tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 30, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
northeastern, pennsylvania. we have an awful lot of medicaid eligible patients. so it's an issue of concern to me. medicaid patients are primarily people who are poor, elderly, or have disabilities. isn't that right? >> i don't know the breakdown of all medicaid patients. i certainly don't know for your area of pennsylvania. i do know how many patients we see in pennsylvania. >> just in general, medicaid patients -- stay with me here. >> okay. >> medicaid patients tend to be poor, elderly, or have disabilities, don't they, in general? >> again, i'm just speaking -- i only know the folks we serve. so i can't speak about medicaid patients more broadly. we don't serve many elderly medicaid patient. primarily, we serve women between the ages of 18 and 44. >> of course, that's true. many medicaid patients come from medically underserved communities, right? >> that's correct. >> and that's why the $500
million figure gets thrown around so much. that's why that's so misleading. it is reimbursements for fee for service treatment. and like other medical providers, planned parenthood is reimbursed for the health care it provides to these patients and that's generally the way health care insurance works anyway, right? >> that's exactly right. just a different insurance program. >> we rely on providers to take in these patients, especially since medicaid generally reimburses at a lower rate than private insurance. >> that's correct. and i think it's really important because in so many states, as we've talked about earlier, there are not that many health care providers that will take medicaid patients. >> in fact, i think dr. gosar made that point. medicaid reimburses rather poorly. >> it does, although we're really proud at -- just looking at the state of pennsylvania, we
see 108,000 patients in the state of pennsylvania. many of them are in rural communities. >> so when we hear talk about defunding planned parenthood, a big part of that is excludeing planned parenthood affiliates from medicaid. isn't that right? >> correct. essentially -- and that's what's important. i'm so glad you made this point, because we can't make it strongly enough. as you said, we don't get an appropriate amount of money. this would actually -- what congress is proposing doing would deny people on medicaid the ability to go to the provider of their choice and many of them do choose planned parenthood for a whole host of reasons. >> thank you for being here, ms. richards. i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> ms. richards, you were kind enough to provide this committee with a list of the salaries and compensation of the officers of planned parenthood. that is correct and up to date, is that right? >> i'm sure it is if we provided it. >> okay.
well, thank you. i'm looking at this and i'm seeing an employee of planned parenthood's affiliate in north dakota and south dakota was paid $549,827 in 2013, is that correct? >> i don't have the figures. i do happen to know that affiliate -- this is a woman who has been a health care professional for decades. >> $549,000. and it is correct that you were compensated $590,000 in 2013, is that correct? >> well, i tried to address this earlier. >> i understand. >> i'm sorry -- >> yes or no? >> $520,000 was my annual salary. there was a benefit that was accrued to me -- >> and $590,000 was your compensation in 2013? >> it's set by the board of directors, and it's important to me -- >> all i need to no is yes or no. >> no federal funds go to my salary. >> $590,000 was what you were
compensated in 2013, according to what you provided this committee with, correct? yes? >> i think i've answered your question. >> let me ask you about the travel for planned parenthood. planned parenthood spent over $5 million on travel in 2013. that's almost $14,000 a day. was that first class, or was any of it charter jet? >> that would be nice. no. i don't fly -- >> $14,000 a day? >> we have eight million supporters in this country. we provide health care to 2.7 million people. we provide sex education to 1.5 million people. >> is that correct? 14,000 dl $14,000 a day? >> i'm happy to look at them. >> can you provide this committee with the records that show the modes of travel that you've taken, whether they've been first class, whether they've been charter jets? >> i will work with the
committee staff to provide whatever we can on questions that have been asked. >> we appreciate that very much. let me ask you something -- >> although i will say for the record, i do not travel first class. >> neither do i, but i don't spend $14,000 a day either. nevertheless. you've made the claim that many patients wouldn't have timely access to basic reproductive health care if it weren't for the services of planned parenthood. yet, u.s. department of health and human services in 2015 said that there were almost 9,700 health care service delivery sites and over 4,000 rural health clinics, including over 1,200 federally qualified health centers operating over 9,000 sites in the united states. how many clinics does planned parenthood operate? >> between 650 and 700, depending. >> if that would go away, these patients wouldn't have access to
health care? >> well, i mean, i'm looking at the cvo report -- the congressional budget just came out with a report that if planned parenthood -- if women were unable to go to planned parenthood, medicaid patients or title ten patients, 390,000 women would immediately lose health care next year. >> the problem i have with that is the obama administration reports that there are over 13,000 publicly supported health care alternatives in the united states. have you seen that? are you aware of that? >> i have not seen that. >> that's what the obama administration is telling us. so that's almost eight times as many as planned parenthood has. and out of those clinics, i mean, we've got almost -- excuse me. i misspoke. over 20 federally funded clinics, as opposed to every planned parenthood. yet those federally funded clinics, they don't have $100 million endowments. today don't have $70 million
manhattan condos. they don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on grammy-winning performers performing at their galas. they don't do any of those thing. yet they are able to provide needed services to women. why is it that planned parenthood has got to have that in order to have the same services? do you believe that they have to have that? >> well -- >> it's yes or no. that's all it is. >> with all respect, that wasn't really a question. i would say i really stand by the fact that we provide health care to many, many women in this country. >> the question was, have you got to have that in order to provide health care to women? other clinics don't have it and they don't have it. >> i'm not going to speak to every other clinic -- i think we provide excellent health care to women in this country. >> please answer the question. the question is do you have to have $100 million endowment. $70 million condos.
>> i don't know what you're speaking of. with respect, i think it's important that the question here is do low income women in this country have the right to choose wherever they want to go to for health care. and 2.7 million of them choose planned parenthood. >> why don't you let them go to one of those $70 million condos. >> the gentlelady from texas is recognized. >> thank you so very much for the courtesies extended. let me thank the chairman of the full committee for his courtesies, and to mr. cummings, certainly for his courtesies as well for my participation in this very vital hearing today. i am a member of the judiciary committee as well, and we held such a hearing some weeks ago. and so i can almost say deja vu. let me thank ms. richards, first of all, as a fellow texan, to thank her for the legacy of her family. that has always been engaged in public service.
and that's what i consider you and planned parenthood as doing. coming from texas, let me cite the houston planned parenthood offices, of which i've been in, walked through, and seen the clinics, and seen individuals who fell into my arms, indicating that without planned parenthood, they would not be able to, in fact, have health care. let me ask you very quickly, as my time goes. it may be as i've been listening this afternoon that we have been mixing more than apples and oranges. it might be apples and potatoes. because we're talking about abortion. when i say that, many of these questions have come forward. and i just wanted to read this quote from a senator in oklahoma. in discussing planned parenthood. my focus is to try to deal with the life issue. defunding planned parenthood is just a sideshow for the real event. has this come to your attention, ms. richards, that many are talking about something that really has nothing to do with your federal funding? >> well, i do think it's been a bit of a theme.
i think that is one thing i'd like to say. it's important that i don't really believe that an organization, a health care provider should be discriminated against for providing a legal service. whether it's planned parenthood or a local community hospital or anyone else. >> let me follow up as well and hold this up and ask to place it into the record. let me cite for some of my colleagues. ohio, 28 clinic, 80,000 patients, 66,000 on contraception. texas, 38 clinic, 150,000 patients and 108,000 on contraception and others dealing with sexually transmitted diseases. if those clinics went away, we're talking about 28 in a big state like ohio, 38 in texas. thousands of women losing access to health care. is that not correct, ms. richards? >> that's correct. >> and are you familiar with the texas cases which challenge or
discuss the legislative initiatives that are literally implode clinics in texas, and the supreme court decision that ruled in 2014 and 2015. i think the united states supreme court pay be based on roe v. wade, may be based on the fact that abortion services which are not part of the funding here. but in any event, just so my colleagues would know that, in my state of texas, the state law would have cut off 75% of reproductive health care clinics. the supreme court indicated that the texas law was unconstitutional, indicating that the separate work that you do, dealing with people's right to choose, is a lawful act and has nothing to do with federal funding, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> and the supreme court has indicated that abortion by law is not illegal. in those cases. >> and i know a lot of these are still on appeal. i do think since we both come
from texas, i think it's important to know that when the state of texas shut down the texas women's health program and planned parenthood's ability to serve women, there were 25% fewer women in texas that are receiving care as a result. so i think that's why it's so important that we don't ever put politics ahead of women's health. >> let me get these last two questions in. as a member of the house judiciary committee, we deal a lot with the fbi. let me just ask you about mr. delayeden's work. is he a member of the federal bureau of investigation, to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he an fbi agent to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he a member of the department of justice? >> i don't believe so. >> has the health and human services ever investigated you per se about your medicaid reimbursement, meaning something you have not been able to answer or file another filing? >> we follow all the laws at the state and federal level every day. >> so he has been engaged in an
investigation, has no authorization, is not a member of the fbi, which i recall dastardly and deceitful. are you aware that mr. deladen has pleaded the fifth amendment in some cases that he's engaged in? >> i have read that in the paper. >> are you aware that it has been checked that mr. deladden stole the identity of the president of the feminist club, have you heard that? >> i have also read that in the paper. >> and let me cite not you, but rh realty check. would we then say that we're here today to speak about the facts, and therefore are you saying on the record today that planned parenthood does not use any federal funding for anything that is not authorized under the laws of the united states of america? >> we follow all the laws at the state and federal level, and whenever we find issues, we take care of them and address them. >> i thank the gentleman and the
committee for its courtesy. i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. a few questions. i'd just like to clear up some things. first of all, you talk about the percentage of women who are low income served by planned parenthood. i am under the impression that if you have a younger person, a 21-year-old college student or even a 16-year-old high school girl, that for the purpose of defining income, you leave out the mother's income. so, for example, if a billionaire's daughter made $5,000 last year came to planned parenthood, she would be considered low income, is that correct? >> i would have to check on that. i don't know of any billionaires' daughters that are coming to planned parenthood, but i'm happy to look into that and to address your question. >> okay. i'm saying for the purpose of the family planning waiver, i think it's pretty well publicized that both high school kids, college kids, for the
purpose of determining income, they look at -- they're considered a family of one despite living with parents, is that true? >> i'm happy to check on that. and i think at a lot of high school or college women, they may at that point -- they don't have the resources of their parents and a lot of women do come to us because they need family planning but can't talk to their families. >> okay, the next question i have. when i look at cities around me that have a planned parenthood clinic, usually they're medium sized cities. 20,000, 30,000, $40,000. usually in those cities, as a guy, i could go to many clinics locally that have all the machines that one would need. all of these clinics, as far as i know, take medicaid dollars. so you could go to any of those clinics to get any medical service you could. i guess what i'm getting at is, in my opinion, if planned parenthood disappeared tomorrow
in those towns, there would still be three or four or five clinics or hospitals providing all the medicare -- all the medical care you would want. and quite frankly, providing superior care to people who were on medicaid. >> i think we do provide superior medical care. >> i'm saying superior care in the sense that on medicaid, without the deductibles and co-pays, it'sial usually better insurance than people have. i guess what i'm saying is if planned parenthood were not around in those cities, with the exception of a couple of abortions clinics, there would be three or four other clinics available to do any women's health or men's health or health of any nature whatsoever. don't you feel that's true? >> well, i don't. and i have been to wisconsin a lot. obviously you know more about wisconsin than i do. but i know we have 22 health centers in the state of
wisconsin. and last year we provided -- or the most recent year we have figures, we provided health care to 65,000 people. and actually, i think we were the largest -- don't quote me on this, but i will check to make sure, but largest family planning network in wisconsin. so that's pretty hard to replace. >> well, no. you're not answering my question. if you have a city in which there are four full service clinics that you could go to, and a planned parenthood clinic, i would assume that the planned parenthood disappeared, you would have four or five other clinics to deal with anything that medicaid paid for. >> well, we just haven't seen that to be true. i used the example of the state of texas where they eliminated planned parenthood as an option in communities, and 25% of women lost access to care. so i actually don't think the-- there are a number of reasons people go to planned parenthood. it's personal choice, as well as availability and the services we provide.
we are the provider that we think best meets their health care needs and i do think that's what's at stake here. >> okay. you emphasized before the lack of ability of access to health care for minorities. do you feel that you have a special role to fill there? >> i'm sorry. it's very hard to hear you. >> before you emphasized that you felt there was a lack of access of health care to minorities. do you feel that you have a special role to play there? >> we have a special role to play for anyone who is underserved, and that includes folks of low income, folks of rural america, folks in areas of the country where there is less public health care access. so it really is all across the gamut. >> one more question and i'll come back to the prior one. in wisconsin, all of the planned parenthood clinics are in sizable cities in which there are, as far as i can see, probably multiple other medical providers. is there anywhere in the country that you know of, any metropolitan area in which planned parenthood offers
services in which there are no other providers to take medicaid dollars? >> it's just beyond what i know. i can't really respond to that. but i think, again, if we're in 22 communities in wisconsin, which we are, according to these records, that's a lot of -- i'm not saying those aren't all decent size cities, but that's a lot of rural community as well. >> i thank the gentleman. now i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, ms. richards. planned parenthood action engages in political activity, is that correct? >> the planned parenthood action fund, which is a separate corporation, does. >> and you're compensated by that organization? >> well, i mean, i get compensation to reimburse my costs. >> yes or no. >> i'm just trying to explain. >> i understand. and i know how these things work. i think you've already answered it. it's, what, 31,000?
>> i don't have the figures for last year. but whatever my compensation was, it is for work that i do on behalf of the action fund. >> where does planned parenthood action get its funding? >> private donations. we have eight million supporters in this country and a number of donors from all over the country. >> and is there any money from planned parenthood that goes to planned parenthood action? >> the planned parenthood action fund, which is -- it does advocacy and it does electoral work. there is advocacy -- >> i know what they do. i'm asking -- >> well, i'm trying to be responsive to your question. >> for brevity sake -- and out of respect, for brevity sake. >> as you know, for a 501c organizations, they cannot do the majority of the work as electoral work. that's under irs code. >> i understand that. >> so i think between 65% and 75% of the work of the action fund is nonelectoral. >> and you also have a pack, is that correct?
>> yeah, i was just going to -- yes, there is a federal pac. >> and just round figures, what did it spend in 2014? >> how much the federal pac spent in 2014? i can get that for you. it's obviously public record. i just don't have it for you. >> where does the pac get its money? >> it raises its money from individuals. >> are you compensated by the pac? >> i don't believe i have ever been compensated by the pac. although i know that the federal law requires if you are doing work on behalf of a federal candidate, i believe you actually have to -- your time has to be paid for by a pac. >> do you have any oversight over the pac, any managerial responsibility? >> sure. >> you're supposed to be compensated if you do any work for the pac and you need to check that out. i want to go to this. in 2004, you founded a group called america votes a grass
roots organization focused on elections. how many of these organizations collaborate with or are inco incorporated into planned parenthood's -- >> you're asking me about a job before planned parenthood? i'm sorry, could you restate the question? >> how many of these organizations are collaborating with or have been incorporated into planned parenthood's political operation? >> i really don't know. >> so i would assume that some do because you don't answer? it's either yes or no. >> i think you asked me how many, and i said i don't know. a lot of these organizations work together. we could get more information for you. >> that would be helpful. you've got these high paid executives. interestingly enough, 44 of your highest paid executives make more than any cabinet member. 28 of them make more than any member of the cabinet.
that's over 200,000. you've got another 11 that make over 300,000. that's more than anybody in the cabinet. any supreme court justice. the chief justice. you've got four that make more than the president. not counting you. are any of them expected to make political contributions? >> by who? i'm sorry. >> by you. >> no. >> do you direct political contributions to candidates? >> the pac does. >> do you have any input on who gets -- >> no, there is a pac committee that votes. >> are you on that pac committee? >> i'm not on the pac committee. >> do you have any input? >> no, the pac committee votes. >> so there's no collaboration between you and the pac committee? >> i haven't sat on a pac committee meeting for a long time. >> all right. >> we operate -- we meet the federal laws and restrictions.
>> i appreciate how you want to answer this. your pac advertised itself as being non-partisan. yet in 2014, 100% of the contributions went to democrats. in 2012, 99% went to democrats. >> i actually don't believe that's accurate. >> that's what's reported here. >> i'll go back and look. we support -- we've done work on behalf of -- anyone who supports women's rights. >> mr. chairman, i'm reclaiming my time. i just want to point out that it's not non-partisan. and that you've given almost -- i mean, in every case, almost every dime to democrats, including to nine members of this committee. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we welcome any republican who supports women's rights and women's health care access. thank you. >> the gentleman yields become. we'll now recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a couple of questions for ms. richards and i'm going to yield whatever is remaining to
the chairman. peter welch sits right down there on the other side, he's a gentleman from vermont, a democrat. peter and i do not agree on very many issues, but there's not a more well-regarded member of our body, i don't think. and the evidenced that today by making it crystal clear that he makes an effort to understand the analysis and the conclusions of those who may have a different position from the one that he holds. do you understand how some of us may at a base level disagree with you on the origin of life. do you make that same effort to understand that my friend from vermont peter welch makes? >> i fully respect and i think i spoke to this in my opening statement with the chairman, that i understand people have different feelings about whether abortion should be legal in this
country or not. i think it is important that it is legal, and we can disagree. i know thinking people disagree about abortion, and our goal at planned parenthood is to be judgment-free. and to allow people and women in particular to make their own decisions about their pregnancies. >> well, we're going to get to the judgment-free zone here in just a second. but you mentioned abortion. how about partial birth abortion. do you understand how some of us may support a ban on partial birth abortion? >> well, don't want to -- i'm not trying to be argumentative, but that was a political formulation, not a medical formulation. but i certainly understand that it was passed and is the law of the land. and planned parenthood certainly meets the requirements of that law. >> my question wasn't whether you follow the law. my question was whether or not you understand how some of us may be very much opposed to that
practice. that was my question. >> i understand how people can disagree based on their religious beliefs, their background, their own personal experiences. and i also understand that people sometimes change over time. and that's the human condition. >> are you suggesting those who hold a contrary view to you need to change? is that why you added that line, ms. richards? >> no, i'm just candidly in my ten years at planned parenthood, i have experienced myself, people who have picketed outside of our health center and then found themselves in need of our services and we try not to judge -- >> and i'm sure that there have been employees who grew tired of participating in the practices that they were participating in and they may have gone to the other side, might they? how about opposing abortions on the basis of gender or race. can you understand how people may support legislation that banned that? >> as i tried to say, i
appreciate that people have a lot of different views on the issue of abortion, and there's any number of different pieces of legislation you could describe, and i think fundamentally at planned parenthood, we take the position that we trust women to make their decisions about their pregnancies. i have made my own decisions as well, so i feel like i walk -- can kind of walk in those shoes. >> i appreciate the way you like to frame the issue, that you're the reasonable one, and those of us who have a contrary position are not reasonable. >> i didn't say that. >> no, that's exactly the last answer you gave. that's exactly what it was, much like your people evolve to a more advanced viewpoint, much like that comment was also directed -- >> those were not the words i said. i said sometimes people change their opinions. >> it's not always what you say. sometimes it's what you mean. in 2014, you disagreed with my colleagues 100% figure.
what percent of your money did go to democratic candidates in 2014 if it wasn't 100%? >> i told him i will look. i know that we support republicans across the country. and i wish there were more republicans -- >> name me some? name me some republicans in congress that you support? financially. >> well, i don't actually want -- in this public forum, i'm not going to raise their names because they have been such the target of their fellow party members, but i'm happy to provide that to you later. >> well, the donations are public. >> yes. i don't know in terms of federal office. i was thinking more broadly in terms of support for candidates across the country. i know there are republicans that we support. and again, we would like to support more republicans for office. we wish there was -- we don't believe that women's health or women's rights should be a partisan issue. >> and we don't think eating dinner salads and drinking wine -- we have a problem with
that, too. i think you can understand why we would be opposed to what we saw on some of the tapes. would you not? >> i think we may have -- i feel like everything i've answered, you see in a different way. so i respect your opinions and i am always open to listening to other people's opinions. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we will now recognize the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you, ms. richards, for being here today. i think it's down to you and i. >> no kidding. we could do this somewhere bri about your background. >> i'm a texan. i -- >> your professional background. >> oh, shoot, i thought you wanted to go back to the beginning. i was a labor organizer for many years with low-wage working women. i eventually had three kids and moved to washington, d.c., and i had the honor of working for
leader pelosi for a period of time on capitol hill. i started a couple of nonprofits and then about ten years ago i was hired to be the president of planned parenthood. >> do you have any accounting in your background, any finance in your background? do you understand -- i asome you understand well accounting? >> i have taken accounting courses as part of my -- fortunately my board has been very kind and offered me those kinds -- that kind of supplementary learning in my job. but i have -- obviously we have a chief financial officer. we have an entire accounting department at planned parenthood i work with closely. >> the reason i ask in a former life i was a public company ceo so i know a fair amount about revenues, expenses, overhead, costs, so i'd like to talk a few minutes with you about that. what's your understanding of overhead? >> well -- >> what is overhead? >> what is overhead? >> yes, what is overhead in
planned parenthood? >> generally it's the cost just to keep the organization going. is that what you're -- >> salaries? salaries? building expenses, rent? >> it really depends on -- it depends on what you're talking about. if we're in a grant it could be potentially overhead could be considered. it really just depends, but, yes, of course, all organizations and the one you ran as well we have an office. we have staff. we have electricity and -- >> it must be considerable on half a billion dollar corporation, overhead must be considerable, it has to be to run that organization. >> it depends on on your definition of considerable. we have a very dedicated staff and we provide health care to a lot of people, education to a lot of people and so, yes, it requires -- >> do you profit or make money on abortion services? >> so i think we've discussed this many times and i'll just try to take it one more time. i run the national office.
we do not provide abortion services. we have provided to this committee, if you're on the committee, all of the financial information about the national organization. our audited financial statements. our 990s -- >> do your providers do they make money, your individual affiliated offices, do they make money providing abortions? >> i think -- >> in general. >> in general? there is no general. i mean, we're a nonprofit. there's three sources of income. there are federal and public -- >> i'm talking about individual -- >> -- and there are -- >> if someone cannot afford to pay for -- what's an abortion cost? >> it depends depending on the state, depending on the procedure. excuse me? >> what if someone can't pay for the abortion? >> we raise private dollars to help women who cannot afford abortion er services if they wa an abortion and can't afford it we try to raise money to supplement the cost of an abortion.
>> only through private donations is you make up the difference is what you're saying. >> i don't, but our 59 affiliates have a variety of -- >> does planned parenthood or make money on reimbursement of medicaid services? >> we don't make a profit on anything. >> it depends on you how -- you have $127 million excess every year. >> medicaid reimburses and as you know across the country medicaid rates vary widely. in some states they come closer to paying for the cost of the services. in a lot of states we actually have to raise private donations to supplement what it costs for -- >> so you may make money on some medicaid reimbursement services, correct? >> i don't know that anyone does but i'd be happy to find out. >> i'm sure you're well aware it is against the law to use federal money on abortions. >> i am well aware. >> are you saying today with
100% surety that not one money of taxpayer money is used to pay for abortions? yes or no, 100% surety. because that is against the law. >> the federal law allows for federal dollars to pay for abortion services in very rare instances, rape, increest and t life of the mother. we don't use federal money except for those that are permitted by law. sorry, we were talking over ourselves. i didn't hear you. >> the profits generated from taxpayer funded sources such as medicaid reimbursements are any of those profits used to help cover the costs of abortions? >> and i don't believe there tax i will absolutely -- we can go through all of our 990s happy to go through with the committee but i don't believe there are any profits from me medicaid services in this country. as i said that's one of the issues we're addressing here is
there are too few people willing to take medicaid patients because often the med cade payments do not pay for the cost of birth control, a pap smear, a breast exam and the like. >> what's critically important is how you -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back. >> now recognize the gentle woman from tennessee miss black for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to sit in this committee and thank the wntion for being here today. you stated that hr 3134 the defund planned parenthood act of 2015 would and i quote block access for folks who deserve high quality compassionate care close quote. now, miss richards, i would like an opportunity for you as i ask you these questions to give you an update to change these false claims. so, i wrote the defund planned parenthood act of 2015.
so let me tell you what it does do. it does not -- it does not -- reduce public health funding by a single dime. and it would, in fact, increase that funding for community health centers by $235 million. were you aware of these facts when you made that statement? >> congresswoman, we've discussed many times today that, in fact, the congressional budget office estimated that if women were denied the ability to go to planned parenthood 390 -- >> reclaiming my time you said it would block access. it would block access. >> our patients -- >> yes or no, miss richards, do you acknowledge that community health centers outnumber planned parenthood clinics by roughly twif-1? >> i don't know the exact number. i know there are more community health centers than planned parenthood. >> you will acknowledge they
outnumber planned parenthood clinics? >> i'm happy to acknowledge that. >> do you acknowledge the facilities funded under my bill provide a broader range, these facilities provide a broader range of services, than what is offered at planned parenthood, for instance, mammograms? >> i'm not an expert on what all family health centers provide. we work in close collaboration and often they send us their patients that the they can't see for birth control. >> you will acknowledge that you do not provide mammograms which was acknowledged in this committee today? >> we've never made any -- >> they do actually provide mve. >> what i said i don't know what all the community health centers provide. we're clear about what we provide at planned parenthood and the number of women who voluntary choose to come to us. >> reclaiming my time. knowing the house passed bill actually increases public health funding and redirects those
federal dollars to clinics who offer more preventive health care than planned parenthood you can't substantiate your claim that the bill blocks access to care. it does not block access to care. now, i do want to just end this by -- >> we disagree. >> -- by saying that you had a statement that you made that quality affordable health care is your entire mission. and you made that statement. i actually wrote it down when you made it. why would you not make an executive decision, then, to temporarily discontinue your abortion services which only represents by your testimony 3% of the services that you provide and continue providing what you consider to be your entire mission of 97% of the services provided? >> well, because abortion is a legal service in america and we think it's important that women do -- you quoted me as saying quality affordable health care and that includes access to quality and affordable abortion services as well.
>> but you acknowledge that -- do you say that abortion is health care? >> yes, it's a health care service for women three in ten women in this country have accessed abortion at some point. >> you define it as health care? >> absolutely as women's health care and women would agree. >> if i'm a nurse and you look at medicine abortion is not health care. it is not considered to be health care. now, let me turn -- >> we simply agree to disagree on this matter. >> let's look at the definitide. let me finish up here because you've continued to say that the videos were doctored. are you aware of a report that just came out today that has been released by colefire that shows in their report and they say the forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by the central for medical progress are authentic, have not been manipulated and
analysis scrutinized every second of the video recorded during the investigation and released it to a date and found only bathroom breaks or other nonpertinent footage had been removed. i would say if you were to compare the two companies now that have done this investigation, you see colefire has reported on every second of those released audio and video investigation footage as opposed to the fusion report which only had four full length videos. so i think this discussion, mr. chairman, is still yet to be had about just what these videos do show and the fact that they perhaps coming from fusion are not doctored. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle woman. the end is in sight. you've been exceptionally kind with your time and generous. we have a couple of cleanups that we need to do here a couple other questions and we'll be concluding. we'll start by recognizing the
gentleman from ohio. >> has anyone from cms or hhs contacted you or any of your board members or staff? >> since the videos surfaced. >> july 14th has anyone from the health and human services or cms contacted you or anyone on your staff or board? >> i don't know. it's a -- we have a very big staff. >> has anyone from the inspect general's office at hhs contacted you, anyone of your board, anyone of your staff? >> if you're going to ask me about everything, we have a big board and we've got a very big staff so i'm happy -- i can't really answer. >> has the attorney general of the united states loretta lynch contacted you? >> no. >> anyone in planned parenthood? >> i don't know. >> you don't know? >> i have hundreds of staff and we have a very large board. >> anyone from the justice department contacted planned parenthood since the video surfaced? >> i don't know if you are
asking about everybody in planned parenthood. >> if the justice department would contact planned parenthood it seems the person in charge of planned parenthood would know the answer to that question. >> we have a very large staff. >> you are testifying the videos and funding and everything else in front of a congressional -- >> mr. gordon -- >> there's potentially four crimes, potentitentiapotentiall changing the procedure to solely obtain tissue doing this without patient's consent and performing partial birth -- there's potentially four federal crimes and all i'm asking has the justice department contacted me. >> what you asked me whether they had contacted me you asked if they contacted anyone on planned parenthood. >> you are representing planned parenthood. have they contacted planned parenthood? >> i said i will find out. i don't know. >> since the videos is your faced have you had any conversations with the president of the united states? >> no, i have not.
>> since the videos surfaced have you been to the white house? >> no, i have not. >> how many times have you been to the white house? >> during what% of time? >> since mr. obama has been president? >> that's been seven years i'd have to get back to you on that. >> our count shows that you and your senior board and staff have been to the white house 151 times in 6 1/2 years i'm curious that's why i asked the question if you had been to the white house since the videos had surfaced. >> i have not. >> you will get back to me about whether the justice department has contacted you. >> you listed a lot of different people. >> i'll work with the committee staff and work with my team. >> i thank the chairman. i yield to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i want to follow-up very briefly on the line of questioning that mr. clay had earlier this afternoon. he asked you if any -- if there were any federal funds being
used in what he termed the tissue transfer program. do you remember that question, ma'am? >> be honest, it's been a long day. >> he did ask you and my recollection is that you said no. you paused. and you said not that you were aware of. and then he continued the questioning. that caught my attention because it struck me that the answer to that question should be an unmitigated no, no, that you or aware of. >> i certainly don't believe so. i've been here for several hours and so just being -- trying to be -- just trying to be very careful. >> okay. are any federal funds being used in relation to what we have described here today as the tissue transfer program? >> i do not believe so. >> okay. sense that is other than an unmitigated no i'm going to ask you some follow-up questions. have you done any investigation to find out if federal funds have been used in that program? >> i don't believe they have been and so there hasn't been
any need for any investigation in to that but i'm certainly happy to get back to you on it. >> i asked you if you had done any investigation, you said no. >> well, because i don't think it's -- >> fine. your motivation, you may not care -- >> i did not say i do not care. >> you could say you don't have time but the point of the matter is you have not done any investigation on this point, correct? >> that's not what i said, i said i'm not aware and i'm absolutely happy to get back to you. it's not because i don't care or i don't pay attention. >> let me ask the question again. have you done any investigation as to whether or not any federal funds have been used in the tissue transfer program? by the way, who is the bald guy sitting behind you? is he a lawyer? >> i'm a lawyer. >> okay, that's fine. what is your name, sir? that's fine, i just want to know who you are. >> the questions go to the witness. >> okay, then i'll ask the
witness. >> i'm happy to get back to you. i think i've answered it as many times as i can answer and storm that my answer isn't satisfactory to you. i've been here five hours now and i'm trying to just make sure i am responsive as i can be so -- >> okay. so, just so the record is clear, because there's a young lady here making a record of this. i'm going to ask the question one more time and you can give me the answer that you deem to be responsive to this question. have you made any investigation in to whether or not federal funds have been used in the transfer of fetal tissue or fetal parts? >> i have not made any investigation to that specific question. >> okay. thank you. >> i think -- >> -- that federal money is being used for that program? >> i don't believe so. >> but that's not based on an investigation, is it? >> i feel like we're kind of -- i think we just keep repeating
the same question. i don't believe that was a question. >> it will end the discussion today but it certainly won't end it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. >> a few things just for follow-up. just so -- we've had an hour's worth of discussion. there are some things that we would like to follow-up so i'd like to go through that list as we conclude and recognize mr. cummins and i will wrap up. we would like to get the name and number of affiliates that receive the majority of the receivenues from abortion servi. if there's clarification as to what we are looking for let me know, but that is one question. >> i am just going to try to write it down as we go. >> you got plenty of staff to write it down. i don't mean to have you to write notes but if you have a question i want you to ask me as we're doing this. we are looking for the amount of revenue by affiliate for abortion services. so you have the -- it should be
pretty straightforward. we would like to know which affiliates provide which services. >> i believe you have but we're happy to provide that. >> we want to make sure we've got it chris crystal clear. we have portions but we don't have all of it. >> okay. >> the names of organizations and the countries that planned parenthood gives -- gives funds to overseas. so based on the tax returns and reports, you're sending money to overseas, some of them have been listed as investments, some have been listed as other things. we'd like to get some detail and specificity as to how much is going to which countries and what those are for. is that fair? >> i really have to talk to my team about that, but i will. >> is that -- okay. >> and i'm happy to talk to the committee staff about what it is we're trying -- >> a lot of this will be
followed up with committee staff but i want to make sure we're on the record what we're asking for. we obviously have some concerns about the planned parenthood action fund. so, we're trying to get to the duties performed and compensation received for all planned parenthood or affiliate employees. this could be either by -- for the planned parenthood action fund or for either of the -- i believe there are two 527 organizations. one of our concerns is the shared services and the sharing of employees between political activities and nonpolitical activities. and we would like to understand how broad based that is. >> okay. >> okay. the cost of reimbursement for both contraception and abortion and abortion obviously breaks down into in clinic as well as the pill. >> actually, there's a lot of other kinds of contraception,
too. >> yes. contraception i left as broad as i could but -- >> i'm just saying i think it's important. i'm not sure we really got much into that conversation about how birth control -- how many different kinds of birth control is now because it's one of our specialties. >> help us understand what services and money you're allocating and what the costs of that because there were some points that should be helping to drive down those costs and we're just not understanding the ratio. >> i think there was some -- >> it needs clarification -- >> it was clear that folks weren't aware of the various costs of different kinds of contraception. >> exactly. that's where we need help. not right now just as a follow-up. we would appreciate the travel seems excessive to us. now, we're looking at it from a far. there may be a very plausible explanation. but when you have a nonprofit organization who says they're trying to put every dollar they can towards women's health and people are buying first class tickets and getting private
aircraft and chartered aircraft, we'd just like to have an explanation of that. >> i have no idea where that's coming from but i'm making a list. >> it's in the tax returns. that's where we see it. there's boxes to check for certain things and we would appreciate some clarification. >> happy to provide. >> a list of political organizations planned parenthood collaborates with including the names and compensation received of shared employees. i think i covered that in general. but i'll keep going. you understand what our question there is. and then if there are political donations to democrats and republicans, i think most of that is probably financial is probably publicly disclosed but if you could help us with that.
>> the questions that you have to answer and the information that you have just been asked to provide, i cannot help but think about the irs. our republican friends said that there were certain organizations that people in the irs didn't like. and then they decided they said it was unfair. and i understand what they were saying to go through and ask the same kind of things that he's asking you for. i just want to make -- it just hit me as i'm sitting here and i'm listening to all of this. i think it's something that we ought to give some serious thought to. miss richards, i want to thank you for your testimony. you know, as i was sitting here i was just thinking about questions and questions that were asked of you earlier.
and the implication was in even asking the question that you do not respect those who may have a different view with regard to abortion. and, you know, i think that that is such -- so -- so unfair. because i think -- i have heard very few people in this congress ridicule us, one group believes that a woman should have control over her own body and should be able to choose abortion if she likes, she and her family, you know, and her god, if she makes that decision. and then there are other ones who don't believe in abortion. i have not -- and i've been here
20 years. i think we basically respect each other's opinions, period. i mean, is that right? you respect -- because a lot of this is a real personal thing, am i right? >> absolutely. it is. >> but there's one thing that we seem to be sort of glossing over and sort of moving around, it is the law. i mean, it's the law. you may not like the law. but it's the law. you are doing what is within the bounds of the law. and, you know, there are a lot of things i don't like. a lot of laws i don't like. but i still live in the united states of america. and there's a system of government. and i -- i -- as a lawyer and as a member of the congress, i'm sworn to uphold those laws. i might want to change them. i'll do everything in my power
to change the ones i don't like, but in the meantime that's where i am. so, i just want to make sure that, you know, that nobody walks out here saying, oh, you know, because people have differing views does not meanwhimean you don't respect the other person's view. i've never gotten that impression from you. i've read a lot of things you've written. so, is that accurate? is that a fair statement? >> well, i hope i've showed today, i have total respect for this congress. i have respect for people of different points of views and i really think that's -- it is important that we show respect for people who may make different decisions in their lives. and i think we need less judgment and more empathy in this country for people who may simply have different circumstances that we can never know about. >> now, mr. chairman, i just have a few questions of you so
we'll be real clear. i would just like to ask a couple of clarifying questions to help our members understand what the next steps are. republicans announce they plan to establish a new select subcommittee and i don't know how much you know about all of this but i've got to did to take over this investigation. the question will that subcommittee have jurisdiction going forward or will the oversight committee continue this investigation of planned parenthood? do you know? >> it's the intention of the committee to pursue under the duly issued subpoena and obtaining all the videos. according to the information i have from the speaker, the body will consider a bill -- i think it's a bill. maybe it's under a different structure. next week for the formation of this select panel. may be empowered with subpoena authority. we're not sure. haven't seen that yet. but the speaker indicated this morning that that will come
before the body next week. >> as we both know when the select committee was created all the standing committees had to turn over all of their records to the select committee. is that what we are going to do? is that consistent with what you know so far? >> i don't know. >> all right. and do you know whether this new select committee, subcommittee, will be given additional taxpayer funding to investigate the planned parenthood? >> i don't know the structure. i don't know the length. i don't know the powers and i don't know the funding. >> my last question, and i was unclear on your response to a question on this earlier. do you plan to invite mr. delideon to testify and if so, when do you plan to do that, if so? >> we need to "a" clarify the disposition of the videos. given that they're a temporary restraining order, we need to have that loosened up.
when we obtain all of those videos, we'll work in partnership with you and develop a plan on how to deal with those. i don't know what the structure of the new select committee, how that affects it. but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. the first step is to obtain all the videos and i'm glad to see you agree with us. >> definitely. the reason i'm asking because all of the democrats on this committee have requested them and if our committee is going to yield to the new select subcommittee, then we may consider withdrawing our request. but if our committee is going to continue in addition to the select subcommittee, then we may very well insist on our rights to have mr. delideon testify. can you shed any light on this? >> again, the first step is getting all of the videos and at that point we'll make a determination. >> we'll submit our september 21st letter for the record and i look forward to talking with you
further about this issue as we've been working together extremely well but i want to make sure i protect our members' rights. >> very good. i appreciate that. >> last but not least, miss richards, i want to thank you for your cooperation. you have been extremely cooperative. we have not always had that. you got a lot of compliments from up here about the cooperation you have provided, and we really do appreciate it. on behalf of so many women, people like my mother-in-law and so many others, i want to thank you. because i know of so many women who if it were not for planned parenthood would be in a terrible way. and so thank you very much. >> miss richards, again, thank you for your participation here today. you've been very generous with your time. i think you've honestly tried to share your thoughts and perspectives.
i know it's a hard and long day. but we do appreciate your willingness to voluntarily come and provide your testimony in advance. all the things we look for. we do appreciate that. with that, the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you. >> on the next "washington journal," we will continue on the efforts of the defunding of
planned parenthood. the present of javier becerra on the upcoming change in -- representative xavier becerra on the upcoming gop leadership change. onresentative john fleming federal funding and the contest to replace house speaker john boehner. live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> when you look at the role that the supreme court has played in our society, our history series has to have relevance. we thought about, what can we do to get relevance to our current program, the series on the court. >> the court is an equal branch of government. it is the third branch of .overnment it still has fundamental impact on americans lives. >> inside his elegant building is a courtroom where cases are
heard and decisions are made that impact all of our lives. are so many incredibly interesting cases in the courts history. wade,e heard about robie brown v board of education. for many, they are just names in a textbook. we want to talk about not only illegal side of the cases but the people who are involved. human beings who felt so passionately they were wrong that they brought their case to the court. >> i think that what most people will find fascinating about these cases are the personal stories. what my personal favorites is matt v. ohio. i think when people hear this personal story of this woman, they will feel passionate about what happens in the courts and why they matter. cases with ae 12
really difficult and arduous task. we learned a lot. represent ourases evolving understanding of rights in america. su case,tt, the koremat all the way through roe versus wade. >> landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions, produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. delving into 12 supreme court cases that significantly and oure our story understanding of rights in america. at 9:00 p.m.ights eastern on c-span and c-span3. landmark cases, the book. a brief introduction into the background, highlights and impact in the case. published by c-span in
--peration with cq press, of available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping and handling. when the cyber hacking become an act of war? mike rogers, the head of u.s. cyber command, told lawmakers today that the government is still working its way through the issue. he is back on capitol hill tomorrow to testify in implementing a strategy. later, hearing on the threat of islamist extremism in russia. the houseage before foreign affairs subcommittee is at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. as the president from planned parenthood testified for --
testified on capitol hill, the house approved a bill that would allow states to exclude planned parenthood or other groups that perform abortions from medicaid programs. pro tempore: the chairman is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3495, the women's public health and safety act. this bill, at its core, is about choice as well as protecting the lives of millions of unborn babies across america. .r. 34695 would empower states with flexibility to include or -- h.r. 3495 would empower states with flex ict to include or not include providers who assist in elected abortions. the hyde amendment already makes sure that federal medicaid dollars do not pay for
elective abortions. this bill would amend current law so that states would have the flexibility and discretion to work with qualified providers of their choice. this bill also means states would be able to remove the largest abortion chain from being the recipient of millions of dollars of state and federal funds, which are allocated within their states. planned parenthood has received through billion medicaid over a three-year period, and states who wish to eliminate planned parenthood from this funding stream are being blocked from doing so. all medicaid providers ought to be held responsible for their actions. however, the current administration is interpreting current law to protect the interest of political elites
over the health care of those truly in need. states should be able to work with providers who prioritize and respect life and exclude organizations whose business model is built around the destruction of life. planned parenthood is the nation's largest abortion chain -- 327,653 300 abortions in the last reported year. that comes out to an average of 898 abortions per day every day. 37 abortions every hour. three abortions every five minutes. more than one abortion every two minutes. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette.
ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. degette: thank you. madam speaker, the new fiscal year starts in less than 36 hours and congress has still not passed the annual appropriations bills. if we don't do it, the government will shut down. during the last shutdown, we lost $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs. i'm sure we could expect just the same now. the debt ceiling will need to be raised within the next couple of months, madam speaker, and many republicans are already threatening to refuse to perform even that basic task. this will throw the international economy into chaos. it would cause the loss of tens of thousands more jobs in the united states. and of course, the ex-im bank expired in june, and our business communities are clamoring for re-authorization. why? last year the ex-im bank
financed deals that supported 164,000 american jobs. i would suggest, madam speaker, that the u.s. house should spend this week figuring out how to avoid a political and financial catastrophe rather than once again passing a blatantly political bill, stripping women of their basic health care rights. this latest attack targets both the women who need to see a doctor or health care provider as well as the providers themselves. the bill on the floor today, i wonder if the people on the other side of the aisle actually read this bill because it is so broadly written that it would target any medical provider -- doctor, hospital, clinic, you name it -- that has the even most ten with us connection to the full range of women health care services. the majority claims that this bill targets plained, a health care provider that -- planned parenthood, a health care
provider that 2.7 million americans rely on every year. well, first of all, over 90% of the services provided by that agency are routine wellness exams like breast exams, cervical cancer screening and birth control and family planning services, and as we all know, because we discussed it ad nauseam last week, planned parenthood has received no federal funding for abortions. in fact, no agency receives federal funding for abortions with a very few exceptions. this bill would therefore not stop any government funding of abortions. it would instead allow federal and state funding to be cut off for any entity, not just planned parenthood, which performs abortions with private dollars. that means that poor women would be blocked from the full range of health care services that they need, not just at planned parenthood, but at their local hospital or their local clinic or the offices of
another women's health group. let's call this bill what it is. it's an attempt to eliminate health care services for women across the board using planned parenthood -- the planned parenthood witch-hunt as an excuse. and let's be very clear. the investigation of the last few months has demonstrated that the videotapes the majority so heavily relies on are heavily edited, manipulated and at times downright misleading. we are the u.s. congress, madam speaker, and we are better than that. the american public will not stand for this diversion and neither should we. let's defeat this ill-conceived bill, let's direct all of our collective attention to bipartisan solutions resolving the looming fiscal disaster that we are all facing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, in
response briefly, money is fungible. everybody knows it, in one pocket, out the other, one pair of pants. $1.3 billion the last three years in medicaid. the videos, nobody's putting words in their mouths. their words, their pictures. i yield three minutes to the vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, marsha blackburn, distinguished leader on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his diligence and his skints through the year -- consistency through the years on the energy and commerce committee, and i do rise in strong support today of the women's public health and safety act. there will be a lot said about this bill during the course of the day, but let's be certain in what the bill actually says. you've got two pages, and what
this does is grant to the states flexibility. now, madam chairman, what they have asked us for is flexibility. why are they asking us for this flexibility? because we have four states currently in litigation over wanting to be able to determine who is and is not a medicaid provider in their state. so there is a premise and a basis and a reason for bringing this forward and allowing the states to have the final say in who participates in that medicaid delivery. that's what you call good government. and sending the power and the money back to the state and local level. this bill is necessary because the obama administration has blocked attempts of states to remove certain providers from the program. now, we have four states that
have, as i said, had to go into court because they have tried c.m.s. providers and has blocked that action, so therefore, they are not able to move these providers out of the program and the states know best the needs of their residents and they know best which providers are providing affordable access to quality medical care and which ones are trying to skirt the law. there are no mandates in this bill. the final decision is up to the state. the left, in their endless efforts to protect planned parenthood and to prevent them from being held accountable, have once again resorted to scare tactics. i also want to touch on the issue of the community health centers. 9,000 here in our country, and they meet the needs of over 24 million americans. you take a district like mine
in tennessee, there are zero planned parenthood affiliates in my district. zero. there are 16 community health centers. contrast that with the ninth congressional district of illinois, ms. schakowsky's district, she has one planned parenthood affiliate and there are 44 community health centers. ms. degette has eight -- no, three planned parenthood sites and 46 of the community health centers. so what we are doing is encouraging the states to take the responsibility, make the determination of where this ought to be. you know, madam speaker, it's amazing to me. people always say, let's make certain we are being good stewards of the money. planned parenthood is now outsourcing their women's health issues. they cut them in half over the
past seven years, and it is important for us to redirect the funds and give the states the opportunity to determine who provides the service and the access. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. pitts: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. pallone, 1.5 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3495, the yet another radical g.o.p. assault on women's health care. unfortunately, my republican colleagues are at it again, attempting to use any excuse to pursue their extreme agenda. they're attacking planned parenthood in order to limit women's constitutionally protected right to choose what is best for them and their families. the legislation is particularly offensive and egregious, and let me tell you what this legislation is. in the words of more than
120,000 family physicians nationwide, it represents an unprecedented level of legislative interference in the patient-physician relationship. it's not only ill-advised, it's dangerous. this legislation would in the words of the national women's law center, the national law program, wreak havoc on nation's health safety net programs. and represents a direct attack by members of congress on women's ability to control their own reproductive health. this legislation undermines patient choice of providers and provides states unchecked authority to terminate providers from medicaid without a direct cause. this is the attack on low-income women to choose their own trusted medical provider. i stand with all planned parenthood. i stand with all health professionals who provide life-saving preventative health services to men and women every single day and i stand with the hundreds of millions of americans that will say i will
not stand by silent and allow those who are committed to ending abortion access in this country use fraud and deception to cut millions of people off from their health care. we cannot allow republicans to win the war on women. i urge my colleagues to oppose the extreme republican agenda and vote no on h.r. 3495. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, unfortunately, the obama administration puts its own abortion-centered ideological ahead of women's health care. i'd like to recognize -- yield two minutes to the gentlelady -- another the gentlelady from tennessee, diane black, who's been an outstanding leader on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3495, the women's public health and safety act, legislation empowering states to terminate medicaid contracts with providers that disrespect
innocent human life by performing abortions. . as we debate this bill today, the big abortion industry is in a crisis mode. they have seen the same videos i have implicating planned parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, in the trafficking of fetal tissue and organs. and they have seen the same nonpartisan government report i have indicating that planned parenthood received $1.2 billion in medicaid funding over a three-year period. so, knowing that they are losing the public opinion battle, they are taking their fight to the courts. suing states that dare to protect taxpayer dollars by exercising their right to terminate contracts with this abortion giant. tennessee saw this tactic before when planned parenthood took our state to court over an abortion law back in 2000. and we defeated them, but it took 14 years to do it.
madam speaker, let's not let that happen again. if president obama and the congressional democrats are so intent on blocking this legislation to combat taxpayer funding of abortion providers at the federal level, then they should at least let states use their 10th amendment rights to take action within their own borders without the threat of costly politically motivated lawsuits. the women's public health and safety act will do just that. i urge a yes vote on this compassionate, pro-life, pro-woman legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: i'm pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. miss caps: i thank my colleague -- mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to
this bill and political gamesmanship that continues to put our nation at risk. today we witness yet another attack by some of our colleagues who are obsessed with ending access to planned parenthood. a trusted health care provider in my community. but today's bill takes a coes to telling who she should trust with her health and well-being. as a woman, as a mother, as a nurse this is insulting. these attacks have to stop. republicans are willfully putting their heads in the sand. they think it's no big deal to shut down hundreds of clinics offering essential services not available anywhere else. they think that the rest of the safety net can easily pick up the slack, ignoring the fact that those providers themselves have said they cannot. and they think it's worth shutting down the government to achieve this goal. moreover, i would just like to emphasize that these women have
chosen to go to planned parenthood for their care. suggesting that they can just get their care from some other providers is both callous and -- callus and condesending. with all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which provider a man chooses to go to for her reproductive health care is not your decision to make. it shouldn't be. i urge my colleagues to trust women to make their own decisions. vote no on this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm very pleased at this time to yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, the prime sponsor of this legislation, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. duffy: thank you -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. duffy: thank you. i have been watching my democratic friends across the aisle doing somersaults trying
self and sh their rename their dinners. there is a big conversation about the confederate flag and what it means. i would agree with my friends across the aisle. what they don't want to talk about is the roots of where planned parenthood started. it started with margaret sanger. a known racist. a speaker in front of the kkk. she believed in eugenics. she is the founder of planned parenthood. we should talk about the racist roots of planned parenthood just like with the confederate flag and just like the jefferson-jackson dinners that the democrats celebrate every year. if you watched the videos that have come out of planned parenthood, harvesting little baby body parts and selling those body parts for a profit. that's disgusting. this is not a debate about
abortion or even nonabortion. pro-life or pro-abortion. those who are even pro-abortion agree that these tactics are unacceptable. they have no place in our society. and if federal tax dollars should go to fund an institution that harvests baby body parts for sale? is absolutely as nine. -- asinine. you want to talk about health care? health care doesn't mean planned parent hoo. planned parenthood doesn't mean woman's health care. you talk about defunding women's health care? there is no less money. there is the same amount of money that goes to women's health care. that's a false argument. we spend the same amount of money. you say you know what? if we have an organization that supports the harvest and sale of body parts, our tax dollars probably shouldn't go to it. or better yet, why don't we let the states make the decision for themselves? they go, you know what, that's
an affront to our morals and values in one state, we should say we are not going to send federal medicaid money to that organization. and if another state says, you know what, we are ok with it, let them spend their money that way. giving stailingts back the power to -- states back the power to choose how they use their money. i oftentimes sit back and am amazed my friend across the aisle who talk about being compassionate and caring and loving and supporting the downtrodden, can't join us in saying we probably should at least ban abortions after 20 weeks when little babies feel pain. when little babies can survive outside the womb. we are so radical in our position we want to support abortion up to the point of birth. we won't even support you if there is a botched abortion and a baby is born alive we should try to save it. you can't join us in that. you know what? it's a sellout to the radical abortion industry. i see the rally outside.
the rally is a rally of planned parenthood that provides the largest funds to the democratic covers -- coffers. to their campaigns. this is not about life, this is not about health care, this is no about abortion, this is about campaign money that flows from planned parenthood into my democrat friends' campaigns and sadly i wish they would put aside their campaign concerns and start standing for state rights and women's health and little babies' lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. i remind all members to make their comments and address the chair. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: madam speaker, i didn't agree with much the previous speaker said, but i do agree that from our perspective it is about campaign money on that side. and i would now recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. ee, for 1.5 minutes.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding but also for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3495, the so-called women's public health and safety act. first of all, this bill does not keep women safe, and it certainly won't keep them healthy. it would prevent individuals and organizations that provide abortion services from treating women enrolled in medicaid. and it would simply strip women of their fundamental right to choose their own health provider. congress already denies federal medicaid coverage of abortions, which is wrong, and that needs to be repealed, that's the hyde amendment. we have to repeal that. now excluding doctors from serving medicaid patients is yet another attack on the rights of low-income women. hen in the world are you going to stop?
h.r. 3495 would deny more than seven million women access to critical health care services, including contraceptive care, s.t.i. test, lifesaving cancer screenings, and other primary care services, and hurt our most vulnerable communities including low-income women and women of color. madam speaker, this bill is simply wrong. it is nothing more than a shameful attempt to restrict women's constitutional rights. politicians should never interfere with women's personal health care decisions, period. stay out of our lives. this women's public health and safety act, or public safety and health act, it does just the opposite of what this bogus title says. it erodes the health and safety of women. it continues their war on women. i stand l you, today with planned to stop? parenthood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, we
should be aware that not a single penny will be cut for women's health care under this bill. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pittenger: madam speaker, i stand before you in full support of h.r. 3495, the women's public health and safety act. this legislation amends medicaid law to give states the freedom and flexibility to remove abortion providers from medicaid. taxpayer dollars should not be used for abortion, period. this important policy is widely supported by the american people. that's why the hyde amendment first established in 1976 protects taxpayers from preventing the use of federal funds for abortion. however, through the years we have seen these groups attempt to circumvent this federal mandate in order to further their own destructive agenda of death. in north carolina, madam speaker, there are 294 community health clinics. only nine planned parenthood
abortion centers. providing states like north carolina with flexibility and funding will result in better, more accessible health care for all women instead of funneling money to abortion providers like planned parenthood and their army of political lobbyists. thank you to congressman sean duffy for his leadership on this issue. as a nation, we must restore the value and sanctity of life each and every one against the selfish culture of death. i will continue to be a voice for the voiceless and speak out against these egregious acts as long as it takes to restore the god-given promise of life. life is precious. as pope francis stated in this chamber, we must cherish each and every one at every stage of life. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield to the
distinguished gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. moore: i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, i am in opposition to this ill-conceived legislation brought forward from my good friend and colleague from wisconsin. i realize that good people can differ on topics. and i have been stung by some of the discussion that has occurred on this floor today. with regard to the racist roots of planned parenthood. with regard to so-called states' rights. and i can tell you that as a african-american and as a woman have heard the terms state rights used in ways that were not very he healthy and safe for
me as a african-american woman. there's nothing healthy and safe about a bill that would deny women their constitutional and human rights to control their own reproduction. either to get birth control, to be protected against s.t.d.s, or to have an abortion the -- abortion. the reality s. i know many people in this body are fond of reality shows, but in reality a woman is fertile for 30 to 40 years of her life, and there's nothing healthy about becoming pregnant every year for 30 to 40 years. i know i'm one of nine kids and that is not a healthy scenario for many women. the reality is is that this would have an adverse impact on some of the poorest women and many of them african-american in this country. planned parenthood serves that
78% of planned parenthood patients live at 150% or lower of the poverty level. the reality is is that 60% of all americans do not want to see planned parenthood defunded. it is not in the interest of public health and safety for these women to be denied this basic health care. madam speaker, we have heard about these films that are not real at all. they havedown been doctored, edited, and they are revisionist pes, all in pursuit of defunding the premiere organization that protects women's health. and with regard to the other community health centers, i'm glad to know that my colleagues interested in funding those centers, but this bill even puts
them at risk. because any ancillary service related to abortion qub deemed as -- can be deemed as unfitting for reimbursement under the medicaid program. . madam speaker, we have seen the flexibility that states have used. we saw in indiana where they defunded planned parenthood, and as a result we saw a pandemic of h.i.v. infestations in that state. so i would say before i yield back, madam speaker, that i urge my colleagues to not go for the appeasement of the anti-choice caucus that doesn't -- so we don't shut the government down, to use women as a game bit in this political battle. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam chair, may i
inquire as to how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 18 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from colorado has 19 minutes remaining. mr. pitts: madam chair -- speaker, i'm pleased at this time to yield five minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, the chair of the pro-life caucus, chris smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, my good friend, for yielding. and madam speaker, last week pope francis admonished a joint session of congress to follow the golden rule. to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. the golden rule compels us to protect and defend human life at every stage of development. and, of course, that includes the unborn. and that it's wrong to remain silent, he said, or to look the other way when individuals are put at risk. at the white house welcoming ceremony earlier in the day, president obama spoke of protecting the least of these,
taken from matthew's gospel, the 25th chapter. when president obama says protect the least of these, he excludes millions of children, unborn children. every day planned parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons to death approximately 900 unborn babies, the least of these and hurts many women in the process. subsidized by half a billion dollars annually, planned parenthood kills a baby every two minutes, and has terminated the lives of over seven million infants since 1973. a staggering loss of children's lives that equates to the twice the number of every man, woman and child living in the state of connecticut. so i rise in strong support of h.r. 3495, the women's health and public safety act, authored by our distinguished colleague, sean duffy, to give states the
authority to defund planned parenthood. states, indeed, madam speaker, should have the freedom to choose who they subsidize and why. but the president has denied that option to at least six states so far, including texas, arizona, indiana, louisiana, alabama and arkansas. the latter three states have moved to defund in the wake of the recent undercover videos by the center for medical progress. now because of the c.m.p. videos, we know planned parenthood is also trafficking in baby body parties. i would note paraphernalia theyically, madam speaker, i wrote the trafficking of ictims protection act to end cruelty, sex trafficking. this is exploiting the defense of unborn children -- defenseless unborn children and taking body parts they have no right to take. turns out planned parenthood has turned these babies into human guinea pigs and it makes the abortion industry even
richer. although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, planned parenthood's me particularally classic -- me particular yussly classic callous they show disregard for precious children's lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain which begs the question -- do americans understand the violence to children done every day in planned parenthood clinics? have my congressional colleagues, has the president actually watched the videos? have you watched them? in one clip, dr. deborah nuke tal -- nucatula, says we have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because i know i'm not going to crush that part so they crush all the way around the part that's
desired, dismember that baby piece by piece but they leaf intact certain parts, including livers that will then be sold. planned parenthood's medical director's council president, uses the less crunchy, her words, again, to preserve body parts. regarding the price tag for baby body parts, she says, and i quote her, let me just figure out what others are getting and if this is in the ballpark, then it's fine. if it's still low then we can bump it up, she says. another planned parenthood director says we're just trying to figure out as an industry -- and it is the abortion industry -- we're trying to figure out how we're going to manage renew mexico ration because the headlines -- renumeration because the headlines -- no concern whatsoever for the child victim who suffers when
they're dismembered, arms, legs, torso, decapitated head. it is gruesome dismemberment abortions, that's what planned parenthood does. one woman, holly o'donnell, says, and i quote her, she gave me the scissors and told me i had to cut down the middle of the face. i can't even describe what that feels like, she says. i suspect that if the president watches at least one of the videos and my colleagues on the other side, it would at least demand real answers concerns kerning planned parenthood's inhumane behavior and violence that's directed at the least of these. course, sir come mr. pitts: madam chair, i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. mr. smith: thank you. mention about margaret sanger. i read one of her books. she talks about the cruelty of
charity of caring for innocent women who carry babies to term that you should not give them help, that charity is cruel. she was a racist.read her birth. i went to the library of congress, got many copies of it and read through it. she had many programs that talked about focusing on blacks and others for extermination. just read her books. and, again, "the pivot of civilization" is one of the worst. let me also say to my friends, they talk about how they -- videos had been doctored. there is a new report called analysis" e forensic falling say they are into five categories. restroom breaks, recording. at each interview four devices recorded conversations. two video recorders and
microphones and two audio-only devices. i ask my friends and colleagues on the other side to take a look at that analysis. again, you just attack the whistleblower. you attack the organization, but you don't look at the evidence. i've watched those tapes several times and was sickened, sickened by just how inhumane these individuals are in cutting people, little babies to pieces in order to procure their body parts. seven million babies since 1973 killed in planned parenthood clinics. they ought to be called child abuse, incorporated. it is the most unsafe place in america for a child to be in a planned parenthood clinic. i yield back to my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the health committee, any reminder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. and the chair recognizes the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentlelady from
new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1.5 minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank my good friend for her leadership and for yielding. madam speaker, i stand in strong opposition to this ironically titled bill, women's public health and safety act. let's be honest. we are -- we all know that this bill in no way protects the health and safety of women. in fact, it does quite the opposite. this bill is aimed
>> instead, stand for a woman's right to make her own health care choices. planned parenthood should be celebrated, not demonize. it is the largest health care provider for vulnerable women in this great country. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i would remind the gentlelady that abortion is not health care. o the gentlelady from missouri, vicky hartzler, a great leader in the pro-life movement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you, and thank you, mr. chairman. protecting unborn lives is paramount to defining who we are as a people and as a nation. killing innocent babies before they even have a chance at life is unconscionable, let alone turning around and selling the fetal tissue for profit. planned parenthood is the nation's largest provider of abortions. this abortion chain receives $1.2 billion of taxpayer money through medicaid over a
three-year period. planned parenthood reported over $500 million of their annual revenue comes from government funding. this is reprehensible. no federal dollars should go to any institution in the business of harvesting and selling baby parts of aborted children. can you imagine what people would say in this country if this practice occurred with our beloved pets? most of us have cats and dogs. would we stand for them to be killed and their body parts harvested and sold for profit? where is the outrage that this is happening to our country's babies, our unborn children? i continue to fight to defund planned parenthood at the federal level, and i encourage allstate and local governments -- all is it state and local governments to stop funding planned parenthood. three states have undereneded their contracts with planned parenthood, and the obama administration said disqualifying planned parenthood because of their
abortion business violated federal medicaid law. well, today's bill amends the medicaid law to empower states with the ability to exclude abortion providers from medicaid. given the horrific nature of the videos showing the shameful lengths that planned parenthood will go to in order to harvest and sell fetal organs, i am hopeful that each and every state would exercise this option. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, which is critical to the fight to protect innocent lives. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves, and the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank you very much, madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 1.5 minutes. ms. chu: another day, another attack by republicans on women's health care in the house of representatives. but this one is different. it goes beyond the typical attacks on women and endangers
their health and the health of entire communities by holding medicaid hostage, this bill seeks to intimidate doctors and hospitals into not providing a safe and constitutionally protected service. i'm appalled by how far republicans are willing to go. the language in the bill is so vague that it would allow states to exclude entire providers from the medicaid program. minority and low-income women would be disproportionately impacted and would stand to lose access to critical health services like birth control and family planning. it's time to stop the attacks. women must be free to make their own health care choices in consultation with their doctors and without threats from republican politicians in washington. and we must have as one of those choices planned parenthood. for many it's the only place they can turn to for even the most basic care. women, especially low-income
women, turn to planned parenthood for affordable and dependable primary care services. they fill a vital gap that community health centers can't fill by themselves, and we're all better off because of their cancer screenings, s.t.d. testings and wellness plans. republicans are trying to hold other health care hostage by using baseless attacks to shut down planned parenthood, using heavily doctored videos. . it's time to stop using health care as a weapon to bully women. we must vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the in just a moment-- the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm pleased at this time to yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, dr. andy harris, another leader on this issuement the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. harris: thank you. madam speaker, look, this bill is very simple. this bill just says that states
actually can be partners with the federal government and medicaid. the federal government, the secretary of h.h.s., doesn't get to tell a state which providers they think are inadequate. yes, inadequate. planned parenthood is not a comprehensive health provider in my district. in the lower eastern shore of maryland, they closed the planned parenthood in april and said on the website, i quote, that the easton center will be opened -- you can get services monday through friday at the center in easton, 45 minutes up the road. madam speaker, if you go up the road today, they are closed. in fact, the center in easton funded with federal dollars is opened two days a week. that clinic is empty the rest of the time. federal dollars paying for an empty clinic that doesn't deliver comprehensive care. madam speaker, you may have heard somewhere that planned parenthood provides mammograms.
nonsense, even planned parenthood executives say they don't have a mammogram machine in the entire system. the only method of breast cancer screening that actually results in decreased deaths from breast cancer, the only method, mammograms, they don't provide at planned parenthood. but you can be referred. actually, madam speaker, the law is you don't need a referral for a mammogram screening. that's the law. you don't need a referral. any woman can go and get a mammogram screening as long as she's within the screening guidelines without a referral. what is this magic that planned parenthood provides? the gentlelady from new york said, it fills a gap, the community health centers can't fill. nonsense, community health centers can provide mammograms, breast screening, cervical cancer screening, birth control, do is y thing they don't they don't provide abortions outside the limits of the hyde amendment, and they don't sell baby body parts. that's right. i guess selling baby body parts is what's important about women's health care, then you're
right. you got to go to a planned parenthood. you can't get it at a community health center. there are 13,000 community health centers providing the broad range, truly broad range of health care. not health care that you have to leave. maybe you approach some age or younger than some age you don't go to planned parenthood because it's not comprehensive care. community health centers are. they were designed that wafmente the affordable care act, i'm no particular fan of. the fact of the matter is it set these up to be truly comprehensive primary care centers. my community health certainty in my district, if you call today, they are actually opened. if you call tomorrow, they are opened. but planned parenthood isn't. if you call thursday, planned parenthood is opened 7 1/2 hours. my community health center 8 1/2. if you call friday you're out of luck at planned parenthood. madam speaker, we are paying planned parenthood to keep an empty office open that doesn't provide comprehensive care in my clinic. the gentlelady from new york
you hat end of this bill couldn't provide an abortion. that's nonsense. read the bill. as long as you provide abortions consistent with the hyde amendment that. is a rape or incest exclusion or life the mother. the gentlelady was wrong. she said lives are threatened. no, madam speaker. if lives are threatened specifically this bill says that provider, that state can choose to fund that provider and can do that. madam speaker, the bottom line is, planned parenthood there's only one thing is it does that you don't get -- i'll reiterate. in the on't get community health center. you can get an abortion, usually any stavenlg pregnancy for any reason. get your baby's body parts sold in the trafficking of body parts that we saw in those films. those films doctored? they are not doctored. anyone can look on the website. they are raw footage. a le get your talking about
lamborghini from the profits of baby body parts. if we aren't -- if that isn't repulsive to us, what is? all this bill does allow states to defund that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. and the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the gentleman is absolutely correct. planned parenthood does not provide mammograms. they do provide breast cancer screenings, but under this bill if there is a hospital or a clinic that does provide mammograms, and they also provide a lamborghini abortions, well, th the states could prehe vent funding. so ironically under the terms of this bill up for discussion today, mammograms could be prehaven'ted. i don't think that's the intention of the writer of this bill. with that i'm pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to a senior member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. green from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15st
minutes. mr. green: thank youers madam speaker. i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding to me. i rise in opposition to h.r. 3495, the so-called women's public health act. women's health care is more than bram mam grams. i know that planned parenthood in my district provides over 80% of their care is women's health and not abortion. this bill would give states the right to exclude a health care provider who performs abortion care from their medicaid program. medicaid provides premium care to millions of low-income women and families alike. excluding providers from medicaid without cause is another ill masked attempt to impede reproductive rights. this bill as named is plame claiming to provide safe public health care for women, but excluding quality health care providers such as planned parenthood, the quality of services will drop and as a result women's health will be detrimentally harmed. that was proofed in a study by a texas agency after 2011. this is yet one more attempt to
defund planned parenthood which if successful will hurt millions of women and communities across the country. h.r. 3495 is contradictory to the views of the majority of americans. three out of four american women support publicly funded family planning centers and believe they have a positive impact on public health. by passing this bill we are harming millions of women who rely on publicly funded planning care. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentleman from new york -- sorry, two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. madam speaker, despite its puffed up name this bill has nothing to do with protecting women's health or safety.
the bill the republicans pass today would cut off access to health care for millions of american families who rely on medicaid. this bill would cut off from medicaid reimbursement for any service, planned parenthood or any doctor or hospital or clinic or local health center that performs or is in involved in any way with abortions. if this bill passes, a woman seeking prenatal care for a planned pregnancy could suddenly be cut off from her doctor if that doctor also provides abortion certificate visions or even referral to abortion services. a child with a lifesaving illness could be turned away from the hospital because the hospital chair expressed views upportive of abortion. a senior citizen with a chronic illness could suddenly find his or her prescription lapse with no way to refill it because his or her doctor is somehow involved with abortion. my colleagues continue to insist this bill won't interrupt care. that these families, children, and seniors will see different
doctors or go to different hospitals. how many of my colleagues have ever been on medicaid? how many of them have ever been turned away by a doctor or told they have to wait months for an appointment because the doctor simply cannot afford to accept any more medicaid patients? this bill would dramatically shorten medicaid doctors and lengthen wait time for patients. putting more people at risk. if their overarching goal is to dismantle medicaid as we know bill is a strong first step. if we want to talk about a culture of life, we should bring bills to the floor to encourage more doctors to serve in high need areas to give every child access to the highest health care. we should talk about increasing funding for wick and snap to make sure parents, babies, and children are going to bed hungry. we should talk about providing public housing programs. talk about lowering student debt loan to ensure parents can give their kids every opportunity. while what we should not be doing is cutting doctors and hospitals and clinics and community health care centers out of medicaid and putting more lives at risk.
this bill is just another blatant attempt to intimidate doctors and hospitals into ending abortion services. under the guise of promoting life, this bill puts more lives at risk. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. ms. degette: madam speaker, i believe my colleague has no more speakers. mr. pitts: we are prepared to close. i reserve. bill is a strong ms. degette: i have more speakers. i'd now like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from california, dr. bera, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dera: thank you to my colleague from colorado. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to another bill restricting women's access to health care. the so-called women's public health and safety act is not about public health and certainly not about safety. this is a bill that takes away individual rights. it's a bill that would significantly restrict a women's access to health care.