tv House Budget Committee Marks Up Budget Resolution CSPAN July 20, 2017 8:04am-8:18am EDT
take away benefits that americans need come pre-existing conditions, the ability for seems to be nursing homes, the ability for people to get medicaid thing american people wanted regardless of whether got republican or democrat, whether you live in a red state or a blue state. so this amendment is a commonsense amendment that reflects the will of the american people to get affordable and quality health care. i hope we will all pass this amendment so that we can serve the american people. i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by his wasserman schultz. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed. a recorded vote is requested and pursuant to our unanimous consent agreement we will postpone the record about into we're finished our debate on this batch of seven amendments. >> thank you, madam chair. i offer an amendment to protect
women's health by ending the war on planned parenthood and allowing women to pick their own medical provider. i would find it ironic that republicans claim that they want to increase choices for people and allow them to make their own health decisions, but apparently that right does not extend to women. planned parenthood is a trusted source of health care for 2.5 million americans every single year. one in five women will visit a planned parenthood clinic in her lifetime. it offers preventive care, vaccines, screenings, contraception, and it's for men as well as women by the way. that can go to planned parenthood. and yet republicans continue to do everything they can to respect women from getting daycare from planned parenthood. the republican budget proposes not only removing planned parenthood from medicaid program but also makes it ineligible to
participate in any federal program. and let's not pretend that this is anything other than a direct attack on women's health. over half the planned parenthood health centers are in health professional shortage areas, world are medically underserved areas. these are places that desperately need more health care providers and yet republicans are trying to make it hard for women in these areas to access get the democratic women, republican women come independence. in fact, the cbo projects about 15% of people living in those areas would lose access to care. 75% of patients of planned parenthood and incomes at or below one and 50% of the federal poverty level. this attack on planned parenthood will hurt lowincome families and communities of color and most communities that already faced dangerous health
disparities. teen pregnancy and abortion rates are at historic lows. the funding planned parenthood and other reproductive health providers would take away the very services that have lowered those rates. let me be clear. the republican plot to defined planned parenthood is nothing more than a direct attack on women, and women are simply not going to stand for it. let me say that the republicans have long contended that the federally qualified health programs, the clinics, community health centers can take up the slack if planned parenthood is eliminated. actually those three clinics have said that is not true. this will cause about 15% of people living in this underserved areas to lose access to care. and now i would like to yield one minute to congresswoman jaya paul. >> thank you congresswoman
schakowsky for this important amendment. by pushing the agenda to defund planned parenthood i fear my colleagues on the republican side are using this budget resolution to punish millions of women around the country. in a single year planned parenthood provides care for 2.4 million people at over 600 affiliate health care centers around the country. 80% of patients visit the clinics to prevent pregnancy, pregnancies and to get contraceptive pills which prevented 500 60,000 unintended pregnancies. with more than half of health centers in underserved areas planned parenthood provides crucial care to women and men who otherwise would not have access at all. he funding these clinic would mean a loss of health care access to over 40% of the women who use them as primary care facilities. and communit tenured health cenh by the way are all across the country in rural areas cannot absorb millions of new patients.
so i hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment because cutting funding does not save us money. it is simply a tool to control women's choices and bodies. i yield back the balance of my time. >> and now i'd like to yield one minute to congresswoman delbene. >> thank you. i strong support ms. schakowsky is a member to protect women's access to care to planned parenthood. the house republican budget would be devastating to women's health. not only doesn' does it under mh coverage for maternity care and birth control but it also takes the extreme step of defunding planned parenthood. a trusted medical provider to 2.5 million americans that something they rely on. politicians have no right to interfere in a woman's personal medical decisions, and that includes when and where she gets health care. last year planned parenthood perform more than 600,000 cancer
screenings and help detect abnormalities in more than 72,000 women. this is life-saving care. it's time for republicans to stop the relentless crusade against planned parenthood and give women the dignity of making their own health care decisions. i urge all my colleagues who respect women's health to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. >> thank you, and i yield the remaining time to congresswoman jackson lee. >> this is a story about the devastating impact of the destruction of planned parenthood. 75% of planned parenthood patients have incomes at or below 150% of federal poverty level and only 60% of patients access care to medicaid or title x family planning. more than one-third of patients are people of color. here's a healthy mother wanting to have a healthy baby. our preventative health care comes from planned parenthood.
do you want to stop this kind of life-saving health care? that's what trumpcare democratic -- >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. >> is all about. i yield back. >> i claim the time and yield myself seven minutes. so as paul harvey says come here's the rest of the story. let's talk about the additional women's health funding that's in this budget. the budget supports enhanced access to women's health care services. this budget also assumes that the american health care act which provides additional funding specifically for maternal health through patient and state stability fund. this budget fully funds discretionary programs at the department of health and human services the focus on women's health, including the nih office of women's health, the nih pregnancy and prenatal branch, the cdc office of women's
health, the cdc efforts to prevent the spread of zika virus which impacts pregnant women. so here are some other responses of the rest of the story. our budget does not eliminate federal funding, excuse me, does a limited federal funding for planned parenthood. however, promotes redirecting these funds to community health centers. the budget promotes investment community health centers to promote greater access to care for women. the community health centers are nonprofit. there are committee base clinics have a comprehensive care including mammograms which by the way planned parenthood claims to have provided and we now know that they do not provide mammograms. in fact, they do not have a single location that provides a mammogram. now, here are some other little fax. there are 9000 community health centers which unlike planned parenthood clinics are required
guess, required by law to be located in medically underserved areas with high levels of poverty and infant mortality. so with others talk about this not going to be services, they are actually required to be in these very communities where women need these healthcare services the very most. in fact, in 2015 community health centers provide health services for more than 20 million americans, nearly 60% of those that they provided services for were females. in contrast planned parenthood served less than 3 million. so let's look at that. nearly 20 million in community health centers and fewer than 3 million and planned parenthood facilities. this budget also makes efforts to ensure taxpayer dollars to go to the nation's largest provider of abortions. but rather support those health care centers that truly provide comprehensive care to women. more than just mammograms, more
than just prenatal care. there are other services they provide that are not provided in planned parenthood centers. the federal government should not force states to provide funding to clinic such as planned parenthood outperform elected abortions and simulate the government should not force taxpayers to fund clinics where there against their own values. this budget continues his protection are proposing to eliminate all federal funding for planned parenthood and similar organizations. now, additionally, let's look at the cbo score that was mentioned in the opening remarks. so the congressional budget office doesn't is made some small costs associated with the complete elimination of funding planned parenthood. the budget committee contest the score that put out because it's based on cbo's faulty assumption reducing planned parenthood funding would result in more pregnancies from a lack of access to contraceptives. as i've already talked about
there are 20 million women that are taken care of in the community health centers, only 3 million, less than three going in planned parenthood. this is unreasonable and to talk about being against women. this is a sexist assumption women's ability to seek a convince upon having a planned parenthood facility across the street. as with providing additional funding for community health centers is partof our markup it's unreasonable for cbo to assume that women are incapable of finding another provider. women are smarter than this. they are able to find other providers. planned parenthood is not, if it is an option to smart enough to find other providers. and i'm insulted to say that women are not come to be able to make that choice to find another provider. we assume that we and our budget soon that women are capable, smart, independent enough to seek contraception elsewhere instead of giving up and going
straight home to get pregnant as cbo assumes. it is an insult to women. women don't need some paternalistic government to provide for them. our budget is pro-women, it's pro-girl, and it's pro-unborn baby girl. you talk about being pro-women, if we're taking little girls lives, that doesn't seem to me to be very pro-woman. so i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. now ms. sh schakowsky is recognd for one minute to close. >> a couple of things community health centers does screen sort -- planned parenthood does screen for breast cancer and then will refer women readers a mammogram or something abnormal found 50 screenings are very important. as far as insulting women, are you kidding me? that women have to travel hundreds of miles in order to get to a clinic they don't have a planned parenthood clinic nearby. and so it is not for a lack of
smarts and intelligence that women seek pick and begin its democratic and republican women alike that seek planned parenthood clinics. in fact, 19 national polls have shown american people do not support the funding planned parenthood but if the republicans have the way millions of patients will, in fact, lose access to cancer screening and contraception and sei testing and what women visits and more. and those very community health centers sites suggest it would be a problem for them it would not be able to make at the get so i urge my colleagues to support this pro-woman amendment and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yield back the belts of a type of the question is on agreeing to the amendment by ms. schakowsky. all those in favor say aye. those opposed? in the opinion of the chair the no's have it. >> a recorded vote is requested and pursuant to our unanimous consent agreement we will postpone the record will