson designed this to what he called it to be a lightning session and he told me what that means is it needs to go fast. and so it will. we have really distinguished panel. three are in the open data market every day as for-profit companies. and one is -- laura is from the premier research organization in this area. so we're going to really get some good insights on this. format will be each of us will introduce ourselves quickly and then laura will give a presentation with some slides, a big data map and then some q&a that i have prepared. we'll all be around after the session if you want to have any follow-up sessions. i'll start the intros. blue venture investors, d.c. area angel group investing primarily in early stage technology companies. many of our companies have federal and enterprise
technology, software, cybersecurity, media data. we also have a number that are 32b format and many have a federal government interface. in particular streaming software founded by adam roth. here is one of our speakers. we've invested $24 million in 27 companies in five years. we've had four exits. so far things are going well. we're always looking for new ideas. you can find more about us at our website, blue venture investors.com and blue is spelled b-l-u, without the "e." let me go through the panel. each will introduce themselves and then we'll start with laura and the questions. >> adam roth with streamlink software. we are based in cleveland, ohio.
we have a solution that helps both recipients and distributors of grant money, track, manage and move data to better organize, to better understand to better create accountability around financial and performance outcomes for grants. and can do that in a way that drives standardization through what we like to think of it as the entire grant supply chain from the federal government to the state to the local government to the non-profits. >> my name is -- perfect. my name is bob goldman. i work at graphic. we're a data visualization and aggregation company. our goal is really to help deliver knowledge to both consumers and businesses whenever and wherever they need it most. so we have a team of researchers that's focused on aggregating every piece of data we can get our hands on, both publicly
available government databases and proprietary databases. two main applications of our technology and platform. one is that we build consumer facing vertical search websites which target -- each target different industries. a website that focuses on consumer education, health care, real estate, to name a few. and the other side of our business, which is the b2b side of the business is we take all that underlying data and repackage it into interactive embeddable data visualizations that website develop irs and journalists can use to enhance their content online. for a writer if the huffington post is doing a piece on obama's approval ratings, we can provide them with a visualization that shows those statistics. >> my name is laura manley. i'm the co-founder of partnerships. we're a non-profit in washington, d.c.
our mission is to work with governments, businesses and non-profits to develop smarter open data strategies focusing on users. >> good morning, everybody. my name is alex worth. i'm one of the co-founders of quorum. an online forum that helps them gain new insights into the u.s. congress and state legislatures from data. what we've done is built the most comprehensive database including all the bills, votes, amendments, tweets, floor statements, census bureau data. your colleague letters to members of congress and individual state legislators. and built a quantitative analytic layer on top of that. who members work with, what issues they're active on and statistics about the amount of bills they are able to move out of committee and get enacted. and the last part is we built a series of productivity and collaboration tools around that data to help legislative professionals with some of the
tasks they do on a daily basis. some of our clients include fortune 500 companies like general motors and toyota. the united nations foundation and members of congress, their staff and government relations firms here in d.c. >> thank you, team. laura, you want to start with your presentation on the impact map? >> hopefully you can see the screen. okay. wonderful. i'm going to tell you a little bit about what we've seen based on one of our major initiatives called the open data impact map. over the past few years there's been discussion about the open impact data. mckenssie and company released a study claiming open data could generate 3 to $5 trillion annually around the world.
the eu has stated that open data could be a new gold mine. so how do companies actually unlock this value? for many businesses, we think of open data in terms of the creative principle. 10% to 20% of the date has 80% to 90% of the high value for users. how do we find that 10% to 20% of high value data for businesses? at our center we call it demand driven open data by understanding the unique needs of data users, entrepreneurs, established businesses, research centers, non-profits we can change priorities and policies to focus on the types of data that have a higher return on investment. so last year, we wanted to have a better understanding of the larger picture of demand for open data. we developed the open data impact map, which is the first searchable database of organizations using open data from around the world. currently it has over 1100
examples from 85 countries and 700 of those are businesses. so itted cls examples from surveys, dozens of studies and research by our team. i think we have a demo. great. if you zoom into the d.c. area, we can fish through different organizations using open data in the region. is it playing? okay. great. all right. so we'll zoom down into d.c. can we play it? okay. well, if you go on to www.opendataenterprise.org/map you can walk through the visualization. you can zoom into a particular region of the country and learn more about different companies that are using open data. you can also go over to the left
and filter by region of the country or region of the world, industry type, data used or the way they're actually using it through various applications. you can also look at the information and tabular view and download all of it as a csc or file. if your company isn't on here you can submit a survey by going to open data enterprise.org/maps/survey. what are we seeing from this impact map so far? can we go to the next slide, please? visualization. so right now it's going to open up a company called map ox. you can learn what the company does and what data they are using and how they are applying it. if you want to add information about this company you can click the edit button and you get a verification button once we've vetted it. filter by region by country.
by organization type. industry category. data type that they're using or the way they're applying the data. if we filter by for-profit companies using demographics and social data to develop a new product or service, you can see how the map changes. and then you can look at the statistics tab to see how that also is reflected. and then if you go all the way over to the tab, you can look at the information in that form and sort it by the individual columns. again, you can download all of this information as open data. or click here on the bottom and take the survey and tell us more about how your company is using open data and how it operates.
okay. all right. so what are we seeing? what are some of the preliminary findings? first that all sectors of the economy are represented. we're seeing companies in education, health care, construction, you name it. we're also seeing companies of all different sizes. so 50% of the companies in the open data impact map are smes with 2200 or less employees. and 20% of the companies have over 1,000 employees. 40% of the companies were founded in the last five years. some of the most widely used data is demographics, financial health, geospacial, weather. let's catch up with the slides. and one of the great things about a lot of the companies using open data is there seems to be a large social good or social mission component to what they're doing.
okay. so generally speaking we classified private sector open data use in two major ways. the first is new businesses, products or services so that's data management and service companies and the second is business optimization. improving your current business or established business. so within the category of new businesses, products or service there's two major themes. the first are -- okay. here we go. the first data management companies were data or data platform is the final product. so these companies aggregate clean and standardize various types of data. an example would be a data management analytics or platform company. the next is information-based companies where information is the final product. these companies take open data analyze and visualize it to transform it into information for consumers. a company like graphics who creates rich visualizations for
their customers. the second and larger category of private sector use of open data is business optimization. so market intelligence. that's where open data can help companies match supply and demand more accurately or find and assess new markets by examining demographics or business registry data. the next is customer service. open data can help identify micro segments for targeted marketing. a retail store could use census data to customize store layout for different neighborhoods. open data can help change processes where data shows performance or inventory could be tightened. it's estimated that if open data was widely adopted across the fresh food market it could save $500 million a year in reduced waste from spoilage. and lastly, open data can be used as an additional resource to supplement current proprietary data or replace data previously paid for.
over the next coming months and years we're continuing to expand the open data impact map in our research to better understand the unique needs of businesses to find that high value data. i'll turn it back over to hal. >> thanks, laura. could you just repeat if people want to learn more or enter data. what's the link? >> it's www.opendataenterprise.org/map. >> let's get on with the questions. first question and we're going to start with bob is -- and we're going to have the same question for all three. how do you look at business opportunities in government data in particular, open data, as an opportunity to generate new or enhance existing business position? >> one of the coolest things that i think about open government data specifically, freely available open government data is that it really fosters an increase in the rate of
innovation and the registry in which that data is available. as we've heard, the number of companies using public data, proprietary data to make consumer lives better, that's growing really quickly. and if they can enter markets without having to incur a big up front data cost it makes it a lot more feasible. if we look at industries where there is an abundance of government data. if we look at health care, education, weather, geospacial. we see a huge number of companies doing really interesting things in those markets. and what that ultimately translates into is that it increases competition and it improves products and pricing for consumers. there are other industries where that data is not available. if you look at the real estate industry, there's no good national level data that's made
publicly available. i mean a national level data set that has information on each address, what structure is on that address. is it a commercial or residential property? how big is the lot? what's the square footage of the building? when was it last sold? that's all collected at the county level and no one in the government has aggregated it at the national level. we've seen a handful of companies that have done that, but the -- and they license that data, but the cost of that data is prohibitively expensive for most start-up companies to enter that market and start doing new and interesting things which is why we only see a few very large players in the real estate market. same can be said about the company research space. there's no national level data set that has information on all the 30 million companies in the u.s. that are not public. the s.e.c. has great data on
public companies but not private companies. that's another great industry which is an example. at graphic we draw on hundreds if not thousands of data sets to see new product development. these data sets allow us to quickly enter a new market and see if we're able to be successful there. if so we can invest more in that. but if we're not, it's not a huge cost to us. the more we can make government data available in industries that matter to consumers, the more innovation we'll see in the private sector and the better that will ultimately be for consumers. >> and alex? >> certainly. i think that was an excellent point about innovation and one we've seen first hand. 90% of the data we use at quorum is all public data. the issue that we often find is it's released in a really difficult to use form. the great example of this comes from where we got the original
inspuration for quorum. i was doing advocacy work on capitol hill and wanted to know who a member of congress worked with most frequently. you'd think this would be an easy question to answer with a computer. but the library of congress doesn't have an api to access all the data about legislation and what members are doing in their activity. they publish it and put it out on congress.com. in order to answer the question we wanted to, we had to go through and scrape all the library of congress and get the data before we can run the algorithms to see who the member worked with most frequently. all the work you are doing on a daily basis is so um portent because it facilitates that. it's all there and then can start to think of, what can we do on top of this versus how do we get it in the first place? we spent a tremendous amount of time on how do we get it in the first place and not as much time as we'd like about what cool
things can we do on top of that data. anything that all of you can do to help make it easier for us to get that data in a more easy to access form where it's standardized is what promotes innovation in the first place. >> adam? >> so i started streaming software after a career in non-profit organizations. and i had a challenge. i got lots of money from the federal government, form of headstart, in the form of department of labor branch and that was a great thing because the only people that -- the only group that pays for those services was the federal government. it also created immense pain. entrepreneurs in general solve the problem, they have a pain and try to solve a pain. and what i think open data allows for is it allows for two things. it allows for the creation of the possible, meaning we can do
things better, faster. we should be able to do things more efficiently and manage things better because we have more access to data. we have more information. it's like we can never get away from our cell phones today because you're always accessible. more accessible data and information, things are more possible. the other thing it does is it identifies and creates and shows more problems. it allows you to identify more areas where there could be value created by understanding the data better. and i think in our business, we looked at the first. we looked at the possible and said with open data there's more ways, things are more possible to do. there's better ways to do with business processes that are being done today if we build a platform to your example. we build a platform that allows us to better manage and move data than we've enhanced the possible. and open data was the driver of that enhancement.
and with that comes how we look at our company today which is almost like a data transportation company. we're like the amtrak of grant data. we try to move that data through that chain, understanding that everybody has to get on the same train. so that data being standardized, being valuable, being able to be integrated from a variety of different inputs creates more value. but that possible of moving that data, driving that data, having the pressure on folks to get better access to that data is only possible if open data as a fundamental process and as a culture exists. and that's what's driving our business and has opened up many new channels for what we're trying to accomplish. >> thank you, great panel. you have heard that from our panel that the push for open data and transparent data is having an impact.
that companies and organizations in very creative ways are getting it, providing access to it and providing their customers access to it so it can be used by many across our great country. for those just -- for those who haven't been to the sponsor's room, i recommend that you go there and look at all their tables and what they're doing in the area of transparency and open data. a lot of eye-opening, very creative things are being found. thank you. >> we've got time for questions. one or two. >> i'm with common cause maryland. and i wanted to ask a question about the common problems you have obtaining data from government. you mentioned standardized formats and difficult -- what
other issues do you have? government being willing to give up data or what are typical issues dealing with government and open data? >> so two big things that we run into. one is making sure there's good documentation. a lot of times we'll see folks release data but then won't release any additional information around it. it makes it really difficult to figure out what's going on and what particular section does it relate to. the s.e.c. has this problem, eye number of websites have this problem. the census bureau had this problem. and the other issue is a mind-set of thinking on behalf of government agencies, continual lateral thinking droos a number of years. one of the problems we face is people often change the input mechanisms or standards they're using and we can't compare data over time. it becomes easy to access at one time but we can't tell you the difference between this year and 2012. we've had to do by hand a number of times is hand match categories either with
congressional issue a tag with specific statistics to do those longer term comparisons that provide the value that show you how thus changed over time to gain more insight. those are two really big things that would off the bat be incredibly helpful to folks like us trying to provide interesting insights from that data. >> from my perspective, too, and i come at it again a little more from the platform side and less about getting the actual data but more about how do you manage it, i think there's a cultural shift that has to happen internally as well. and that's a challenge. traditional technology models for departments, for the federal government are very orgizational departmentmental specific. we talk about trying to understand and bring information today and consolidate. treasury is doing a great deal of work on this as well trying to figure out how do you move the data between systems but how do you move the data not just
between those systems but systems outside of the federal government. that becomes a cultural shift that has to happen. it's going to take a lot of buy-in to make that work but that will allow for, i think, a much greater movementç of information and data across the government which will make it more valuable for everyone. >> actually one more thing to add there on the retrieval side of things. there's two big things that prevent us from fully automating a lot of the data work we do. one is that even if the data is available online, oftentimes you need to submit some sort of form or some sort of limit on how many rows of data can be downloaded at once which is a big pain and requires a human to go do it. the second is if it's not online, we need to -- sometimes dig tighting it isn't as good as putting it online. some will digitize it and put it on a disc. then you need a human to put that disc in a cd drive which
most computers don't have anymore to make use of it. there needs to be a lot of people that are manually doing this work to make it usable. >> one more question? everybody is hungry and wants lunch? >> in that case, that's the first time that's ever happened. let's have mike starr come up and close us out. thank you. earlier today, president obama addressed the united nations general assembly. also remarks from russian president vladimir putin and others. tonight after the house gavels out on our companion network c-span. here's a vcq+iew of president obama's speech. >> for 50 years the united states pursued a cuba policy that failed to improve the lives
of the cuban people. we changed that. we continue to have differences with the cuban government. we will continue to stand up for human rights, but we addressed these issues through diplomatic relations and increased commerce and people to people ties. and these contacts yield progress, i'm confident that our congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore. >> just a short portion of president obama's address to the united nations general assembly. you can watch his speech followed by remarks from russian president put in and other worl leaders on c-span after the house gavels out.
all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates, town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we're taking your comment oz twitter, facebook and by phone and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. >> republican presidential candidate carly fiorina recently made a campaign stop in south carolina. while there she gave remarks at the greenville republican women's club and took questions from the audience. this is just under an hour. >> thank you very much. it's wonderful to be with you, and thank you for the warm introductions and the warm escort. and i'm so honored to be sitting between betty and vivian.
or as you like to say here, ms. betty and ms. vivian. and i'm happy to be known as ms. carly. and i think you all are going to eat lunch while i speak so please don't be afraid to eat while i talk. i'll talk for hopefully not too long and then take as many of your questions as you have. you know, yesterday, or maybe it was the day before, donald trump announced he was no longer going to be appearing on fox news. and i guess he, it turns out, apparently, he was particularly upset by something that a commentator said on fox news. now, it's true that not everything reported in the media is really accurate. shocking. but in this particular case, i read a story that said that mr. trump decided he wasn't going to
appear on fox news anymore because a commentator said that i had managed, and i believe i'm quoting here, to snip off his with precision during the debate. now you know, if i quit talking to all the people who attack me, i would have crawled under a rock long ago. that's part of it, you know? it's part of what it takes to be in the arena. you have to be able to take criticism. you have to be able to stand up to a fight. in fact, since the last debate, i've been engaged in a couple of fights. and one of them is with the liberal media and planned parenthood who continue to say that i'm lying about what's going on in planned parenthood clinics. it's interesting.
i was at a pregnancy center earlier today. a wonderful center where women who are facing a difficult choice get to learn something about all of their options. and they are encouraged to have the courage to bring their children into the world. i was never able to have children of my own, so i know in a special way how precious a gift life is. and so here we are with planned parenthood saying, no, no, no, i'm wrong about the videos. but no one is denying that babies are being butchered in order to sell their body parts by planned parenthood. i bring this up because part of running for president, part of leading is to be able to survive criticism in an onslaught of attack. when i met betty post she said to me, carly, you must have ice water in your veins. no, i don't. it's just i know how important
this is. i know how important this is. so i want to talk a little bit about what i think is at stake. i think the possibilities of this nation are at stake. i think the future of this nation is at stake. i think the defense of this nation is at stake. and i think the character of this nation is at stake. you can applaud. it's all right. [ applause ] let me start with the character of this nation. it doesn't matter whether you're pro-choice or pro-life. i'm pro-life. i know many women don't agree with me. but it doesn't matter if you are pro-choice or pro-life. americans do not butcher babies to sell their body parts. [ applause ]
and how disappointing, after working hard to return an historic republican majority to the house, i worked hard on that and a bunch of you worked hard on that. after returning a republican majority in the house, how disappointing that here we are at the end of september, and still the pain capable unborn child protection act has not been passed. this isn't just good policy. it's good politics. the majority of women, the majority of young people, the majority of americans now agree that abortion for any reason at all after five months is wrong. so why don't we pass this bill? but we haven't. that's about the character of our nation. here's another thing that's about the character of our nation. remember 18 months ago when the scandal of wait times at the
arizona v.a. burst into the public eye? we learned that veterans were dying waiting for appointments. and the pressure was so intense on the political class, on politicians in washington that they got together and managed to pass in three short weeks a bipartisan bill which the president signed without a peep that said you could fire 400 senior executives at the v.a. if things didn't get better at the v.a. about a month ago, we learned that over 300,000 veterans had died in the last year waiting for care. you don't hear a peep out of washington. one person has been fired from the v.a. when we do not care for those who have served us, this, too, is about the character of our
nation. [ applause ] when we no longer can speak the truth about the evils around the world and the evils here at home, when we call acts of terrorism workplace violence, when we do not stand up and acknowledge that christians are being persecuted, crucified and driven from their homelands around the world, this, too, is about the character of our nation. this election -- [ applause ] this election is also about the defense of our nation. the defense here at home and the defense of our nation around the world. i have said many times that the world is a dangerous and a tragic place when the united states of america is not leading. and look at any statistic, terrorism is on the rise, not on
the -- our hearts are broken when we see the syrian refugee crisis, and yet there are probably 43 million people, according to the u.n., on the move every year now being driven from their homes by violence. the world is a tragic place, and we are not leading. human trafficking is on the rise. sexual slavery is an epidemic around the world. we have enemies like isis that use rape, sexual slavery as a tool, as a weapon to subdue populations, not to mention crucifixions and beheadings and all the rest. the world is a dangerous and tragic place when we are not leading. and here at home, when we have officers, police officers assassinated, merely because they wear the uniform and try and keep our communities safe and our president is silent,
that is about defense of this nation as well. [ applause ] the world is a very dangerous and a very tragic place when we are not leading, and so i will make clear to the world on day one in the oval office that the united states of america will lead once again. we will stand with our allies and confront our adversaries. [ applause ] and i will do that by making two phone calls. one to my very good friend bebe netanyahu to reassure him that we'll stand with the state of israel always. and the second phone call will be made to the supreme leader of iran. he might not take my phone call. i am not his cup of tea, i believe, but he will get my
message. and the message is this -- new deal. i don't care what deal you signed with the president of the united states, new deal. the deal is this. unless you open every military and nuclear facility to real, any time, anywhere inspections by our people, not yours, we, the united states of america, will make it as difficult as possible for you to move money. we must stop the money flow because the iranians are using the money -- [ applause ] the iranians are using the money to build their military capabilities, to build their nuclear capabilities, to fund their proxies who sow conflict throughout the middle east. and we know from the supreme leader himself that he has no intention -- no intention at all of following this deal. those two phone calls are critically important, but they also send a message to every ally we have and every adversary we have that the united states
of america is back in the leadership business. [ applause ] you know how important our military capability is. south carolina is the home to so many of our men and women in uniform and so many of our veterans, as well. and so you know, as i do, that we must, the next president of the united states, like ronald reagan many years ago, must rebuild the military capable il of this nation. and that means, literally, and we know what this means. we need to 50 army brigades, 36 marine battalions, 300 and 350 naval battleships, and we need to reinvest in all three legs of the nuclear triad. we need as well to care for our veterans, and we also need to reform the pentagon and all the bureaucracy that sits in washington, d.c. [ applause ]
this election is about the character of our nation. this election is about the defense of our nation. abroad and here at home. and so, so, yes, finally, we have to secure the border because a nation that cannot secure its border cannot protect its sovereignty. how long have we been talking about immigration with all due respect to mr. trump? he did not bring this up. we talked about it in 2012, 2008, 2004. we have been talking about this for 25 years. san francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989. we now have 300 of them. we have been talking about an insecure border for 25 years. we have never secured the border. we must. it's not rocket science. it takes what? it takes money. manpower. technology and mostly apparently, political will power and leadership to actually get it done.
you know, we worked hard for that republican majority. i've encouraged the leadership of the house and senate. why don't you pass a boarder security bill? as president obama is he's going to veto it. but no, this nation is about our character. this nation is about the defense of our security. this nation is also about the possibilities in this country. when i was a little girl, my mother on a sunday morning, said to me, what you are is god's gift to you. what you make of yourself is your gift to god. and those words landed in my life. because i didn't feel gifted. as a young girl or a young woman. i have traveled and lived and worked all over the world. i've done business. charity, policy work.
and i have learned over and over again that everyone has god given gifts. that every life is filled with possibilities and potential. and so, it's worthying about, why is it that more things have been more possible for more people in more places here in this nation than anywhere else on earth? why has this nation had more possibiliti possibilities? i think it is because our founders new what my mother taught me and what i have learned. they knew everybody has god given gifts, everyone has potential, possibilities. so, they founded a nation on an idea, a visionary idea. the idea was that here, you have the right, they described it as a right. you have the right to find and use your god given gifts to
fulfill your potential and it is what they meant when they said the right to life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that's what they were talking about and they said and this was a radical notion at the time, they said that right comes from god. and cannot be taken away by man or government. ladies and gentlemen, i am running for the presidency of the united states because i believe we have come to a pivotal point in our nation's history where the possibilities of too many americans, indeed, the emotional of this great nation, is being crushed by a government that has grown so big, so powerful, so costly, so complicated, so inept and so corrupt, and a professional political class that refuses to do anything about it. and i am not alone in this belief.
if you think i've said something just now that you've been thinking for a long time, consider this. 75% of our fellow citizens, 75% of our fellow citizens now believe the federal government is corrupt. gallup has been tracking this, gallup has been tracking this for decades. 82% of our fellow citizens now believe we have a professional, political class, that cares more about the protection of its own power, possession and privilege than on getting anything done. so, what does that mean? that means that democrats, republicans, independents, young, old, men, women, people of every ethnicity and means, it means the vast majority of americans are losing faith in
their government and in their political process. perhaps that is why so few americans vote now. i've talked to a lot of women out there. who stopped voting and when i ask them why, it's not that they don't care. it's that they think they don't count. that it won't make any difference. ours was intended to be a citizen government. of, by and for the people and in a citizen government, when citizens lose faith in their government and in their political process, that, laid ladies and gentlemen, is a pivotal time in a nation's history. and why do such huge numbers of americans feel this way? because it's obvious. pick a festering problem that you hoped would be resolved by now. pick your problem. pick your cause. that you've worked hard for.
is it border security? is it tax reform? is it the veterans administration? is it the department of education? is it debts and deficits? is it reform of social security? you pick an issue that we talk about election after election after election and what happens? nothing. we talk and talk in politics, but we never get it done. this reminds me of the difference between managers and leaders. you know what managers are? managers are people who do the best they can within an existing system. they don't challenge the status quo. they accept the status quo. they operate within the status quo. and when you operate within the status quo and don't challenge the system, guess what? all you can really do is tinker around the edges of problems and all these vast special interests in washington, d.c., i mean, when you have big, powerful,
complicated, inept, corruption government, what happens? you have tons of people who are working really hard to make sure the status quo never gets challenged. because people benefit from the status quo. the status quo always has huge power because people benefit from it. it is always hard. to challenge the status quo. and yet, that is what leaders do. leaders challenge the status quo. in order to solve problems and produce results. it reminds me of something a great hero of mine once said. margaret thatcher once addressed her people, her citizens. to a point in her nation's history and she said, i am not content to manage the decline of a great nation.
you know what, ladies and gentlemen? i think we have been managing the decline of this great nation for quite long enough, thank you very much. i am not content. i am not content either, but i am prepared with your votes, with your support, with your prayers, i am prepared to lead the resurgence of a great nation. this election is about our character. our defense and our security. it is about our possibility. in the future. it is about leadership. and citizenship. a leader challenges the status quo. but there's something else very important about leadership and i learned it long ago when i was a
young woman and i didn't really understand the lesson i was being taught at the time. it took me a lifetime to understand it. when i graduated from college, i with a degree in history and philosophy, i went back to work as a secretary, that's how i helped put myself through college. typing and filing. and i was hired by a little yes, for all of us secretaries and previous secretaries, yay. and i was hired by a little nine-person real estate firm to type and file and answer their phones and about six months into that job, two men who worked there came up to my desk and came up to me and said, you know, we've been watching you and we think you can do more than just type and file. do you want to know what we do? that was my introduction to business. but it was my introduction to leadership as well. those two men saw possibilities in me.
they saw potential in me and because they did, suddenly, i saw new possibilities in myself. for a long time after that, i used to think that leadership was about whoever had the big office. whoever had the big title, whoever had the perks, the parking space, but i have come know that leadership is not about your hitting, the size of your office, the size of your airport, helicopter, it's certainly not about the size of your ego. leadership is about service. and in fact, the highest calling out of leadership is to unlock potential in others. it is the core of leadership in every setting. and so, now, we need, i believe, someone who can win this job and someone who can do this job. to win this job is going to require a fearless fighter.
someone who is not going to shirk and hide under a rock and quit talking when it gets a little mean and people call you names. ladies, i will not falter. and this is a fight about many things. it's a fight about our possibilities, our future, our character. our security. it is also a fight to remind the american people why we are republicans. why we are republicans and why our values and principles work better. several months ago, i went on the view, the show, the view, because i think it's important to talk to people who don't yet know they agree with us and as we're on the show, we're having quite a good time and one of their hosts said to me, you know, i really like you. why are you a republican? you know, the way people can ask that question sometimes. and that's a really important
question. we have to be able to answer that to the american people, so here is what i said. because i know no one of us is any better than any other one of us. every one of us has god given gifts. every one of us has the capacity to live a life of dignity and purpose and meaning and i know our principles, our values, our policies work better to lift everyone up regardless of their circumstances. that is the argument we must have. we always need someone who can do this job because the job needs doing now. we cannot tinker around the edges of our problems. we actually, finally, have to start getting some important things done. so, we need a president in the oval office who understands how the economy works.
and who understands. that the job creation engine of this nation has always been and will always be the small business, the new business, the family owned business, the community based business and we are crushing them. and so, we crushed too many opportunities for too many people. our president must understand the world and who is in it and how it works. and having been all over the world for decades doing many thing, knowing as many world leaders on the stage today as i do, i know that it is vitally important that this country stand with our allies and confront our adversaries and i also know that only this nation can lead in this world because only we are an exceptional nation with the character to say we will never conquer territory, we will only liberate people.
our president needs to understand bureaucracies because it's only if you understand that you u know what it takes to cut it down to size and hold it accountable. our government has become a vast, bloated, inept bureaucr y bureaucracy. we must cut it down to size and hold it accountable. she must understand technology. technology's a great tool. it's also a weapon being used against us and no, mrs. clinton, you cannot wipe a server with a towel, which maybe is why, which maybe is why the fbi is apparently as of today, pooring over 30,000 e-mails about her yoga classes. and most importantly of all, we need a president in the oval office who understands what leadership is.
the highest calling. of the leader is to unlock potential in others. and now, i believe, i am prepared to be a president of the united states who will work with the citizens of this great and blessed nation to unlock the potential of every american. thank you so very much, ladies and gentlemen. thank you so much. i think we're going to hear a couple of rules for asking questions, so, please go ahead. >> she's very open to answering your questions, but we have a lot of media here today. they're not going to be able to pick up your questions.
if you do not have a microphone in front of you, so, we've got two people. raycene and lenor on this side. they're going to be handing mikes to the person with a question, so please raise your hand. they'll come to you. and at that time, be sure the mike is at your mouth so they can p pick up the questions. thank you. >> okay, so there's some back there. and now, there's one up here. yes, sir, go ahead. how about you dpo ahead while they're getting the mike. since you're brave enough to show up in a lunchroom full of ladies, we'll give you gentleman's privilege. >> thank you, it's a pleasure to be with all these lady, believe me. as you look around to select the members of your cabinet, and your security staff, what's a principle attributes you're going to be looking for? >> that's a very important question.
the principle attribute i'm going to be looking for is leadership. so, what does that mean, really? i want people in every position. who understand their job is to challenge the status quo. and produce real results. in other words, the job isn't a reward. the job isn't a perch. the job isn't an opportunity to go along to get along. the job is to lead to solve problems, to produce results and to challenge the status quo, because every single one of these departments have lots of status quo that needs to be challenged and people have to have the courage to know that they're going to you know, make some enemieenemies.
that's what you do when you lead, you make enemieenemies. second thing that's very important is that i need people with the courage to challenge me. all leaders do best when they are surrounded with people who are smart enough, experienced enough, brave enough, to say you know what? i don't think you're really thinking that through. i think you're wrong. i really think we need to have a good debate about this. i don't need a bunch of yes people. i need people who will stand up and challenge anyone, including me, when necessary, for the good of the nation. >> you talk about the political class and the, the inadequacies of actually ruling and actually getting something done. could you talk about your plans for the income tax debacle that we go through every april 15th? in fact, i couldn't do it in april 15th.
i just filed it yesterday. >> there you go. there you go. yes. how long have we been talking about tax reform? how long for how many years have we heard at the beginning of almost each congressional session, there's a bipartisan appetite for tax reform. and yet, what we have today, to your point, ma'am, is a 73,000 page tax code. now, you don't think about this and americans understand this in their bones. if something is so complicated that you can't understand it, you are getting taken advantage of. that's just the way it is. a 73,000 page tax code advantages whom? i'll tell you who it advantages. when you have something so complicated, so big, who is add advantaged? the big company.
i used to lead one. the big company that can hire loads of accountants and lawyers and lobbyists. the wealthy. the powerful. the well connected because only the big, the powerful, the wealthy and well connected have the resources to hire all the people to tell them what this means or perhaps even more likely, to take advantage of all that complexity and all those loopholes. so, we have to go from 73,000 pages to about three. why three? because three is about the limit of what somebody can understand. the rule needs to be you've got to understand it. you don't have to hire somebody to understand it. now, think about what happens when we take all that complexity out. first, the way you level the playing field between wealthy, the powerful, the well connected and the big and the small and the powerless, is simplicity. if it's the same for everybody, then you don't have an advantage because you're big an powerful.
everybody's on the same playing field, but what else happens when we go from 73,000, by the way, how do you get there? you have to lower every rate, close every loophole. has to be really simple. but what else happens? you don't need a lot of people at the irs, do you? i mean, you really don't. let me say one other thing. you know, there's some really nice words up here and they're all true. yes, i'm a conservative. yes, i'm an outsider. i try every day to be a leader. but there's one word missing here and it's critically important and it's a word that applies to every one of you as well and that word is citizen. ours was intended to be a citizen government. in order to go from a $73,000 page tax code to three, i must as president of the united states, rally the citizens of the united states. because citizens have to be prepared to help me put pressure
on the political class to actually move, so instead of talking about tax reform, we're really doing it. so let me tell you how i'm going to do that. first, let me ask you, how many of you still own a flip phone? okay. you must upgrade. you have 18 months to do so. let me tell you why. because technology is a tool that i'm going to use to harness, to channel, not just the frustration and anger of the american people, the common sense and the good judgment of the american people and once a week, i'm going to go into the oval office and i will ask my fellow citizens, please take out your smart phones. i'd like to ask you a series of questions, do you think it's a good idea we go from 73,000 page tax code down to three so that you can understand it, press 1 for yes, 2 for no.
this is technology that exists, ladies and gentlemen. how many americans do you suppose would vote? i think a whole heck of a lot. i think a lot of americans would vote for the question, do you think someone should held accountable when 300,000 veterans die without health care. press one for yes, two for no. do you think it's important we know where every single doll laugh or your money is being spent, that means we've got to go to some version of zero based version. one for yes, two for no. ours was intended to be a citizen government, citizens, we must take our government back. >> thank you. sure everybody in here totally appreciates you spending time and you're a phenomenal speaker. my name is tony clark with defenders for children organization.
i'm a local advocate here to fight against a strong battle we have out here. not locally only, but throughout the united states. 6 million children are being abused in the united states. what can we do to start changing these stats? billions of dollars being involved, being spent in this area. >> first, i'm sure that you know a lot about this subject. and one of the things that i have done all my career is ask people who know how to solve a problem, how to solve the problem. so, you have a lot of expertise and others do as well. but -- we need to stop the scourge of human trafficking. and we are actually and it's all related to sexual slavery and abuse. it's a big circle. we need to invest in treating drug addiction, which is an
epidemic. i lost a daughter to drug addiction. this is an epidemic. but drugs are ravaging families. they're ravaging communities. we have to lead a fight against drug addiction, mental illness and human trafficking and we're really not doing any of that. we have to do it globally, by the way, because human trafficking, sexual slavery, drug trade, it's all global now. i also think that when i talked about the character of our nation, i think it's so important you know, tone gets set at the top. it is really important. that we talk about the impact that a family can make. that an intact family can have. we need to talk about the value of each life. we need to remind people that
every life that is wasted, however it is wasted, makes our nation a poorer place. for all of us. and i will just say one other thing, we need criminal justice reform. because what we're doing today as a nation, by the way, we have the highest incarceration rates in the world. and yet, two-thirds of the people in our jails are not there for violent crimes, human trafficking, as they should be. they're there for some kind of drug related or mental illness related problem. they're nonviolent offenders. we're not helping ourselves and we're not helping them. we ought to be putting in prison the real bad guys, like the human traffickers.
and treating and caring for those who are harmed by the sourn scourges of mental illness or addiction or sexual slavery. >> can you take a question from up here in the balcony? hi, we're up here. >> yes, of course. >> would you take a question from here? >> yes, then i'll come to you. >> go ahead. >> carly, my wife and i enjoyed immensely voting for you when we lived in california and looking forward to that opportunity here in south carolina now, but it seems like the minority is ruling the government this the u.s. senate these days. do you have any ideas on the filibuster rule and what we ought to do about that? >> you know, i agree with you. a lot of us worked really hard to return a republican majority to the nat and it just seems like not a lot of things are happening here. i've made three very specific suggestions. i think that leaders produce
results and if leaders can't produce results, they need to step aside. there are three things that i think and i'll come to your filibuster question in a moment, there are three things i think the leadership ought to be doing now. pass the pain capable unborn child production act. pass it. pass the reigns act. the reigns act gifts, here's a thought, gives congress the authority to oversee a regulation so that it just doesn't get rolled out by a bunch of nameless faceless bureaucrats. do you mean how many rules we are ruled by rules now. it's not the rule of law anymore. it's the rule of rules. the epa, the mlrb, the fcc.
all of the hhs and obama care, all of these regulators, elected by no one. accountable to no one. passed on a purely partisan bases, are choking our economy. the reigns act would say congress, you're in charge f. i've said already that congress needs to pass a bipartisan, pass a border security bill. but to your point, for heaven's sakes, the democrats used the nuclear option, changed the filibuster rule in order to get through their judicial nominees and yet, republicans when faced with the most consequential deal, the deal with iran in the last 60 years, let it go by. if ever there was a time to play the game that the democrats have played with us, it was to stop this deal.
i am all for playing by the rules as long as the other side does. but i am also for saying let's keep things in perspective here. sometimes, the right thing has to be done. and sometimes, the rules have got to be changed to get the right thing done. >> yes, thank you for coming to south carolina. >> you're welcome. >> appreciate your being here. my question, i don't think i've ever heard your talk about gun rights. and what you believe is the purpose of the second amendment and what will you do if you become president to protect those rights. >> yeah. the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, period. and from tyranny of government, that's right. that's right. in each and every one of the cases where a tragedy occurred,
including here in south carolina, democrats immediately rush to the microphones to politicize a tragedy and talk about the need for gun control. yet of course what they do not tell you is in virtuallier case, the things they propose would have made no difference at all. south carolina actually as you know better than i do, south carolina has relatively stringent gun control laws. more than a lot of other states and of course, it turned out in the tragedy in charleston, that actually, what happened is somebody didn't quite do their job and someone who shouldn't have gotten a firearm got one, but never the less, the democrats said, never mind, we need to enact new laws. here's what i say. i say we need to actually enforce the laws we have.
which we do not do. that is why you see in state after state after state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, also having the highest gun crime rates in the nation. chicago would be an example. but the second thing i say is we must invest more. in the treatment of mental illness. because in every single one of these cases, what you have at the core is someone who is deeply troubled. and in many cases, you have situations where people around them knew something was wrong. and yet, nobody said anything. or they couldn't say anything because of hippa rules. it's very hard, i know this from personal experience, watching our daughter go through her addictions. it is very hard when somebody is
above the age of 18, when they're in trouble, the laws so protect their privacy, it is hard for people to get to them, surround them and help them, so, we're going to enforce the laws we have. we don't need any new gun control laws. an individual has the right to bear arms in this nation. democrats ought to quit politicizing every one of these tragedies, but we need to care for those people who need our help. okay, i have time for one more and it's a lady waving right there. yes, ma'am, you are the last question. no pressure now. >> thank you, miss carly. my question is if you're elected president -- >> not if. not if. >> when you're elected. what is your plan the help grow small businesses? >> so, it's a fantastically important question because just to review, it is small business that is the job creation engine of this nation. so, i started out, i mean, i
started out in that nine-person real estate firm. my husband, frank, of over 30 years, started out driving a tow truck. in a family owned auto body shop. it is how most people start. small, new, family owned community based businesses create two-thirds of the new jobs this this country and employ half the people. and we have come to aplace now where we are destroying more businesses than we are creating. think about that statistic. for the first time in u.s. history, we are destroying more businesses than we are creating. why? because as government gets bigger and bigger and more powerful and more complicated and more complex, what happens, the small can't survive. the government, wow, you have to go through licensing requirements. the 73,000 page tax code. a regulatory thicket at the federal level, the state level. the local level. small businesses can't handle
it. i have met more small business owners who say, i just can't do it anymore. i can't keep up anymore. i just want somebody to buy me out. it's not worth it anymore and how many people have the courage to start one now? not enough, so, unless we level this playing field that i keep talking about, unless we reduce dramatically the complexity and the power of government to rule through regulation, to tax through an incredibly complicated tax code, through government agencies that have gotten bigger and bigger for 50 years and all those bureaucrats are doing something. and all those things they're doing are impacting people in real ways. let me give you a real example of what i mean by this. before i wrap it up. dod frank, so, remember the financial crisis. who started the financial crisis? fannie maye and freddie mac.
this is how socialism starts. government creates a problem, then government solves the problem. this is what happened in the financial industry. government created a problem. through fannie mae and freddie mac by putting out mortgages to people who shouldn't have had them, then wall street got in the game and the crash happened because everybody suspended common sense and good judgment and said no, no, no, real estate prices can go up forever. what goes up, must come down. right? so, when the financial crisis hit, there were 25 regulatory agencies, government agencies in washington, d.c. that were supposed to be minding to store. none of them were, apparently. we haven't reformed fannie mae and freddie mac. we haven't reformed a single one of those 25 agencies. we've created dodd frank, new set of rules and regs and the consumer financial production bureau. by statute, congress has no oversight. think about that.
so, they are out there, this vast bureaucracy, going through credit reports, looking for fraud. they check over 700 million credit reports. of all of us. what's the consequence of us that's of vital importance to small business? ten wall street banks have become five. even bigger. even more powerful, wall street banks and by the way, they helped write the bill. and hundreds, if not thoughs of community banks have gone out of business because they can't handle the weight of government and community banks are where small businesses go to get their loans and community banks are where a family goes to get its start. and community banks are folding. and if you ask anybody and i bet i could ask you, is it easier or
harder to get a small business loan today, much harder. is it easier or harder for credit worthy person starting out to get a mortgage today? much harder. in other words, government created this problem and government is now solving the problem and the consequence is less capital flowing to people who will build businesses and create jobs. it is why, ladies and gentlemen, this election is so critical. you know, things can get to a tipping point. where unless you fix it, then you don't have a chance. we must take our government back. and so, i believe this is a pivot am tichl. i believe in many ways, this is a perilous time, but i also believe this is a time where we must be both courageous and optimistic. why? because every problem we have can be solved. every wound we have is
self-inflicted. we have everything we need to solve every problem and heal every wound. what we need now is leadership and citizenship. i hope very much that i can count on your support on your help, running for president is the biggest team effort there is. i need your votes. i need your support. i need your help. financial and in other words, i need you to talk to everybody you know, but do not be discouraged or disquieted or despair about the future of this nation. because indeed, we have everything we have and we also know, we know what we must be. and we know what we must be because lady liberty and justice tell us what we must be, so think for a moment about those two powerful symbols of our nation's democracy. think about lady liberty. she stands tall and strong.
which is the way america must always be. she doesn't shield her eyes from the realities or the evils of the world. in fact, she is clear eyed and resolute about the world, but she also faces into the world, which is the way we all must and she holds her torch very high. because she knows she's a beacon of hope in the deeply troubled world. lady justice holds a sword because she's a fighter. she's a war wor. she holds a scale. with that scale, she reminds us we are all equal in the eyes of god, so all of us must be in the eyes of the government. powerful and powerless alike and she wears a blindfold and with that blindfold, i think she says to us that it must be true. it can be true. that in this nation, in this century, it doesn't matter who you are.
it doesn't matter what you look like. it does not matter how you start. it does not matter your circumstances. here in this nation, every american's life must be filled with possibilities that come from their god given gifts. one nation. under god. indwizable, with liberty and justice for all. god bless you, ladies and gentlemen. thank you. >> thank you so much.
republican presidential candidate donald trump unveiled his tax plan today at a news conference in new york city. you can see that tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c span 2. meanwhile, our road to the white house coverage continues now with the values voters summit. there were several gop presidential candidates who spoke there this past week. including former pennsylvania senator, rick santorum. this is 20 minutes. ♪ >> thank you. thank you.
thank you very much. thank you so much for being here. you know, i've been here to every single value voters summit and -- i was in iowa the other day, os owe la, iowa and i was introduced by chuck grassley. he got up, let me just say this. the one thing i can say about rick santorum is i've known him for 20 years and he hasn't changed a bit. you know, i think that's about as high a compliment as you can get in this town of washington, d.c., right? we swrus had someone step down today who in my opinion changed a bit and it's probably time for him to have stepped down to start a new chapter here in washington, d.c. i come here every year and i talk to you to thank you.
to thank you for standing up and to this city, the issues that are at the core of the problems in this country. america is never going to be a great country. if we're a country that kills our children in the welcome home. ever. we are never going to be blessed by god if we're a country that kills our children in the woman. we are never going to be a great country. if we allow for the destruction of the american family that's what's happened over the past 50 years and thank you for coming here. for standing for truth. standing for what you know is right and best for this country. we have a lot of candidates that come up here on stage and they'll talk to you about the things they're going to do, but here's the best way to determine whether you can trust the person who's coming before you. look at their record.
look at what they've accomplished. look at what they've fought for. look at what they have paid a price for. i came to washington, d.c. and i'll have to be honest with you, i wasn't a pro i was pro-life, but i wasn't a pro-life warrior. it was only in a situation that's similar to what's happened here with planned parenthood when we were made aware of this issue called partial birth abortion, this horrific procedure. i know about this procedure. i was on cnn the other day, talking to chris cuomo, not always a fun necessarily thing to do, and we were talking about the planned parenthood videos, not only should we defund, we should prosecute. he got very upset, what do you
mean? what laws have they broken? well, the procedures that we saw described in these videos, i know very well. because they were partial birth abortions. and he says, well, okay, but you know, how do you know that's against the law? because i wrote the law, i know it's against the law. i have been standing in the forefront year after year after year fighting the battles on life. and we see right now that we have people in congress, we have people even in the leadership of our party. who when given a chance to focus america's attention on the horror of abortion, they retreat and refuse to fight.
they think they can't win the battle. so, they give up before it's even fought. ladies and gentlemen, there are a lot of people going to come up here and ask you for your support. and they're going to tell you that they're with you. here's what i would say. have you been disappointed enough by people who promise you things and don't deliver? have you seen folks you thought were with you and then you realized when it got tough, they weren't willing to get into the trenches? and fight. and here's what i would say. you know one person in this race who's always willing to fight for life. always willing to fight for the family. every major piece of pro-life legislation that's passed in the last 20 years, i was the author of and i've led the flight on
the floor of the senate. i didn't come from a safe state. a lot of people come and tell you they're for marriage, but ten of the 14 republican candidates have said this. oh, well, it's law of the land, it's time to move on. really? we have a united states supreme court that according to several of the justices on that court in the dissent acted unconstitutionally. oh, it's time to move on. when the court acts unconstitutional. we have a united states supreme court who is directly assaulted the first amendment of our constitution. and ten of the 14 candidates say, oh, it's time to move on.
we have a united states supreme court that says marriage has nothing to do with children. that marriage is about adults. and ten of the 14 republican candidates say it's time to move on. if you're not willing to fight for the constitution for the first amendment and for the american family, why are you running for president as a republican? tell you a little story. four years ago, i was in one of these meetings with all these big donors in new york. they had gone through all of the republican candidates. tifs last one they had. i sat down with them and they were interviewing me like they had all the other republican candidates and they asked me a question on abortion. i answered it. asked a second question, i
answered it. . they asked a third, i said, wait a minute. i said you've had all the other republican candidates up here. i said, why are you asking me, excuse me, have you asked any of the other candidates about abortion? wait a minute, they all have the same position as i do. they all say they're pro-life. not any of them one question, you've asked me three. i said why are you asking me questions and not them? and the answer was because we know you mean it. you want to fighter you can trust and go with the fighter you trusted. who was there.
on marriage. i hear a lot of people talking about marriage now. i said four other republicans have said they're going to fight for marriage. but when i was in the united states senate, i stepped out on the issue of marriage way before anybody else. even before they started to approve gay marriages in the courts. i criticized the supreme court. i said we needed to pass a federal marriage amendment. republicans and democrats alike said called me all sorts of names. youfr just trying to pick on these people. we don't need to deal with this. there's no issue here. there's no problem here. peele have gay marriage in ten years. i said that. 11 years ago and i was wrong. i missed by a year. but we drafted an amendment to the constitution and i forced a vote on the floor of the united states senate and let me tell you, in the rooms outside the view of the public, i was getting beaten up. why are you forcing us to vote
on this thing? we're going to look like haters and bigots. all these folks who come here, some of them today. who stood here and talked about how they're for you. behind closed doors, were kicking my, well, you know. we forced that vote. and guess what? it's the only vote that's ever been taken. when i left, so did the effort to make marriage between one man and one woman in the congress. you want someone who's going to fight for you, look at their track record. look what they fought for. look what they lost over and look how successful they are. you want someone you can trust? you can trust ronald reagan in
1980 that when he came into office, he was going to stand up to the evil of communism and look at the record. the dpraetest threat to a country today overseas is a threat of radical islamic terrorism. ten years ago, i have a lot of people who say we need to name the enemy, go over who the enemy is. go back and look at a speech i give ten years ago in which i said we need to identify the enemy and call them who they are. i didn't just give speeches. iran. we put nuclear sanctions on iran. 12 years ago. i authored that bill that put the nuclear sanctions on iran. and f12 years, i've been talkin
here across this country afterwards. talking about the threat. of not just radical islam, but in the case of iran, what i call apocalypse islam. the islam that is about bringing about the end of the world because that's what they believe. how many times does america have to pay the lesson of not listening to what desperate say they want to do and not believing them? we have a regime in iran that says they want to bring about the end of the world to bring about their return of their savior. and we just gave them the opportunity to have a nuclear weapon. that, ladies and gentlemen, is suicidal. and that, ladies and gentlemen, will not happen if you elect me president of the united states.
th day won, i know these people say you can't tear this up and you can't do this. when the president of the united states doesn't have the guts to bring a deal to the congress for ratification, it's his deal, not our deal and it won't be our deal when i become president of the united states. i will tell the iranian simply this and they know i mean it. i wrote an op-ed last year about this negotiation and iranian government responded to it. they know who i am. last year, excuse me, in april of this year, i was in isis magazine. it was a center fold. it was a nice picture. nicer than i usually get in the
mainstream media around here, tells you how far gone they are. and next to it was a quote. underneath the headline in the words of our enemies, it was my picture and my quote to describing who they were. i know who they are. and they know who i am. no other presidential candidate has been in isis magazine. we can't risk any misperception. when the next president raises his hand, our enemies need to know who they're dealing with and our friends have to know. who they're dealing with. i will stand with israel. i will stand with our allies and i will defeat radical islam.
ladies and gentlemen, if we're going to win this election, we have to take actually some of the words of what pope francis was talking about yesterday. talking about the poor, the workers, the people being left behind in society. all of the things he talks about is all focused on the idea that there's an unequal distribution. there's environmentalism, environmental waste that's hurting the poor and here in america, we see the middle of america hallowing out. i announced from a factory floor in western pennsylvania. the reason i did was because i know who the republican party is. i know who the conservative movement is in this country. they're not wall street. they're not people who live in
the big homes in the hamptons. they don't vote for us anymore. who votes for us are people who love this country, who want an opportunity to rise, who believe in faith and family and opportunity and they're looking for a party, they're looking for a movement. who cares about talks about them. and ladies and gentlemen, let's just be honest. we haven't done a very good job of that. and as a result, if you look at the last election, millions of americans who didn't want to vote for barack obama just stayed home. in pennsylvania and ohio and michigan and all the states where if we want to win this presidency, we've got to attract those votes. that's why i announced from a factory floor and said i would pledge to make america the number one manufacturer in the world again. you want to solve global warming? all those jobs from china that pollute unlimitedly, bring them
back to america where we have cleaner energy and clean things and we will create jobs and reduce global climate. global c. and another way that we need to put this framework of being strong for american workers is on immigration. when you think of the word immigration, most people when you hear the word immigration, you think of that illegal person and what are we going to do about them. why? because many republicans and all democrats have decided that's how we should frame this debate. the debate should be framed about what we're going to do about illegal immigrants in this country instead of what every other policy debate in america is framed around. you finish this sentence. every policy we pass in america, should be in the best interest of -- there you go. not immigration. immigration is about the people who broke the law, not the
people who are obeying the law. why do we let them do this, ladies and gentlemen? why do we even have our candidates up here let them do this? a majority of the people in this race, ladies and gentlemen, are not good on the issue of immigration. oh, they'll talk about how tough they're going to be. secure the border. everybody is for securing the border, but that's not it. that's a start, but as long as you continue to have the magnets here, the border is only part of your problem. and the magnet is, number one, the belief that there's going to be amnesty. now, you have a lot of people get up here and talk about how tough they are, but they actually support amnesty. the speaker who was just here before me running for president, he'll tell you how tough he is, but when he was in senate, he
offered an amendment to allow people to stay in this country indefinitely. to me, that's amnesty. we have to have a policy that says that we are going to make sure that everyone who broke the law in this country is in an orderly fashion returned to their country of origin and they can return here legally. [ applause ] and for those who say it can't be done, half of the illegal immigrants in this country are here on visa overstays. we know who they are. we know where they are. all we have to do is what we aren't doing right now, which is tell them to go home and return to their country of origin. [ applause ] but it's not just illegal immigration. the place that is really harming the american worker, 70% to 90%
of the workers, that come to this country are wage workers. it's caught on so much. why? because people realize when you bring in 35 million people over the last 20 years, more than any other 20-year period in american history and the vast majority of them are wage earners, fairly low skilled, then it's going to have an impact on american wage workers. that's why they're frustrated. and they don't see either political party talking about them. and it's not just illegal. it's both legal and illegal. we're bringing in more illegal immigrants than ever in the history of our country. over a million a year. there's only one candidate in this race who suggested that we eliminate a couple of immigration categories and reduce the number of immigrations by 25%. focused on making sure that we create a better opportunity for
working men and women to get good paying wages. why? because over the last 20-year period of time, wages have gone up less than a nickel an hour per year. american workers know. american workers know that the policies of this country, the immigration policies, are hurting and no one is talking about it. yet, almost every single person in this race is for more legal immigration. some want to double it, including the senators who spoke here this morning. some want to take some categories and increase it by 500%, like some of the senators who spoke here this morning. ladies and gentlemen, there are big differences. you have to make a decision here and it's a tough one. who are you going to support? who are you going to trust? who has the right vision to be able to capture the voters we need in order to win?
if you like the policies that i just laid out, then that's who you might want to vote for. but if you want policies that are going to go after working men and women in this country who want someone to stand for them against wall street, against the big employers who want cheaper labor in this country, then you've got one choice and it's not a bad choice. it's a choice you can trust on the issues you care about at a time when we need strong leadership to put this country back on the right track. thank you all very much and god bless you. thank you. thank you. all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfilteried access to the candidates. we're taking your comments on
twitter, facebook, and by phone. and always every campaign event we cover is available on our website at cspan.org. student cam is c-span's annual documentary competition for students grade 3 through 12. they create a five to seven-minute documentary. it is important for students to get involved because it gives them the opportunity and the platform to have their voices heard on issues that are important to them so they can express those views by creating a documentary. we do get a wide range of entries. the most important aspect for every documentary that we get is going to be the content. we've had winners in the past create it by just using a cell phone. and we have others that are created using more high-tech
equipment, but once again it is really the content that matters and shines through in these documentaries. the response from students in the past has been great. we've had many different issues that they have created videos on there that are important to they have. we have topics ranging from education and the environment. >> having more water in the river would have many positive impacts to better serve the tulsa community and the businesses inside it. >> we have come to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> prior to the individuals with disabilities education act, students with disabilities were not given the opportunity for an education. >> what's the most important issue you want the candidates to discuss in the 2016 presidential campaign? it is full on into the campaign season. one of the key requirements in
creating a documentary is to include some c-span footage. this footage should really complement and further their point of view and not just dominate the video, but it's a great way for them to include more information on the video that furthers their points. >> first bill is the water resources reform and development act, also known as worda. >> we have all heard the jokes about school meals and the burnt fish sticks and mystery meat tacos. >> there's a vital role that the federal government plays. it is especially vital for students with disabilities. >> students and teachers can go to our website. it is studentcam.org. they'll find teacher tips, rubrics to help them incorporate it into their classroom, and ways to contact us if they have any further questions. the deadline for this year's
competition is january 20th. a signature feature of book tv is our all day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top non-fiction authors. here's our schedule. in early october, it's the southern festival of books in nashville. near the end of the month, we'll be covering two book festivals on the same weekend. from our nation's heartland, it's the wisconsin book festival in madison and back on the east coast the boston book festival. at the start of november, we'll be in portland, oregon f, for wd stock. that's a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span
2's book tv. up next on c-span 3, remarks from the chair of the national endowment for the arts, jane chu. the nato general talks about russia's role in syria. after that, a look at data transparency. on the next washington journal, congressman tom mcclintock of california. he was resigning from the freedom caucus, saying the group's tactics have undermined conservative goals. mark pocan on efforts to pass a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. an a congressional reporter with bloomberg ba will talk about