tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN February 17, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EST
money to subsidize land line and cell phone service for low-income individuals. i can understand the need to ensure that low-income individuals have a basic telecommunications link of some sort for emergency calls, however, the state and local governments are the appropriate levels of government to provide this service. especially in a time of fiscal distress like we are currently facing, i do not believe it is the role of the federal government to be subsidizing cell phone service. . would the chairwoman commit to working with me addressing this issue? ms. emerson: i thank the gentleman from virginia for bringing this to our attention and commend you for doing so and will be happy to work with you to try to address this issue, particularly in report language in the fiscal year 2012 bill. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman and yield back to her. ms. emerson: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota
rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk number 214. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendments number 214, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kline of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. in an op ed published in the "wall street journal" president obama laid out his plan to conduct a review to quote, remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive, closed quote. i pledge to be a partner in that effort. job creation and american competitiveness is a top priority. i'm offering an amendment to deny funds to use and implement a job restoring department of education regulation. more than three million students attend pro prite tear schools, these schools provide students
with skills that can be applied medley to specific jobs in the work force with more than six million workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks, these schools address a critical need in today's economy. these schools help address the needs of local communities. the institutions are anymoreble and adapt to the ever changing local economy. if it lacks nurses or mechanics, the schools can develop programs to fill those needs. for years, the schools have served young adults, younger parents and low-income individuals. they have opened doors to bright futures and strengthen our economy. that's why the recent efforts by this administration have been so troubling. last year, the department of education put forward regulations that will deny students access to many of these institutions. the regulation includes provisions including unprecedented reporting requirements placed on the backs of these schools.
the regulation seeks these schools to seek approval before creating any program. the flexibility that has benefited communities and workers, the public outc.i.a. has been resounding. more than 90,000 public comments were sent to the department during the rule making process. a strong bipartisan coalition of members of congress has voiced their concerns to the administration ta those concerns seem to be ignored. 2008, congress had the opportunity to define gainful employment but chose not to and recognized such a definition would limit student choice and stifle employment. the administration is barreling ahead with bad policy. we all support transparency and accountability. we should empower students with good information about all institutions so they can make informed choices about their education. we should do our part to root out bad actors.
this is an attack on the private sector of education. colleges that plan to expand their campuses and put those plans on hold. this effort will force schools to turn away students and close their doors. some have already laid off workers. capell a announced they will lay off staff members. the regulation is destroying jobs today and will continue to do so. make no mistake, this isn't just another regulation, this is an assault on students' abilities to find an institution that best meet their needs. this goal represents the reality that far too often our workers are unprepared to succeed in a highly competitive global economy but we cannot lead the world if we follow this path this regulation forces us to take. let's support the students to choose a college that meets
their needs. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. and mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition to the kline amendment which would prevent the department of education from moving forward on a rule that would deny financial aid to career education programs that leaves students with too much debt and without new gainful employment. the program is responsible to a simple proposition that should only receive financial assistance if students can earn enough money to pay off the debt they accrue. the program is worth a federal investment if only the price of the education is justified by its outcome. isn't that what responsible budgeting is all about? this would apply for for-profit and nonprofit colleges. but for for-profit sector has
launched an aggressive lobbying campaign against it. it is greater than at a community college. for-profit colleges account for only 10% to 12% of college students but receive 23% of all federal sfuned loans and grants. graduation rates at for-profit colleges are at or below 50% while the profit margins are high as 25%. 25% of the for prife profit students default on the their jones after three years. we need to increase students with college degrees but shouldn't have to mortgage their futures and should be secure in knowing when they graduate they will have a degree that will help them secure a job and repay their student loan. leaving college without a credential or one that is of little value in the job market can leave students unable to climb out of debt and that is what happens to too many
students who have been taken in by the aggressive marketing tactics for for-profit colleges. why should they contest that an education is worth its price tag. they are in business to educate students not simply to take their money. this will protect students and taxpayers. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: as chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations subcommittee on education. we have no objections to this amendment. i have said that the reason -- excuse me, strike the last word. i have said the reason that the internet is so successful in america is that the government hasn't figured out how to screw it up yet. they are doing everything to screw up education. we get a structure that is able to move very quickly to meet the needs of students and this
government is trying to create a bureaucracy to keep them from being successful and it's inappropriate. the gept of education is attempting to define through new regulation what it means for someone graduating from a school to be gainfully employed. wouldn't that be nice if we applied that same standard to our public school system around the country that our students had to be gainfully employed before they received any money. this is a prime example of federal overreach. fear of this regulation is having real economic impact now even before it goes into effect. schools are scaling school offerings because of the threat of this gainful employment regulation. if it goes final, 5.4 million students could be shut out of higher education by 2020. portions of the regulation are set to go into effect on july 1 of 2011. so it's necessary to include this language in the continuing resolution. waiting for the fiscal year 2012
appropriations process will be too late for these schools. business groups, ranking from the national restaurant association and u.s. chamber of commerce support this as well as various state chambers of commerces and support this amendment and oppose the regulation and i hope you do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: i rise in opposition and strike the last word. i tell people if government is smart enough after it invented the internet, it turned it over to the private sector to grow it. members of the house, this amendment should not be adopted. it should not be adopted because this amendment is designed to disrupt the regulatory process to determine whether or not students who enroll in some, and i say some, i say this as a
supporter of career colleges, some classes that only leave them in debt don't leave them better prepared for the work force or the career. there is substantial evidence that that's the case. high default rates, students not completing and students ending up in debt. they are doing this with 90% of taxpayer dollars. i think we have an obligation to the students and to the taxpayers. that's what the administration is trying to do with this regulation. it's been mentioned there were 90,000 comments, 89,000 of them were form letters. you think they could have varied them a little, but they didn't. the point is, if the administration ought to be allowed to complete this process, because this really is about what the future of these students. students from these schools in many stances graduate with much
higher debt and default in excess of 45% -- of them end up in default and as you know that is not debt you can discharge in a bankruptcy haven't these students start out in big trouble if these schools are not providing the kind of educational atmosphere and hopefully the success ratio that they should. that should be a concern to every member of this congress. that should be a concern to the taxpayers and it is a concern to this administration. if this regulation doesn't turn out, the congress can tell them they can't do it. that's our power and that's the way it works. to come in the middle of the game with this much money on the table this much of the taxpayers' money with the default rates in some of these institutions in some of these classes, we are putting a big mistake on this side of the scale. by the time when i was on this committee and as the schools
became part of our higher education, i have supported them and continue to support them. somebody said if you are going to meet the goal of college graduates it's hard to believe how you would do that without these schools. as we all know, we all know, you put 90 cents out of every dollar coming from the taxpayer on the street, there is always a few people to show ip to pick it up without providing the service. we went through this with h.m.o.'s back in the 1990's. they were real estate companies trying to get them to enroll and hopefully sell it to someone else. in this, you are offering a curriculum. it gives students the opportunity. but when we see the kinds of scandals that have erupted in the past at some of these institutions, again not all of them, you have to ask the question, what's going on. people have paid fines because of how they attracted the students.
when you have a business plan based upon attracting homeless people, you better make sure there is an opportunity for that homeless person to thrive in that class other than end up in debt. that was a business plan. i'm just asking for caution. i know you want -- i know the power of these institutions and i know the pressure they are saying you have to stop this, you have to stop this. we're talking about a few classes within all of these institutions where there's the history, may well be a history that all the student got out of it was debt. this isn't about what you end up doing in your career over time but about whether or not you got what you paid for and they delivered the services that they promised. i would hope that congress would reject this amendment and let the department couldn't to work on the regulation and if it doesn't work or make sense, i suspect we'll all join in making
sure that the regulation doesn't go into effect. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. roe: i rise in support of this amendment. over the past year, a number of us have met with education secretary duncan to express our serious concerns with any proposal that evaluates educational programs based on the level of debts students are accumulating. despite improvements that have been made to the rule, i remain concerned about the direction this is taking our education system. i understand about the high cost of education, but shouldn't we let students and their families evaluate for themselves whether the risk of carrying a high debt load is one they want to take on. it is a better use of resources to encourage informed decisions by putting out accurate information to students about
graduation rates placement rates and average debt burdens. career colleges are meeting a community need by educating and training people in specific professions like nursing and we are one million nurses short in this country. if there are problems with the specific program and there are that may be bad apples, let's come up with criteria that evaluate the program's effectiveness. it makes sense to halt this rule and use the additional rule to urge the department to go back and put out a rule that will ensure students will have access to educational choice. i urge adoption to the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? polpol i move to strike the -- molepole i move to strike the last word. .
mr. polis: this amendment would not only eliminate the ability to have the critical gainful employment regulation, some element of quality control to make sure that after receiving, sometimes very expensive, educations, somebody is actually more employable but also undue -- undo existing transparency that's already published. it would disallow information on student outcomes such as graduation rates and loan default rates. the rb this is such an important matter to congress is this is a critical matter for taxpayers. taxpayers have been paying the costs of loan default rates for poorly performing for-profit colleges. they received $24 billion in title 4 loans and pell grants in 2009, accounting for about a wart of this -- quarter of the federal college loan dollar, despite comprising only 10% of
the institutions. students have about twice the rate of college defalls, rising to 25%. these are averages. the strongly performing for-profit institutions and we have nothing against whether a institution is for-profit, non-profit, government, what matters is does it work? does it work for kids? does -- do you get your money's worth? do taxpayers get their money's worth? or do you garage wait students with a mountain of debt no more ployable than they were before they walked through the -- employable than they were before they walked through that door. to make it worse, tuition is $14,000 per year for for manufacture profit universities, versus $7,000 per year for state colleges. r they providing twace the
value of public colleges? are they providing six times the value than community colleges and making somebody employable? the answer is no. that's why the higher education act authorized the regulations that this amendment would block. i strongly support the process that the administration has gone through, including the process on the rule of gainful employment. the administration is -- has not tuned a deaf ear to the industry. legitimate concerns of quality operators. the first rule that they put out there was i think they acknowledged had room for improvement. they've been working diligently in conjunction with responsible players in the for-profit education industry. to establish a real playing field to ensure that we are not doing the students and taxpayers a disservice through this program. g.a.o. has detailed the issues in its report last summer in the leadership conference and wrote to the u.s. department of
education that this rule will benefit minority students because they disproportionately enroll at for-profit institutions, overpaying for education compared to their counterparts. it's a reasonable way to ensure gainful employment for students. i applaud the administration taking on this battle to ensure transparency and protect taxpayer funds. i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> to strike the last record. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: i rise in support of the kline amendment. it is imperttive that congress put the brake ops what has become this administration's culture of runaway regulation. it will prohibit the use of
funds for implementation of a misguided regulation commonly referred to as gainful employment rule which has led to job loss and uncertainty in the proprietary college sector. i feel it will limit access to programs that provide students with skills to meet the demands of an ever-changing job market. it would prohibit colleges from obtaining money from student loans unless long, complicated rules are met. therefore they only pursue plans that meet government goals rather than plans that best fit students' needs. it also ignores measures of seemingly equal importance such as on-time graduation rates and career placement. equally troubling under the rule, proprior -- proprietary institutions would sadly be forced to navigate an
additional restrictive layer of federal bureaucracy, requiring federal approval in order to offer any new program. unfortunately, this provision fails to realize it is the agile nature of these proprietary institutions that uniquely position them to help unite a properly equipped work force with employers in today's uncertain job market. by unduly restricting the flexibility, we risk failure to capitalize on more than economic opportunity. moreover the gainful employment rule applies almost exclusively to one sector of higher education, the proprietary schools which teach job-specific skills often to at-risk populations, such as low-income, minority, single parent, high school dropouts with g.e.d.'s and first generation college students who do not have financial help from pearnts. somehow, there's a notion that the bad actors of the financial
of federal higher education loans is exclusively within the proprietary college sector. this is preposterous. but the fact is that the administration has chosen to discriminate against these schools. the fact remains that a student can graduate from any institution of higher education with inadequate income to repay their debts an students should not suffer simply because the school that best suit theirs needs operates under a for-profit model. i have repeatedly asked the department of education to refrain from implementing this rule until we have clear data on the state of the overall -- of the nation's overall higher education system. if the administration were serious about addressing unscrupulous recruiting practices at the college level this data would be compile -- compiled and made public, particularly available to members of congress.
as it stands, we have little more than the singular last minute vote to slow down the administration's race to squeeze the for-profit sector out of existence. i would yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, i'd like to point out one important -- a few important facts about this for-profit educational sector. that is the low-income students make up half of the enrollment for for-profit colleges and minority students comprise about 37%. so this really is a matter of lowering -- low income and minority students facing what are high cost loans for students and often, 90% of the money comes from the federal government. now, as i listen to my friends on the republican caucus, i
would think that they would want the best value for the public dollar. this rule means that some money spent will result in the outcome that is sought in the begin, which is gainful employment. too many of the students who go to these schools are coming out with nothing other than big debt and no education, no gainful employment at all. this is a problem. i'm surprised that we would not say that, look, we are going to make sure that when the federal collar is put forward, there will be value coming back for it. i'm no opponent of for-profit colleges. i think ones that are performing well certainly welcome in the market and serve a valuable role. through there are bad actors and i think it's important to point out, we have seen this movie before, mr. chairman. we've seen it when people said, look, poor people, low-income people of color, need to get
mortgages, and well you know what, they can get subprime mortgages. not all subprime mortgages were predatory mortgages, but some were. and enough were to be able to take advantage of people on a very severe scale. this rule, if it goes into effect, if allowed to proceed forward, would make sure that these students and the government got good value for their money and no for-profit college that is not relying on a business model that bilings the con sumer -- no for-profit college that relies on the business model that is designed to help the students they propose to help should object to saying, look, we're going to deliver on what we say we're going to deliver, which is gainful employment. this is no friendly thing for the poor and low-income students of color. this is an abuse. not all for-profit colleges,
but some. and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure that these students are not taken advantage of. by the logic of some of the proponents of this amendment, we should say that, look, any loan shark, pawnshop, payday lender, we ought to thank them because they serve the poor. well, then better serve the poor in a fair, scraup louse way and not take advantage of -- scrupulous way and not take advantage of them. i urge members to vote this amendment down and to allow the proper rule making procedure to go forward. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? the chair: thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to support this amendment, this so-called
gainful employment regulation is another example of this big federal government run amok. hoosiers in indiana and all americans are free to choose from accredited colleges and pick the one they believe fits their needs. these are accredited colleges. no one has accused them of unfairly serving the poor no one rightfully has, or anyone else. mr. rokita: they are accredited, they are licensed. the federal government gets involved in student loans and grants already, more so, i would say, than i and others would like it to. but at least, mr. chairman, we still let individuals make their own decisions on where to go to school. the new rule makes a mockery of our american tradition of free choice, replacing it with a bizarre program where the federal government decides what job you should seek and what school you can attend. let me walk you through it. under this rule, the oba maw
administration has proposed a plan that number one creates a matrix that examines the student loan debt to future income of a prospective student. then it compares that rashee to the student len repayment rates of graduates of the same program and number three, and finally, it decides if the student can have access to the loans they would need to attend the school or program of their choice. so for those of us listening, watching at home, what this means is, if you are contemplating going to cool so you can economically better yourself, or because you otherwise want to enrip your life you just can't go to the -- enrich your life, you just can't goat to the college of your choosing if you need a government loan. instead, a nameless, faceless bureaucracy, using some bizarre arbitrary formula gets to decide wlorn you have chosen a field of study that will pay enough to justify the investment. in the minds of that particular
bureaucrat. -- in the mind of that particular bureaucrat. unbelievable. the government and the obama administration administration are micromanaging this part of our lives too. talk about central management. this will affect those least able to do anything about it, working americans who need new training and skills to move forward in the work force. this is what this congress should be about. if this regulation becomes reality, it will prevent 400,000 people from developing new skills to benefit the work force. by 2020, nearly 5.4 million students will be denied the higher education program of their choice. in a global economy, we cannot compete without an educated and flexible work force. this amendment will allow americans the choice they deserve and the educational flexibility our nation needs. i urge a yes vote and i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the
gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i rise today in strong opposition to the kline-fox-hastings-mccarthy amendment that would stop the proposed gainful employment regulation. for -- for-profit colleges account for only 17% of the higher education yet 44% of student loans borrowers who defaulted within two years of beginning their repayment were students who had attended for-profit schools. . i know something about these private, post- secondary schools, one could make the argument and one would say not all the schools, not 100% of the schools are rip-off
schools but a majority of them are. i have experienced this first-handed. while i was working with poor students in south los angeles, we were trying to get them into g.e.d. classes, the recruiters would come along and tell them that they could get them into their schools and help them to get pell grants and help them get a career. and lo and be hold, they would sign up and they would sign up and some were going to be dental assistants and had a little green jacket on and a little box that they carried to make it look as if they were carrying dental tools, but it was a matter of months later where you would find the school is out of business and been going to school where there was no teachers or equipment and they were relationship-off schools and they make a lot of money. look at this one school, capella and earned $335 million in
profits, some of that was government money. some of my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will have you believe they want to save the government money and want to protect the government from spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. something is wrong with this picture when they take the floor and argue for the continued relationship-off of our students and our taxpayer money to these schools. let me tell you who some of them are, corinthian, everestt and kaplan and "washington post" owns it. do you think it makes it money from the newspaper? you have any thought coming. their revenues are coming from kaplan university who have been found to have done all kinds of things to get these students in,
charging them high prices for these classes. they're not getting jobs. they don't get a career and they end up not only owing the government money, but they're prevented from having a decent quality of life because now they can't get a section 8, can't get another pell grant and you know what? in many states, they are going after social security money and retirement money. this is the next big scandal in america. you think that the meltdown that we just had and the foreclosures that we are experiencing across this country is bad, you wait until the investigations are done. and the truth is told. and the amount of money is counted about the rip-offs. now i know that this is a powerful lobby that i'm working against. i understand that. they roam these halls and they have plenty of resources and put
out plenty of materials. they buy full-paged ads and up on television, joe blow school of computer learning that has no school. but what i don't understand is how they can be joined by people who claim to care about the taxpayers' money and claim that they are fighting to reduce government, when, in fact, they are supporting the rip-off schools that is increasing the amount of pell grants we give to schools who will not get any jobs or create any careers. this is not right. we should not have to suffer this kind of misrepresentation. our members of this house should be in support of students who want to learn. the worst thing that can happen to students who drop out of school, to students who haven't made it, to all of a sudden think that somehow they are going to get into a job and get
into one of these rip-off schools and get disappointed time and time again. i see the population they are targeting. they are targeting the welfare mothers and gang bangers and all kind of people that they know are going to have a difficult time succeeding. you keep doing it because it is going to catch up with you a i ask that this amendment not be supported. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: i rise in support of the amendment. the president has promoted a policy to add five million graduates by 2020 and i commend the president for that goal but i have to wonder how are we going to achieve the mission if the department of education is going to put up roadblocks such as proposed rules for gainful employment? the reality, career colleges
serve many different purposes for people of all walks of life. this isn't an issue of black and white, republican or democrat. this is an issue of access to opportunity. i represent a very rural district in pennsylvania. many of my constituents don't have access to a community college and they live a significant distance to any university. my schools have sprung up out of necessity. many students in pennsylvania choose these schools because of their convenience. they realize that career colleges offer course work of all types and work to accommodate the busy schedules we all have. they realize that life does not just stop for four years so you can go to a school. and they realize these institutions will give them the skills they need to enter the work force and earn a decent living. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i have concerns that the department of education has stepped way beyond its authority and begun the determination of
an arbitrary ruling on gainful employment and i ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: i thank the speaker and i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment that will prohibit the use of funds by the department of education for its misguided gainful employment rules. perhaps it would be helpful for the body and the public to know what this gainful employment is that we are talking about. under the higher education act, proprietary colleges and universities and career training programs are required to offer programs that lead to gainful employment in a legally recognized occupation in order to participate in the federal student aid program.
the term, gainful employment, has been in the statute for over 40 years. and during the most recent re-authorization of the higher education act, there was absolutely no debate or discussion on a need to further define the term. now when this originated, several of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and i'm appreciatetive of the chairman and my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion, we went about our business trying to understand just what kind of proposed rule it is that the department is talking about and just how it is that it will impact the overall public. what this amendment would do is prohibit the use of funds for implementation of the draft regulation that the department issued on october 29, 2010 and will prohibit the department from promulgating or enforcing new regulations regarding
gainful employment. let me put a face on these schools as my colleagues that are opposed have done. perhaps some of them have never eaten at a restaurant that the person that prepared the food went to a proprietary institution. i have. perhaps none of them have had physical therapy where the person administering it graduated from proprietary schools. i have. and most importantly, i want this body to understand that the eight people that had the last hands-on experiences with my mother for two years that all were nurses in two different hospitals and at home, graduated from proprietary schools. now we all agree that both taxpayer funds and students are -- best interests should be protected in higher education,
but i can tell you this, going into a blanket approach that will limit student access to higher education and fail to adequately address problem institutions is not the way to go. you know what we did here in this institution? what we did here for the people that work with us, young people that graduate from ivy league schools, historically black schools all over this place, we created a program that will allow them to help pay off their student loans. some of us hire people that i would not call gainful employment that may have graduated from institutions that i attended or that the president attended. now i don't understand why the department refuses to recognize job placement, professional certification passing rates, employer verification or anything else related in determining an institution's
effectiveness. it is -- if it is unreasonable amount of students that they are trying to address, well, i agree that is a concern. let's have a discussion, but it is not only the institutions that are responsible. students, lenders, policy makers, as well as institutions must be part of this process and must be held accountable. this proposed rule is very broad and its implementation so burdensome that many schools will undoubtedly close. and i don't buy into that false argument that 50% of these people don't graduate or don't go to go on a do this, that and the other in this economy, united states of america, a whole lot of students are graduating from a whole lot of schools a and are not getting jobs today and many of these schools we are attacking unreasonably are places where i know at least in the congressional district that i'm
privileged to serve, that many of these people have received education and many of them leave the institution like the two last nurses that worked with my mom that had a job when they left the institution. this may please some of my friends in this body as the department of education, but what will happen to the single mother looking to change careers who needs the flexibility of a private sector college. what about the first generation college student that needs that? mr. speaker, i urge that we support this amendment and i thank my colleague. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i rise in support of the amendment. if the department wants to issue a rule, do a rule that actually targets the abuses rather than takes on a segment of the industry that may or may not be complicit in the kind of
allegations that are there. this is overly broad. let's have them go back to the drawing board and target abuses that occur, not a segment of the industry that is actually providing services. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise in strong opposition to the kline amendment. and although i know that career colleges play an important role in the higher education, i cannot support this amendment and i cannot support it because the scope of the prohibition is too broad and the timing of this amendment, that is prior to the release of any final regulation preempts the traditional regulatory authority. together, the amendments' comprehensive ban on the
department's ability to implement, administer or enforce any current, pending or future regulation of gainful employment inappropriately and prematurely restricts the responsibility of the administration to regulate institutions of higher education. in the many meetings i have had with career college stake holders, each one of them have admitted that they are bad actors. despite this uniform recognition, this amendment would tie the hands of the department of education from any effort to jourge these schools to improve their -- encourage these schools to improve their practices and protect . i support career colleges, yet i'm resolute in my belief that the federal government has the responsibility to protect students and hold institutions of higher education accountable, especially those that access
public dollars. i stand with over 50 civil rights groups, historically black colleges and universities and student groups who support strong gainful employment protection for students, including key civil rights groups such as the naacp, leadership conference on civil rights and children's defense fund. advocacy groups, united negro college fund and thurgood marshal. american federation of teachers, n.e.a. and council for opportunity and education, let's be clear and make no mistake, the kline-foxx amendment is not about protecting low income students. if that was the case, then those concerns would have been expressed by not cutting pell grants for over one million
students by approximately $845 per student. if the goal was truly to support low income minority students, the c.r. would no not have cut $200 million in institutional aid from predominantly black colleges and universities and hispanic-serving institutions. if the goal was to help low-income minority students, the c.r. would not have cut $44 million from other programs. programs that are designed to help first generation students prepare and succeed in college. the reality is is that this amendment completely stops the department of education from any form of oversight of career colleges that educate 10% of higher education students, receive approximately 24% of federal grants and loans and
account for 48% of loans defaults. . let's stop now. let's give the department of education the opportunity review its work and come back to us with some regulations that take care of the needs of students and not protect just the institution. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? -- does the gentleman from new york rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. towns: i strongly support
the kline-fox amendment which would prohibit the use of funds for georgia the gainful employment act. i am concerned that if this rule is implemented it will apply an unnecessary broad brush approach to a complicated situation. this rule, if implemented in its proposed form will effectively close high-quality programs without leaving programs of questionable value open. this is not a way to deal with this issue. we all know that a college education whenever possible is one of the best paths a student can take to secure employment in a time when our nation's unemployment rate is just under 10%. in some communities, it doubles that. let's not close off any meaningful job training program.
the department should not forget that these programs serve 2.8 million and many of them are economically disadvantaged minority students. who will lose access to the educational opportunities that they cannot get elsewhere. these students are nontraditional and need the extra assistance offered by these flexible programs. supporting this amendment is supporting access and choice. supporting this amendment is supporting educational opportunities for minorities. a yes vote is a vote for economically disadvantaged students, many of them are the first in their families to attend college. these students who wish to have the opportunity to attend a flexible program that trains them to be the best they can be. i urge my colleagues to
understand how important this is to be able to provide an opportunity for these young people in many instances. one incident you cannot draw national conclusions because you know one student that did not finish. well, you can pick the finest university and the most prestigious university in this country and you can find examples. let us be serious. we need to provide opportunities for people to be able to have a better quality of life. on that note, i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the quelt from new jersey rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection.
>> i join -- mr. andrews: i join a strong coalition on this because i believe every student should know he is going to get a high quality education for every tuition dollar spent and because every taxpayer should be guaranteed that not one dime of pell grant or student money goes to any school under any ownership or management that does not properly spend the public's money. this is a goal that i believe is shared universally by each speaker on each side who has spoken here tonight. our difference is not over whether we should guarantee students and taxpayers high quality and gainful employment. our difference is over how to accomplish that. here's my concern about the rule that has been proposed thus far.
it is both underinclusive and overinclusive. to understand that, consider two schools. the first school successfully places 50% of its graduates in the job for which it's training people. let's say it's a job in medical records technology and 50% of the students from that school are placed successfully. that school has a tuition that generates a rate so that 7% of the graduates' -- graduate's income goes to pay back their student loan. the second school successfully places 90% of its graduates in the medical records technology field but its tuition generates a repayment rate of 10%. so again, the first school only places half of its graduates in the job for which it's training people and the second school places 90%. of its jobs for which it's
training people. under this rule, the first school survives and the second school is thrown out of the program. let me say this again. the school with the 50% placement rate continues to get taxpayer dollars. but the cool with the 90% placement rate doesn't. this doesn't make any sense. it is the basis for our bipartisan objection. what should we do? if we're going to measure gainful employment, let's come up with a proposal that measures gainful employment. let's ask the question, when students graduate from a school, whether it's for-profit, nonprofit, or public, whether those students in fact gain place of employment, and whether that employment raises their income and therefore is gainful. let's measure what the law actually says. finally, i think there is the issue of who should make this
decision. as chairman kline pointed out, as mr. hastings pointed out, as others pointed out, the statutory phrase gainful employment has been with us for a very long time. but this congress has never chose ton define it. so the issue here is a separation of powers issue. who should determine what gainful employment means? should it be an administrative agency, or should it be the duly elected representatives of the people? i think it should clearly be the duly elected representatives of the people. so i would urge my friends both democrat and republican to vote yes for a procedure that will correct this rule, let us join together republicans and democrats, and do a bill, work on legislation that will give us the kind of outcome that we should really have here. now why are we doing this? we're doing it so the person
with three jobs gets fair treatment here. you all know her. she's the person who works 35 or 40 hours a week on her feet, and that's a full-time job. she's raising children, and that's a full-time job. and she's going to school. and that's a full-time job. let's not put the additional burden of taking away or jeopardizing the quality school that she has chosen for herself. everyone in this chamber, i believe, supports high quality career education. inted of a rule that subverts that principle, let's write a bill that advances that principle. let's vote yes for the kline-hastings amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i request a
recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pence of indiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pence: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: i believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong. but i rise tonight because i also believe it's morally wrong to take the taxpayer that ares of millions of pro-life americans and use it to fund organizations that provide and promote abortion. like planned parenthood of america. the american people deserve to know that planned parenthood is
not only the largest abortion provider in america, planned parenthood is also the largest recipient of taxpayer funding under title 10. according to their latest annual report they received more than $363 million in taxpayer money. while boasting of having performed an unprecedented 324 ,008 abortions in the same year. the amendment i bring to the floor tonight would deny any and all funding to planned parenthood federation of america and its affiliaters in rest of the fiscal year. but let me be clear. this amendment would not cut funding for health services. it would simply block those funds already in the bill from subsidizing america's largest abortion provider. now i am aware that title 10 family planning funds are eliminated in this bill. but eliminating title 10 funding has never been my goal. i support the important work of
title 10 clinics across the country. the reality is that planned parenthood receives hundreds of million of taxpayer dollars from funding sources other than title 10 and our effort is to focus on denying any and all federal funding to the largest abortion provider in america. the reasons for doing so are many. the case for defunding planned parenthood has made headlines for years. in 2002, planned parenthood was found civilly liable in arizona for failure to report statutory rape. since that time, planned parenthood affiliates have been found violate regular porting laws in indiana, california, found to have violated statutory reform laws in maces like ohio. recently california, washington, new jersey, and new york planned parenthood clinics have been accused of fraudulent accounting over billing practices and last week as the nation watched in horror, new undercover videos were released that showed planned parenthood employees in multiple states
aparently willing to aid human sex traffickers by coaching them on how to falsify documents to secure secret abortions for underage prostitutes. you know, as the father of two teenage daughters, there are not words strong enough to portray my contempt for this pattern of fraud and abuse against young women by planned parenthood. and that's what brings us here today. now, i know that some consider this amendment to be something of a war on planned parenthood. but this is not about planned parenthood's right to be in the abortion business. sadly, abortion on demand is legal in america. this is about who pays for it. nobody is saying that planned parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in america but why do i have to pay for it? nobody is saying that planned parenthood can't continue to be the largest abortion provider in america, but why do tens of millions of pro-life american
taxpayers have to pay for it? let me be clear as i come to the floor. i long for the day that roe vs. wade is sent to the ash heap of history, when we move past the brecken hearts and broken lives of the past 38 years. but as this debate rages on, i call on my colleagues in both parties. let's at least respect what has been the historic and overwhelming consensus of the american people that we ought not to use their taxpayer dollars to provide or promote abortion at home and abroad. . let's end taxpayer support for abortion providers, specifically planned parenthood, once and for all. i urge my colleagues to take a stand for taxpayers and to take a stand for life. to take a stand against the pattern of corruption. and to take a stand for young women in pregnant crises who
deserve unbiased and compassionate health care services. let's end taxpayer support of planned parenthood. the pence amendment's purpose is to do exactly that, and in so doing to stand with the american people, to stand with the american taxpayer and to stand without apology for the sanctity of human life. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to ask time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, we were told by our republican colleagues they were here to create jobs, to turn the economy around, and to reduce the deficit. but here they go again, spending time on an extreme, divisive, social agenda. in a breathtaking and radical step, the republican majority has already proposed to eliminate title 10 funding,
which has connected millions of american women to health care since 1970. and now this amendment by the congressman from indiana continues the same pattern of contempt for women's health and basic rights. with this amendment, my colleague is trying to specifically exclude one provider of legal health services. planned parenthood, from federal funds. this amendment has nothing to do with the deficit. it is an attack by one congressman on one organization , and it needlessly puts the lives of american women in danger. planned parenthood carries out millions of preventative and primary care services every year. this includes immunizations and
routine gynecological exams. this includes nearly one million screenings for cervical cancer, identifying more than 90,000 women who are at risk for cervical cancer. cervical cancer every year kills 4,000 women. if you can identify the risk early on, then you can save a woman's life. planned parenthood cares for more than three million american men and women every year. in my state of connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit from health care at planned parenthood clinics. over 70% of those patients have a family income of less than $16,245 a year. in other words, this is the only way that they can afford care. in fact, six of every 10 women who seek care at a title 10 funded center like planned
parenthood consider it their main source of medical care. the vital preventative care and family planning services supported by title 10 save money and save lives. for every dollar invested in title 10, taxpayers save just under $4. but under the guise of budget cutting, the new majority is laurging an assault on title 10 and endangering women's health. understand their purpose. understand it clearly. to impose their traditional view of a woman's role. this legislation is not about federal funding of abortion. federal funds, including title 10, are already banned from going towards abortion services under the hyde amendment. rather, much like the repeal of health care reform, this is part of a republican agenda to force women back in traditional roles with limited opportunities. this amendment will cause more than three million people to lose access to basic primary
and preventative health care. i'm a cancer survivor. i'm a cancer survivor who is only here because my cancer was found in stage 1. and i can tell you that losing access to screening will cost lives and will kill women in this country. it comes down to this, the proposal to eliminate title 10, defund planned parenthood are bad policy that hurt women and do nothing for our economy. in fact, it costs money. this republican congress is trying to turn back the clock on women's health and turn back the clock on women's basic rights. they are taking us back to a day when family planning was not a given opportunity for women. and instead of making it harder for women to get health care, we should be standing up for these vital services. i encourage and urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and yield back.
the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? >> madam speaker, i have to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. madam speaker, you know every day americans sit at their kitchen table and do a number of things including trying to figure out how to stretch that dollar. mrs. schmidt: and how to stop unnecessary spending. they're asking us in congress to do the same. i look at this room as our kitchen table. and over the last week, we've debated that issue, how do we stretch the american tax-paying dollar? and tonight i rise in support of the pence amendment. because it ensures that our precious tax dollars will no longer go to a group whose main purpose is to provide abortions. make no mistake, planned parenthood is our nation's largest abortion provider.
it receives 1/3 of its $1.1 billion from tax-paying americans. for the sake of abortion, planned parenthood holds itself above the law, ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, skirting parental consent, and aiding and abetting child sexual trafficking. and madam speaker, this hurts young girls in the process. four years of investigation shows 17 planned parenthood clinics in 10 different states, facilitating the sexual exploitation of women. in 2008, the mona lisa project showed 10 planned parenthood clinics in california, indiana, arizona, tennessee, alabama, and wisconsin ignoring mandatory reporting laws and finding ways to skirt parental consent laws, covering up sexual abuse so girls can get secret abortions. and i only wish this wasn't true but in my own hometown of
cincinnati, ohio, twice cincinnati planned parenthood did just that. in one case it was the father who brought his daughter to the abortion clinic. and when she was taken into the room, she told the abortion provider it was he who raped her. they did nothing. he's now in jail. we have an ongoing case now of a coach who took the young girl to the clinic and said, i'm her guardian. when later the parents took her to the doctor and said, when did she have this abortion, the parents were shocked. he's now on trial. this isn't something that's out there of a wish come maybe. this is actually something that happened in my own city. in 2011, seven planned parenthood clinics in new jersey, virginia, new york, and washington, d.c. aided and abetted sexual trafficking of children, helping actors posing as pimps and prostitutes to manage an underage sex ring to get secret abortions,
contraceptives, s.t.d. testing and keep their commercial child rape business safe. planned parenthood coached the pimp and prostitute how to use judicial bypass to get secret abortions for their underaged sex slaves. professional. like former planned parenthood director abby johnson said it's not a training problem but an ideology problem. planned parenthood will tell you they're trying to prevent abortions but last year alone, they performed 324,000 abortions and only prevented 283,000. you know, one in 10 planned parenthood clients receives an abortion. they are the largest provider of abortions in america. america's taxpayers are asking us to be wise with their dollars. when you look at -- when you ask the question, should we be paying for abortions? american taxpayers say no. should we be providing
america's largest abortion provider taxpayer funding to help keep its lights on so on one side it can provide family planning services, and on the other side provide abortions? i believe the folks at the kitchen table in america are saying no. tonight in this chamber at america's kitchen table, i'm asking our members to say no to this practice and support the pence amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: madam chairwoman i rise in strong opposition to the amendment. our constituents sent us here to create jobs. instead, the majority is pushing an tremendous right-wing agenda to limit women's health. in the course of considering the underlying bill that
eliminates the federal family planning program, a member of the majority, in fact, another gentleman from indiana, proposed providing birth control to horses. and now we're considering an amendment attacking planned parenthood, which has provided health services to one in five american women. so it seems to me that republicans believe that horses should have family planning but women should not. i strongly urge those who support this affront to women's health to clearly explain to their constituents that they want to make it harder to access pap tests, breast exams, routine gynecological examinations, flu vaccinations, smoking cessation services, cholesterol screening, contraceptives, and all of the
other services that planned parenthood provides. my friends, this is not about abortion. federal law prohibits federal dollars from being spent on abortion. this amendment is about denying women access to basic health services. i oppose this amendment because we should be focusing on creating jobs and protecting women's health. thank you, madam chairwoman. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker, and i thank mr. pence from indiana who is bringing forward this tremendous amendment tonight for us to consider. i'm grateful for his willingness to bring this forward because this is a concerning issue for so many americans, concerning on so
many issues and concerning for people as well who are concerned about the youth funds. mr. balkman: there's an article that appeared in "the wall street journal" in 2008 that was a fairly deep expose of planned parenthood and what planned parenthood was doing with their money and i'd like to quote from that article, flushed with cash, planned parenthood affiliates nationwide are aggressively expanding their reach, seeking to woo more affluent patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers that project a decidedly upscale image. executives say they're rebranding their clinics to appeal to women of means, a move that opens new avenues for boosting revenue and they hope new political clout. two elegant new health centers have been built, at least five more are on the way. the planned parenthood facility in denver, colorado, is 52,000 square feet. they feature touches such as muted lighting, hardwood
floors, and airy waiting rooms in colors selected by marketing experts. planned parenthood also opened more than two dozen quick-service express centers, many in suburban shopping malls, including my home state of minnesota. some planned parenthoods sell jewelry, some sell candles, books, and t-shirts right next to the contraception. it's indeed a new look, a new branding says the president, leslie durgin, senior vice president at planned parenthood of the rocky mountain clinic. planned parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider. they reported a record $1 billion in annual revenues, 1/3 of that comes from the federal and state grants that we are discussing this evening. and the nonprofit entered their year with a surplus of $115 million, or a 1/3 of the grants they received from government and with net assets of nearly
$1 billion. in 2008, planned parenthood had 882 clinics nationwide. one of their competitors, and they do have independent for-profit competitors, said planned parenthood is not unlike other big national chains. they put local, independent businesses in a tough situation. even as the total number of abortions in the united states has dropped, the number performed by planned parenthood has grown to nearly 290,000 a year. . in 2005, planned parenthood accounted for one in five abortions and looking to increase their market share. the president planned parenthood rocky mountain said she encouraged more clinics to offer abortion. the head of the operation in my state of minnesota said she
opened three express centers in three wealthy suburbs and malls where women are doing their grocery shopping, living their daily lives and stopping otch for an abortion. it is the lens crafter of family planning, the top executive of illinois said as he towered an express center a few doors down from a hair salon and a japanese restaurant. the strategy draws new patients and money. in illinois, for instance, planned parenthood officials say they take a dollar a pakistan on birth controls that go to poor women under title 10, however they make $22 on each month of pills sold to an adult who can afford to pay full price. majority of women who stop by the new planned parent hood are in that group. in 2008, planned parenthood
political action arm planned to raise dollars to influence the fall campaign. under federal tax law, the health care wing of planned parenthood can't support political candidates, but they can mobilize voters and they can advocate on issues like abortion rights and sex education in schools. all paid with federal grants. to encourage the new wave of patients to join the cause, an express center in parker, illinois sets out buttons by the magazine rack. the center opening in denver in 2008 uses 20% of their space for health care, 40% of their space, they use for meetings, including political work.
the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? mr. kingston: strike the requisite words. the chair: for five minutes. >> i yield to my friend in the well mrs. bachmann: there are space for candidate forums and phone banks as well as a clinic, again, all paid for with additional subsidy from the federal and state taxpayer. mr. greenberg said donors were skeptical about the size and $16.5 million cost, but eventually they came around because the building becomes a symbol for our outreach and a symbol for our community activism. madam speaker, it's clear after extensive study and review by this "wall street journal" article, what we are seeing
today, madam speaker, is that planned parenthood is focused on political activity and focused on becoming big business. when you have the executive director of the planned parenthood in illinois saying they want to become the lens crafter of big abortion, i think we should listen to them. if they want to become the lens crafter, then let them become the lens crafter. a as mr. pence said, abortion is legal today in the united states, but the taxpayer shouldn't have to support it. and if they want to become the lens crafter, planned parenthood, $1 billion organization, should lose the $300 million they receive in federal grants and they should also have their tax exempt status seriously studied by the internal revenue service. if they are competing with
for-profit businesses and putting them out of business, then planned parenthood has no business holding a nonprofit status that benefits that organization. on any number of levels, madam speaker, this year, more than any other year, we need to completely defund planned parenthood and begin a process to end the tax-exempt status of this now profit-seeking, political-secretarying organization. and i yield back. mr. kingston: and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: i rise in opposition to the amendment and to the gentleman from indiana, look at what is being proposed and why i call it a war on women. elimination for women on
life-saving programs which helps provide a range of critical services, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, contraceptives and annual health exams and which by the way do not include abortion services. this war on women totally eliminates the president's teen pregnancy prevention initiative and is specifically designed to reduce abortions. it imposes a funding restriction on how the district of columbia can use its own funds to pay for health care and abortion services. it includes an amendment to restrict state medicaid funding for family planning, you know, which are predominantly women of color in many communities. this is really a shame and disgrace. this includes an amendment to reinstate the federal rule which
would dramatically expand the current ability of health providers to refuse to provide health care services that they oppose idealogically which jeopardize the ability of patients to get health care. and that's just on the domestic front. the bill eliminates funding for the united nations' population fund, which provides critical reproductive health care, including family planning services to the world's poorest women and does not provide abortion services, though they are much needed. this bill reinstates the gag rule and prevents family planning programs from receiving federal funds. this bill cuts $100 million from usaid family family planning but that isn't enough. as an amendment was filed to completely eliminate these programs which help prevent 7.8 million unintended pregnancies
around the world. these decisions by the republican majority will endanger women's health and severely restrict women's rights and insert the government into the private medical decisions and nothing short but an all out war against women and we are fighting back. instead of working together to get our economy moving again to help the unemployed and create jobs, republicans are seeking to impose an ideological agenda on the country. and we have the pence amendment, restricting title 10 funding going to planned parenthood, one of the most trusted and utilized public health organizations in the country. this is not about abortion. this is about a direct attack on an organization that provides critical health services aimed largely at women in underserved communities throughout the country, with over 85 local
affiliates and more than 800 health centers across the country, the services provided by planned parenthood are gin valuable. they see -- invaluable. they provide health care. they identify nearly one million -- they provide nearly one million pap tests, identify about 93,000 women at risk for serving call cancer and 830,000 breast cancer and four million tests for sexually transmitted disease and provide health education for 1.2 million people. how are any of these activities objectionable? are you against women getting breast exams? do you object to women and girls getting tested for h.i.v. and controlling their own bodies and determining if and when they
want to get pregnant. government funding does not make the whole sum of family planning in planned parenthood's finances but government funding provides help to help local centers to women to avoid cancer, to protect their health and lead healthy lives. let's stop this attack on a trusted health provider and stop this war on women. that's not what the american people want. they want jobs. they want a chance to work hard and take care of their families. they don't want to argue with their insurance provider, their employer or their government or elected officials about abortions. we should be working together to unite our country and tackle the challenges that americans face each and every day and not pursuing divisive idealogically-driven agenda. i urge a no vote on the c.r. and the amendments that wage war on women. the chair: for what purpose does
the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. pitts pitts madam speaker, we have -- mr. pitts:, we have seen in the past couple of weeks, incidents that remind us of the horrors associated with the abortion industry. we have seen in a clinic in west philadelphia, women and children brutaly killed in late-term abortions. we have seen a series of videos who have given us a behind-the-scenes look at the standard operating procedures at planned parenthood clinics across the countries. the videos depict investigative jourmists receiving advice on how to run their prostitution business and how to obtain illegal abortions. some people have said, character is who you are when no one is watching or to put it another way, it is what you do when you
think no one is watching. planned parenthood, the number one abortion provider in the country, has revealed its true character in these videos. unfortunately, planned parenthood's staff exposed their true colors and neglected to act with integrity when faced with the situation dealing with sex trafficking. it was more important to them to promote abortion than to help rescue underaged girls enslaved in prostitution. in this country, 95% of abortions occur in clinics, not hospitals. these clinics don't need federal tax dollars to support their unethical practices. planned parenthood recently reported, providing $3 -- 332,000 abortions in 2009. that's the last reported year. planned parenthood itself has recently made plain the sentralt
of abortion to its mission mandating that every planned parenthood affiliate have at least one clinic performing an abortion within the next two years. despite being $1 billion a year corporation, planned parenthood receives $362 million, 33% of its income, from government grants and contracts, that is from taxpayer dollars. unfortunately, planned parenthood actively ignores statutory rape reporting laws and campaigns against efforts to enforce or strengthen them, as illustrated in the recent videos. planned parenthood in kansas claims to be quote, a trusted source of health care and education for thousands of women, men and children, unquote, yet was charged with 107 criminal counts, including failure to report sexual abuse
and falsifying documents in order to perform illegal late-term abortions. planned parenthood in california has privately admit to over charging the state and federal governments by at least $180 million for birth control pills despite warnings that its billing practices were improper. planned parenthood in indiana has been accused of endangering the safety of minor girls by circumventing state parental laws and breaking state law by refusing to report statutory rape. there are many other sources of family planning money to other organizations and to state and local governments. unfortunately, planned parenthood is exploiting women and children. they have shown themselves to be an extreme organization with unethical practices. our daughters and granddaughters
deserve better. i urge support of the pence amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? ms. schakowsky: strike the last word. the republicans have made their agenda clear and it's not about creating jobs or addressing the economy, but rather the extreme agenda is to undermine women's access to reproductive health care and attack women's providers that women rely in their communities. we have even an assault on planned parenthood, instead of attacking unemployment, republicans are waging a war against women. this is not about federal funding of abortion and it is not about quality of care. this is about cutting off women's access to affordable care in an effort to score
political points. . this amendment does nothing to improve the economy and will result in lost jobs and will take away the only source of primary and preventive care from millions of american women. planned parenthood, a trusted organization by women, plays a critical role in our nation's health care system, and the pence amendment would have a devastating impact on communities across the country. planned parenthood serves over three million americans every year. more than 90% of the care planned parenthood centers offer is preventative care. it provides life-saving cancer screenings, routine gynecological examinations, contraceptive services, immunizations and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. planned parenthood saves money so this is not about saving federal dollars, it saves money. for every dollar spent on the services i mentioned and
others, $3 are saved. one in five american women has received care from a planned parenthood health center at some point in her life, making it one of the largest women health care providers in the country. and now is not the time to constrict women's access to and funding for planned parenthood, and american women will suffer if the extreme republican agenda becomes law. six in 10 women who access care from women's health centers like planned parenthood health centers consider it to be their main source of health care. this amendment intends to literally wipe planned parenthood off the map. planned parenthood is an invaluable community-based provider and is critical to achieving the goals of improving quality health care in this country, including efforts to improve women's health, lowers the rate of unintended pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality. you know, i find it ironic,
very disturbing that the very same people who want to take away family planning funding and access to safe and legal abortions which are not funded by public dollars, have also proposed a nearly $750 million cut to the women, infant, and children program to pregnant women and newborn children. this, like the repeal of health care reform, is part of the republican's divisive social agenda that goes too far. now is the time to be working on the issues that are most important to americans, creating jobs, and improving the economy rather than legislation that takes health care away from women. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: madam chairwoman, i want to thank the gentleman from indiana for bringing this amendment forward. it was said earlier in this discussion that this is a war
being waged by one congressman on one organization. i don't think that that's accurate. i think that this is an effort by many members of congress, each of whom represent some 650,000 individuals who do not want to see their tax dollars used to fund abortion. i think it's as simple as that. and when you see the videos that have been referenced earlier today about what went on in these clinics and the misrepresentation that was there, and the out and out illegal behavior that was encouraged, that warrants some kind of action. i think that's what this effort is about. so i think it behooves us to tone down the rhetoric and to actually decide what is this effort about? and it's about ensuring individuals who do not want their tax dollars used to fund abortions may have that right to say so here on the floor of the house of representatives
and to vote to have their members of congress, their representatives here, vote in the way they feel should vote. that's what this effort is about. i commend the gentleman for bringing it forward and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> sadly our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no idea how to turn the economy around. ms. shultz: speaker boehner made that clear when asked about the potential job losses that will result from horrendous budget cuts we've been debating the last cup of days when he responded, so be it. so i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. this is a dangerously, ideologically motivated stunt that will impair the lives of women and their families. this amendment is not just a war on planned parenthood, as
the gentleman from indiana said, it's a war on women. planned parenthood clinics are a crucial part of our national health care fabric. through federal funds, including medicaid reimbursements and title 10 funding on an annual basis, planned parenthood health centers are able to offer nearly one million life-saving screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams, contraception to nearly 2.5 million parents, nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections including h.i.v. madam chair, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentlewoman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman needs to be heard -- deserves to be heard. ms. shultz: thank you. nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections including h.i.v. and education programs for 1.2 million individuals. these are much-needed services we cannot afford to lose. in addition to completely defunding planned parenthood,
this amendment would also strike all federal funding for title 10 programs. this would be a colossal mistake and truly a matter of life and death to millions of women nationwide. since 1970, the title 10 family program has been a key component of our nation's health care, infrastructure, and an essential element the in winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. today title 10 serves over five million low-income individuals every year, in every state women and women -- and men rely on title 10 for basic health care, including annual exam, life-saving screenings, contraception, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. in 2009 alone, title 10 providers performed 2.2 million pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over six million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly a million h.i.v. tests. as a breast cancer survivor whose cancer was caught at an early stage like my friend from connecticut, i know how
critical these screenings are in saving women's lives. preventative care isn't limited on education on how to avoid s.t.d.'s. supporters of this bill argue this cut is necessary to prevent federal funding for abortion. let me be clear, federal funding for abortions is already prohibited by law. this has been the case for decades. yet this amendment attempts to take funding prohibitions to an unconscionable new level and its passage will result in millions of women not able to obtain necessary preventative care like birth control and cancer screenings. if republicans truly want to reduce abortions in this country, they would vote against this amendment. indeed, title 10 actually reduces the number of abortions. title 10 services help to prevent nearly one million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. current statistics indicate nearly half the pregnancies in the united states are unintended. we should be providing women and their families with the resources they need, not striking them.
indeed, planned parenthood and the title 10 program provide vital family planning service which is help improve the life of the mother and child. it's a simple fact, family planning keeps women and children healthy. when women plan their pregnancies they are likely to seek free natal care improving their own health and the health of their children. in fact, access to family planning is directly linked to the declines in infant mortality rates. there should be no shadow of a doubt, this amendment is anti-woman and anti-family. while my colleagues from indiana may frame this amendment in the context of fiscal responsibility, that is once again a mistaken premise. this amendment would not cut the deficit. in fact, title 10 actually saves taxpayer dollars. since many of the patients served by title 10 are on medicaid, preventative care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. indeed, for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in medicaid related costs. that's savings to both federal
and state governments. and one of the most detrimental, dangerous things we can do to women and their families now is defund the leading title 10 provider nationwide, planned parenthood. every year planned parenthood works to improve the life of the communities across this country. 6-10 women who access care from planned parenthood say it's their main source of health care. we cannot cut these women off from the health services that should be available to all of them. efforts to undermine the title 10 program and this essential health care provider are not only reckless but anti-woman, anti-child and anti-taxpayer. these ideologically motivated attacks we've seen -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. shultz: madam chair, this is a horrendous amendment that would devastate access to health care to millions of american women and should be defeated. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri rise? >> madam chairwoman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is
recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to rise in support of this amendment. planned parenthood funded a abortion from the taxpayer too long. mrs. hartzler: it's been said it's a threat to women's health but it's not about health, it's about profit. they have a record of preferring abortion over the truth. i've seen first hand their view of truth. several years ago, i was a teacher and taught child development. i had a student who came to me who just found out she was pregnant. the night before, she had visited a planned parenthood clinic to discuss her options. she was four weeks along. she asked a simple question, what does it look like? the answer, oh, don't worry about it, it's just a blob of tissue. they encouraged her to have an abortion but thankfully she wanted more information. she and a friend came to me for
information. they wanted to know if i had pictures of what a fetus looked like at 4 weeks old since i taught child development. i did. she looked at the pictures of the baby with its developing fingers and eyes and beating heart. her response, she was shocked. that's not a blob of tissue, that's a baby. and then she asked this question, why would they tell me that, mrs. hartzler? sadly, i didn't have an answer. they didn't care about the truth. they didn't care about the young woman before them. they cared about a profit. this pattern continues with recent revelations that they were willing to cover up child sexual trafficking and child sexual abuse and aid and abet prostitution. where was planned parenthood when they had a chance to protect young women? they turned a blind eye. i'd call it a war against young
women. and yet this organization receives $363 million of revenue a year from you and i, the taxpayer. hard-working men and women in this country should not have to write a check on april 15 to fund these abombenable practices. at a time we're borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend and running a huge deficit, we need to look for savings to the taxpayer wherever we can. certainly saving $363 million from this abortion provider is a smart and right thing to do. for generations now and -- so that all americans, born and unborn, will have the opportunity to enjoy the blessings and rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. so as a woman and a mother and a former teacher, i'm proud to support the pence amendment and ask all my colleagues to stand
on the side of truth, life, and the young women of this country. madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: i rise this evening to speak in strong opposition to the pence amendment. the pence amendment is an attack on women's health. this much is clear, what isn't clear is what these women who today are cared for by planned parenthood doctors and nurses would do for care if the pence amendment should pass. planned parenthood serves three million americans every year. these are americans who rely upon planned parenthood to receive their annual wellness exams, americans who rely upon planned parenthood to receive contraceptive services to prevent unplanned pregnanciess. americans who get tested and
treated for sexually transmitted infections, improving their health, and protecting the health of their communities. americans who rely on planned parenthood for their cancer screenings, tests that can detect cervical cancer or breast cancer early when it is easier and less expensive to treat, saving our entire health care infrastructure millions of health care dollars. and these americans cannot just go somewhere else. .50% consider planned parenthood to be the their main source of health care. a vote is to cut these americans off from the system. surely we don't want that. planned parenthood in my district serve over 31,000 patients every year. i must ask the supporters of this mean-spirited amendment,
where should these 31,000 people go, especially now in this reckless republican omnibus spending cuts community health centers by $1 billion and what about your constituents? the author's own state, 18,000 rely on planned parenthood services each year, 18,000 whose elected representatives are voting to shut down their doctorso offices. i know the supporters of this amendment is trying to characterize this about a vote of abortion. it's not about abortion but a vote about whether or not you believe in providing women and americans comprehensive health care, because despite all the misinformation being thrown around here, 95% of planned parenthood services have nothing to do with abortion and as has been strongly and firmly stated, there are no federal dollars used for those receiving
abortion services. last time i checked, 97% is an a-plus, which calls into real question the motivation behind this amendment. combined with the mean-spirited bills moving through the energy and commerce and judiciary committees, attacking women with the zeroing of title 10 family planning funds in this bill, with reinstatement of the local gag rule, 50% slash in international family planning money and completely devastating to the women, infants' service -- the chair: the house is not in order. the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. the gentlewoman may proceed. capps capps as i was -- mrs. capps: as i was saying this republican majority is devastating the women, infants and children's nutrition program along with the other cuts.
it adds up to one conclusion. house republican leadership is starting an all-out war on women's health care. the targets, women insurance coverage, their providers, health care choices. for more than 90 years, doctors and other health professionals have been providing health care to women and one in four american women voters received care from a planned parent hood health care center in their lives. let's take a stand on this attack on women's health care and i urge a no vote on the pence amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> strike the last word. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the elimination of family planning dollars would deny access to preventative care. from the numerous conversations
i have had with doctors including my own sister who is an ob-gyn i believe in access to preventative care. the component has been part of our infrastructure and essential element in providing contraception and education to millions of americans. today, title 10 family planning services, five million low-income individuals each and every year. through a recent study we learned from every dollar invested, $3.74 is saved in medicaid-related costs. it provides health care, including annual exams, cancer screenings, h.i.v. testing and family planning. while we must always ensure that funds are applied properly, completely prohibiting any funds from going to the main provider of title 10 familiar apply planning services would be shortsighted and negatively
impact the lives of women who depend on these health care services. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized fosh five minutes. mr. nadler: i'm not going to repeat what has been said about the republican war on women, about the fact that the republican majority was elected pledging jobs and all we see is war on various social services and nothing about jobs. but i have been listening very carefully to the supporters of this amendment, to mr. pence and others and what do i hear? i hear that we must punish planned parenthood by defunding them because they have committed a number of sins. sin number one, they perform abortions. they are a very large abortion provider, and even though none of those abortions are paid for
with federal funds, that's prohibited under the hyde amendment, however you read it, we don't like planned parenthood because they are a large abortion provider. number two, we don't like planned parenthood because they have committed allegedly various terrible things, some went into their offices and said that they were representing sex workers and were offered services and any organization that's willing to do this should not get federal funds. we are going to punish planned parenthood number one because they are a large abortion provider and number two they do other things which i don't think they do, but they do bad things. there is a major problem with this. major problem with this rhetoric and this reasoning.
by the way, the c.r., of which this is an amendment, eliminates title 10 funding any way so it eliminates most of the funds that go to planned parenthood, but whatever funds are available, they can go to other people, not planned parenthood because we don't like planned parenthood for various reasons. a bill that pun nishes someone -- pun issues, some person or organization that is identifiable that legislative action is a bill of attainer, legislative penalty, in this case, no funding, directed at some identifiable person or organization to punish them for something. article 1, section 9 says no bill of attaineror ex post facko
law shall be passed. if planned parent hood or anybody else is doing terrible things and ought to be punished, that's up to the courts. if indeed planned parenthood is trafficking in sex traffickers, let them be prosecuted. if they are doing anything illegal, let them be prosecuted, let the organization be prosecuted, let the individuals, employees who are doing these terrible things be prosecuted at law. that's our system. but you don't punish an organization because they are doing which you don't approve. now, if you want to say, we don't think there ought to be any contraceptive services in the united states, the c.r. does say that, i don't agree with that's correct but to say if we have title 10 funding and maternal services funding, none of it can go to planned parenthood and go to somebody
else but not planned parenthood that is a punishment because planned parenthood is allegedly doing things which you don't approve. i heard a lot about how we have to make sure we adhere to the constitution. this is a bill of attainer, because it is a legislatively named punishment of a named organization because this organization is allegedly doing things of which we don't approve. in addition to all the other reasons why it shouldn't be done, this is flatly unconstitutional and i challenge anyone to say how this is not a bill of attainer and again the standards, black letter definition is the legislatively enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization that is identifiable, named right here, for some reason, that they have done various things, provided abortions, done illegal things or otherwise.
this amendment is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should pass. i yield mr. baca:. the chair: the committee will rise informally.teore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the senate has agreed to h. con. res. 17 providing for conditional adjournment of the house of representatives and conditional recess or adjournment of the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 514, an act to
extend expiring provisions of the patriot act of 2005 and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 relating to access of business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers and roving wiretaps until december 8 of 2011. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of the pence amendment that prohibits any funds from the underlying bill going to planned parent hood of america. i want to start with a personal story of a physician, i performed life-saving surgery on infants of 22 weeks at gestation. i held these lives in my own
hands. they are viable, human lives at birth and fortunately, planned parenthood uses taxpayer funds to cut the lives short. tragically sometimes within weeks of medley proven viability outside the womb. i have held these lives in my hand. abortion of course for any reason is wrong, but this situation i have personal experience. it is particularly distressing for me because i'm a physician and also, i'm a father of four. i want to reiterate, planned parenthood has received $363.2 million in taxpayer funding as of the 2009 annual report, 1/3 of the $1 billion income. during that same time period, they supported clinics and performed 324,000 abortions and this is by their own accounting. federal taxpayers should not be
asked to subsidize these actions. in addition, madam chairman, currently planned parenthood, there are 11 clinics under investigation in arizona, ohio, connecticut, california, tennessee, among other states, including my own state of indiana wherein 2008, a video showed a clinic covering up the rape of a 13-year-old girl. can everyone see a pattern here? in total, planned parenthood is facing 107 criminal charges including 23 felony charges. what they're doing is not morally wrong but appears to be criminally anythingly gent. press reports have recently said that planned parenthood is now mandating by 2013 all of its regional affiliates must provide abortions. this is important to note that
the amendment does not affect title 10 services such as breast cancer screening, h.i. vimplet prevention, s.t.d. testing and other valuable health care services to women. this amendment is about abortion in contrast to what's been said here on the house floor earlier tonight. title 10 supports 4,500 community clinics throughout america that provides critical services, which i support and i'm proud of these facilities for the quality of care that they provide. again, this amendment is about abortion. i strongly support it. i urge all my colleagues to vote yes. and i would like to thank mr. pence for his strong leadership on this amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise?
mr. welch: strike the last word. madam speaker, i'm pro-choice, but that is a question of deep conscience, religious conviction, personal importance to every individual in every family. one of the great conservatives who has served in this institution was henry hyde. in the hyde amendment, that has been the law of the land since it was passed by mr. hyde says it shall not be public funds used to pay for abortion. it has been true now and has been true for decades since that law was passed and reflects a certain mutual respect that we can have differences of opinion even on matters of profound religious conviction, moral conviction and moral belief. . this is not about abortion. the hyde amendment is the law of the land. federal funds cannot be used under this provision to provide
abortions. what this is about is whether primary and preventative care is going to be extended oftentimes to poor people, but also to vulnerable, middle-class people by planned parenthood clinics throughout this country, including 10 in vermont that are doing a tremendous job for people who really need this care. is this congress big enough, generous enough that it can allow those with different points of view on this question of choice to co-exist, as long as we have this separation with the hyde amendment? it has not been abolished. it is intact. so the question i ask, if we pass this bill, what happens to the 19,000 vermonters who get services for h.i.v. testing, who get services for breast cancer screening, who get services for cervical cancer who find out when it's timely to find out so they can be healthy and have a full life,
what do we say to them when we pull the plug to them having access to the care they need and they deserve? this is not necessary. this is not about abortion. the real world implication of this legislation will be to say to 19,000 women in the state of vermont from one end of the state to the other, no, you cannot have access to cervical cancer screening. you can't have it to breast cancer. you can't get sex education. we are a better nation than that. we are a better congress than that. the hyde amendment acknowledges we have profound differences of opinion on this question of abortion but we can share a common goal, that young, vulnerable americans in every one of our districts can have access to the care that they need. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from north carolina rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i came tonight to support the pence amendment. ms. foxx: i just came from my office where i was reading and answering my mail. my tax-paying constituents emphatically do not want their hard-earned money being used to kill innocent life. planned parenthood currently has 87 regional affiliates with 817 health clinics in the u.s. with 173 performing surgical abortions and many others, at least 131, and as many as 300 offering chemical abortions. planned parenthood itself has recently made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating every planned parenthood affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next two years. planned parenthood reports it's
a not-for-profit organization and receives over $336 million in combined federal, state, and local grants and contracts, and has an excess of revenue over expenses of almost $112 million in 2006, $85 million in 2007, and $106 million in 2008. the planned parenthood in california privately admitted to overcharging the state and federal governments by at least $180 million for birth control bills despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper. my colleague from indiana gave also a lot of statistics about what the problems are with planned parenthood. and despite it being a billion dollar a year corporation, planned parenthood received $363.2 million reported in its
2008-2009 annual report. 33% of that income from government grants and contracts. that is from taxpayer dollars. of that, $53 million is from title 10. so from these other government sources, they're getting $310 million. we are not going to be stopping planned parenthood from giving true health care to women and children. we know that the vast majority of americans oppose abortion. over 60% oppose any money coming from taxpayer receipts for abortions. my colleague from new york talked about this being a bill of attainder, and said that this is a punishment. well, ladies and gentlemen, i'm less concerned about the potential that this is a punishment for planned
parenthood, but i'm very concerned about the punishment inflicted on millions of innocent lives when they are violently deprived of their lives through abortion in planned parenthood clinics. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yield back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> madam speaker, i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in strong opposition to this amendment that attacks planned parenthood. by targeting planned parenthood, the pence amendment will risk the lives and safety of millions of american women. these proposed cuts to family planning represent the opening salvo in an all-out war on women's health. ms. slaughter: and i have been a soldier on the other side of that war for several decades. i have served now in three legislatures. in two of them this was one of
the issues that came up continuously as what we would do, in most cases men in either blue or gray suits felt compelled and competent to tell women what they could do with their lives. it has been a serious problem to try to get women's health in the first place. it was up to the 1990's before women were even considered subjects for research at the n.i.h. it's been an absolutely awful time for most of us who are such strong believers in the rights of women and women's health and that women should have the ability to make decisions themselves and not have men have to make them for them. it has been a dreadful time for us. and we see it ending tonight in trying to do away with one of the most important agencies in the united states, planned parenthood. and i stand here tonight in lieu of hundreds of women in the state of new york.
most of them republican women who financed, who spoke for, who founded the agency of planned parenthood. new york was being filled with the influx of new citizens to america, and planned parenthood allowed them to space their families, space their children so there would be healthier children and healthier mothers, and we have all benefited from that. but why are we attacking proven medical care? why aren't we trying to create jobs, which is the only thing we've heard for the last six months. this amendment will do absolutely nothing to move our country forward, but indeed backwards. in my home state of new york, the cuts to planned parenthood will impact 209,410 patients. don't tell me that what you're doing here tonight is to allow planned parenthood to keep on with the cancer screenings, to
keep on with making sure the cervical cancer is not something about to take the life of a woman. don't tell me that's what you're doing, that you're only trying to cut abortion. you know, we know, everybody knows that planned parenthood abortion money is not public tax money. and as my other colleagues have said, that has been true for a very long time. the cuts were proposed under the guise of being fiscally responsible, but nothing could be further from the truth. for every dollar -- and i want to say this maybe twice it is so important because nobody seems to have gotten this except my new friend from illinois. for every dollar invested in family planning services, taxpayers save $4. so if you think you're going to save yourself some money, go back to your planning board for that. but cutting family planning is not fiscally responsible, will not reduce the united states bottom line. furthermore, as we've said
again over and over again, it has nothing in the world to do with cutting federal money for abortions. that is simply a smoke screen. but we want to empower women to be able to prevent unintended pregnancies. and if that's what we like to do here tonight, with the help of planned parenthood and other agencies and many doctors and medical professionals in the country, make sure that women have education and access to contraception. that is precisely what family planning is and what it does. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> thank you, madam chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of the pence amendment. the time has come to end federal funding of abortion. this is one of the worst misappropriation of funds in our federal budget and it is unacceptable to most of the people, republican, democrat,
liberal or conservative, in this country. many taxpayers, including me, are sickened at the hard earned tax dollars that are put toward funding the nearly 1.3 million abortions in america every year. mr. rokita: the minority party's demagoguery language about some kind of war on women is nothing but laughable. plenty of family planning services outside of planned parenthood exist to help families seeking direction, care, and counsel. those ethically sound places and services deserve a portion of funds to continue their much-needed and well-respected services. but our nation's largest provider of abortions isn't one of them. under title 10, federal funds go directly to planned parenthood where the money
ultimately funds abortion, and this is one of the worst stipulations in current law. again and again planned parenthood has proven itself corrupt and misleading. no american who is against abortion should be required to help pay for it. and no american can seriously argue that the federal government isn't paying for abortion right now when planned parenthood receives at least $360 million from the taxpayers each year while simultaneously performing more than 324,000 abortions. regarding the gentleman from new york's charge that we should be using a bill of attainder and challenging us to say otherwise, i take that challenge. as a person licensed to practice law in indiana and licensed to practice for the united states supreme court -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. will member takes their conversations away from the floor?
the gentleman deserves to be heard. mr. rokita: thank you. i would say that the bill of attainder, this amendment is not that. the people of the fourth district of the state of indiana and their representatives have the right to produce an amendment to stop taxpayer funding of abortions, and we are doing that here tonight. thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> a member of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the republican side of the aisle, have said that they don't want abortion to be funded and therefore will vote for the pence amendment. mr. waxman: but they believe people ought to get the clinical and preventative services that a group like planned parenthood would otherwise make available to them. well, look, planned parenthood does not pay for anybody's abortion using taxpayers dollars.
that's clearly in the law. it's covered by the hyde amendment. if planned parenthood has abortion services, it is completely separate. it is not only separate from the family planning services and others for which they get government funding, they have to keep separate records. it's completely different operation. so the pence amendment is trying to strike the funds under the health and human services programs for the services that planned parenthood as an organization would provide for them. now, it's not just family planning funds. it's all federal programs, including medicaid, and the community health centers program. now, this organization serves 15% of all women in need of contraceptive services in the u.s. and four million women -- and
for millions of women, it's their primary health care provider. the place they go to not only for planning services but basic preventative health services such as cancer screenings. take that money away from them, they're not going to be able to serve the women who need those services. so where would those people go? are they going to go to the community health centers? well, this particular funding bill takes out $1 billion from the community health centers. where else can they go? are they going to look to the medicaid program? . the republicans want to cut is medicaid. where are they going to go? go to the exchange that will be available under the affordable care act? of course not, the republicans are trying to repeal that law. what will be the consequences.
the consequences will not diminish the number of abortions. the consequences will be to deny women and men who may go to a clinic or to planned parenthood in order to get basic medical services. i think this is a serious mistake. if you are against abortion, be against abortion, but don't take it out on planned parenthood because they serve abortion clients in a separate operation. that's like saying, i never want to pay for any services provided by a doctor even though it's not abortion services. i don't want that doctor to get any money for contraceptive services and don't want him to be paid if he is providing screening for disease or any other service because he might also, without your funds being
used, provide abortion services. when you look at this carefully, this is trying to punish planned parenthood. but the ones who get punished are the people who won't be able to get the family planning services and the preventtive screening screening services that planned parenthood provides . and they won't be the provider for many of these women because they have no where else to go if they can't afford to go see a private doctor and pay for it. it was amazing to hear an argument that was made on the house floor that one member didn't like money to go to planned parenthood because they're competing with for-profit abortion services. i was just stunned by that argument and didn't know what it meant except perhaps they would like to have the for-profit
abortion services to provide the services instead of planned parenthood. whatever happens there is another issue, federal dollars will not be used for it. taxpayers dollars should be used for title 10, family planning, for medicaid, community health centers, for health screenings, for preventative health services and that's why the bens amendment should be defeated. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. charkt the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olson: i rise to support the pence amendment preventing any funds going to planned parenthood. i thank my friend from indiana who fights that organizations do not receive federal funding from hard-working taxpayers in this country, the majority of whom do nont their money going to such
causes. in june, i received a report i requested from the government accountability office, which revealed that just six organizations connected to the abortion aagenda after received over $1 billion in federal funds over the past eight years, $1 billion. the most significant portion of that money was for planned parenthood and their affiliates, the largest abortion provider in the united states. a recent planned parenthood reporting shows that in 2007 alone 305,000 abortions were performed at their facilities. they opened one in houston, right in the middle of houston's largest minority neighborhood at seven stories high and 78,000 square feet, this center is the largest center in the united states. an entire floor is going to be
completely devoted to abortion. if we keep sending funds to abortion providers we are supporting abortion advocates with our tax dollars and allowing them to build mega centers such as the one in my hometown. it's time to bring light to this issue. the transfer of taxpayer funds to support such organizations must stop. i'm proud to once again to introduce the taxpayer conscience act which states the amount of funding which is sent to organizations like planned parenthood. and before i de my remarks, i have to point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the pence amendment does not, does not cut any funding for health services, but simply blocks those funds from planned parenthood.
there are many health clinics, hospitals, faith-based organizations that provide health services to women. we must shine a bright light on the amount of money that taxpayers provide each year for abortions. i ask my colleagues to stand beside our colleague from indiana by voting yes on his amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. deutch: i don't believe the government should interfere with the reproductive rights of women, but that's not being debated here. no matter how many times our friends on the other side of the aisle say this is an amendment meant to prevent federal dollars going to fund abortion, no matter how many times they say it will not make it true, will not make it so. that's not what this is about.
but we have heard all the statistics. we know what this is about. i would like to spend a moment talking about how this whole debate is viewed around the country. i would like to talk about what the country ought to look like for my daughters and for my son, because in this amendment, we can envision a nation where there might be a place for education to be taught in a scientific and comprehensive way. sex education that might actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that might reduce teen pregnancies and keep our american children and young women healthy. we might actually envision a country where we have testing for sexually transmitted diseases, where if caught, we can make the nation health year. and we can also envision a
nation where there are opportunities -- madam chair, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. would members please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the house is not in order. the gentleman may resume. mr. deutch: thank you. we also have an opportunity to think about a nation where where women have the opportunity to seek the health care that they need and deserve, poor women often times who might have no place else to go, but have an opportunity to get the health care they need, to get the cancer screening they need that can save their lives. we can envision all of these things in this amendment.
ladies and gentlemen, we know what planned parenthood provides in these clinics. 95% of what they provide is health care that does exactly what we want done in this country. 95% of what planned parenthood does helps keep americans healthy, helps take care of women, helps make sure they are better mothers, helps make sure that their families can be taken care of. helps identify cancer before it's too late so that kids can grow up with their mothers. we understand what this amendment is about. this is not an amendment about abortion. this is an amendment about clamping down on a clinic that provides medical services, whose politics those on the other side simply do not agree with. this is about the opportunity to move forward with something that can provide those health care
services with clinics that can help save lives. we can do all of that right here in this house. members, i ask that as we go forward today, we think about the opportunity we have here to cast a vote that supports women, to cast a vote that supports families and to take what will be the most pro-family vote we have an opportunity to cast in this c.r. debate. that is a vote against this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do so. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> move to strike the last word. >> i rise in the support of the pence amendment. as was indicated, i come from the state of kansas and listening to the debate, it is
interesting to find very little support for the institution of planned parenthood and a full discussion of what they have been involved in. mr. huelskamp: two days ago, another hearing was conducted, charges are moving forward. 107 criminal charges, criminal charges against planned parenthood. very interesting that an entity under criminal indictment for covering up more than 100 crimes , failure to report, helping cover up incest, rape and the list goes on and on. a young lady by the name of lila rose has indicated. if you don't believe me, take a look at the tapes of how planned parenthood is helping sexual predators, helping sexual
predators continue their activities. madam chairman, i would also like to point out that one thing that we cannot forget, i must admit i'm disappointed that our supreme court claims there is a right to abortion. but we do know there is no right to the public treasury. there is no right to the taxpayer dollar. there is no right to demand that americans front this organization with their taxpayer money. that's the question in this amendment, madam chairman. the other question that is faced here and we need to be very clear and my wife and i have four adopted children. they come from a group of children, the history of the planned parenthood has targeted minorities. my children are adopted and very top of children in this organization and the evidence still continues today.
undercover work has shown again and again how this organization locates in minority neighborhoods. madam chairman, it's not only fiscally irresponsible to send our taxpayer dollars to this type of entity and organization. i think it is morally reprehensible that we would send $300 million of our hard-earned money to an entity that targets minorities, that helps sexual predators, that continues to cover up rape and incest and sex slavery. there is no excuse for that. everyone in this body should be standing on their feet and recognizing no matter your position on the issue of abortion, we should all agree, our taxpayer dollars are undeserving of the efforts of planned parenthood. the history is clear. the present is clear. it's time to defund this entity.
they are unworthy of our dollars. with that, madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: i ask to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: i would be remiss if i did not thank the speaker, speaker boehner, for the open rule that we have been working under for the past several days. >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. mr. lynch: even though we haven't agreed on much, i do appreciate the fact that we have been able to have an open and fair debate and full debate on some of the most profound issues of our time. now, i'm hoping earnestly this is not the last open rule. it has turned three days of debate into six or seven days of
debate and there has been a lot of hot air in this chamber. i think if this chamber with were a hot air balloon, we probably could make europe. but i do think there is credit due to the speaker for allowing this debate to occur. i do want to remind the members in spite of some of the pronouncements of the previous speaker that there is law that prohibits federal funding to be used for abortion. that's not what this is about. . this is about the ability of planned parenthood to conduct women's health care to offer services that are deeply needed in many communities where no other source of health care is available. planned parenthood last year carried out one million
screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams and offered nearly four million tests and treatments for s.t.d.'s, including h.i.v. those are the services they provide. they are prohibited by law by the hyde amendment for using federal funds for abortion. that's a fact. that is a fact. you can be entitled to your own opinion, but that is a fact. and as a -- >> house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman will resume. mr. lynch: thank you, madam chair. i'm a pro-life democrat. and my faith forms my opinion on this issue. and there used to be, i think, a general agreement, as divisive as this debate is and has been in this country for years, there's been a level of agreement that we have reached
where we -- i think we agreed at one point in this country that the best way to reduce abortion in this country is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. we used to agree on that. this bill, this amendment will increase the number of abortions in this country. the heart of what planned parenthood does is in the area of contraceptives and medical screenings for cervical cancer and breast cancer. but contraception is a big part of what they do in trying to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. and if we take the funding away from them -- and it says "all funding." it doesn't distinguish, all funding under title 10 is prohibited from planned parenthood. let's not play a game of what
you're against and what you're for. this is for all funding. that's what the bill says. and if you prevent planned parenthood from providing advice and services on contraception, we know for a certainty, especially in the communities that they provide services to, we're going to have an increase in the number of abortions in this country. that is the natural consequence of what is on the table here in this amendment. you're going to reduce funding for contraception. you're going to have more unwanted pregnancies, and you're going to have more abortions. is that what this debate is about? is that what we're trying to do here? i used to think that it was different. i thought we had some level of agreement on this. that the goal was to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and that's how we were going to reduce abortions in this country. i am disheartened by this
amendment. i would wish that the gentleman would withdraw this amendment because i think it's counterproductive to the goal of reducing the number of abortions in this country. and as a family who's been affected by cervical cancer and breast cancer, i think that's very important work that they do, and i support that. i don't have many friend in the planned parenthood community. they don't support me. i'm pro-life. but i respect the good work that they do. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lynch: thank you, madam chair. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i rise in support of the amendment. i ask to address the house for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. does the gentleman move to strike the last word? >> i do, indeed. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the pence amendment. and i'm aware of some very important work planned parenthood has done to help some women with difficult medical issues. mr. gohmert: we've heard discussion here about a bill of attainder. and of course article 1, section 9, paragraph 3 says no bill of attainder or ex-facto law will be passed. that's the constitution. a bill of attainder according to william rehnquist is, quote, a legislative act that singles out one or more persons and imposes punishment on them without benefit of trial. no one is being found guilty of a crime here. i know about those things. i found people guilty of crime after a trial. that's not what's happening here any more than was happening when people decided to defund guantanamo bay or
defund acorn because they were complicit in encouraging prostitution. to come in here and say when this body finds one entity does not deserve to be receiving more money that was pried out of taxpayers' hands is somehow a bill of attainder, then it means we can never withdraw money from someone for whom it was given previously. that's not a bill of attainder. and in fact, to take it away, one would first have to assume that this money was the property of this entity before they ever received it. now, to say that would be to say that taxpayers that earn the money and the taxpayers that had to give it up because we stole it but we legalized the theft because we can do that. we can say you earned it, it's yours, but we have the power to
legalize taking it away from you against your will. we've done that. we've taken it away. but we have a responsibility to be frugal and be wise with that. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. gohmert: no, i won't. i didn't ask to be yielded when i was being upset about the explanation inappropriately in the bill of attainder, but i know the gentleman is one of the smartest people i know. but this is not a bill of attainder. the f-35 we voted on a second engine. there has been money appropriated supposedly before. we talked about past things and they can come in and say it's a bill of attainder to take it away. it is not. it is not their money. this body has an obligation to invest, to look carefully about where we should most appropriately spend the taxpayers money we've taken away or the money 42 cents out of the dollar we're borrowing from china or whoever will give us the money. but it was never the intention
of the founders that we could not be responsible as a body and say this shouldn't go to this place, it would be better served going to someone else. that is our job. and we have an obligation. and one other thing, to those who say, and i know well-meaning because i know these people who are saying it and i know their hearts and they really believed what they were saying. but i've got part 1 of the act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the first time home buyers credit in the case of the members of armed forces and for federal employees and other purposes which is obamacare because the senate stripped out every word of the bill, including the title, substituted therefore obamacare. this is the first half of the bill. and if you turn over to page 119, capital b subsection, it says abortions for which public
funding is prohibited. but if you go to subsection little ii, it has this title, abortions for which public funding is allowed. that's not all. legal clinics are financed and required to be financed under this bill, and there is no prohibition either by the hyde amendment or any provision in this bill or the executive order that legaly prevents -- legally prevents federal funding for allowing abortions in some of those medical clinics that are established and will happen. also, if you flip over here, and you wouldn't find this in a word search for abortion because it was too cleverly put back, but if you look at 122, it is required to have insurance plans and there will be federal funding involved to make this happen, that there be, quote, at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses i
, and ii in subsection capital b. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gohmert: that's abortion, folks, there's money for it here. thank you. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: i rise in strong opposition to the pence amendment which limits funding for the services provided by planned parenthood. that's the amendment before us, not the other items other people are talking about. this amendment is not merely anti-choice, it is also anti-health, anti-woman, and anti-poor. and it is a thinly veiled attack on birth control. this amendment will not do anything to grow our economy or create any new jobs to help us out of this great recession, it
will only turn this nation backwards. planned parenthood is the nation's largest provider of family planning services, and for roughly 60% of their patients, they serve as the primary care physician. 90% of the health care they provide every day is primary and preventative. this is not about abortion. the hyde amendment is alive and well, and it prevents and restricts any use of federal funds for abortion. this is about primary and preventative health care. this anti-woman amendment will restrict millions of women from access to family planning, h.i.v. testing and counseling, and breast and cervical cancer screening, leaving them with nowhere else to turn. the other side's vision of smaller government would expand the government's power over women's choices.
it is wrong, it is short-sided, and it is unjust. instead of getting between a woman and her doctor, instead of allowing women to have control over their own health care, instead of forcing personal beliefs on half the population, let's turn to the business of creating jobs and economic opportunity and away from the business of ruining other people's lives. i urge a no vote on the pence amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. >> i oppose funding to planned parenthood. we should not be giving federal funds to groups like planned parenthood who use the money for abortions. planned parenthood recently made statements of abortion to its mission, mandating every
affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next two years. ms. roby: it's beyond shocking planned parenthood employees were found on video aiding and abetting in the alleged sex trafficking of minors. this is not the first time that planned parenthood has shown such shocking behavior. it happened in my home state of alabama back in 2009. a planned parenthood counselor was caught on hidden camera telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim the clinic does sometimes bend the rules a little bit rather than report sexual abuse to state authorities. two years later, we're still seeing this outrageous behavior by planned parenthood employees. it is time to stop funding such an organization with taxpayer dollars. planned parenthood ignores statutory rape law reporting, pushing abortion procedures and opposes any effort to elevate the legal status of a fetus at any stage of development. it is not a proud day that
citizens learn that these activities have been continually funded by the federal government. it is even a worse day when we are told that our government has funded planned parenthood with more than $363 million in government grants and contracts. the continual action by planned parenthood and its employees is demeaning for women and a black eye for our society. planned parenthood in kansas claims to be a trusted source of health care and education for thousands of women, men and children, yet it was charged with 107 criminal counts, including failure to report sexual abuse and falsifying documents in order to perform illegal, late-term abortions. planned parenthood in california has privately admitted to overcharging the state and federal governments by at least $180 million for birth control pills despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper. planned parenthood in indiana
has been accused of endangering the safety and well-being of minor girls by intentionally circumventing state parental laws and breaking state law by refusing to report statutory rape. funding must be stopped. planned parenthood must not be granted any more taxpayers dollars to push their agenda to take away the rights of the unborn. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the pence amendment and stop funding planned parenthood. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam chairwoman. i don't doubt the gentleman from indiana is sincere. we all know him and know the long-standing commitment he has had to this issue. . but having served on the judiciary committee with the
late chairman henry hyde, i know how sincere he was and the work he did to ensure that no federal funds could be used for abortion. that is the law of the land. i also know how committed our colleague from massachusetts is to his values of pro-life. but he eloquently stood on the floor of the house and gave us a moral compass. this is not about abortion. this is about saving lives. and the planned parenthood effort, albeit with ills that any large organization may have, corrected ills, has a valuable and worthy purpose in saving lives. my fear is with the pence amendment having the potential of passing that we set the stage for going back 10, 20, 30, 40
years when women had no place to seek counseling. they know well that the adherence to the law that the planned parenthood organization must have is that they cannot use federal funds for abortion. but this is not about abortion. this is about family planning and counseling services that have long since been part of the planned parenthood family. and all we'll do by cutting these resources will be, in fact, going back to the dark ages when young women had no place to go. so planned parenthood does not equate to abortion. family planning does not equate to abortion. title 10 funds does not equate to abortion, because the law of the land is clear. but what we will have are young women who have no place to go to
be able to ask questions. yes, the planned parenthood facility is in the 18th congressional district in houston, texas, a heavily diverse, but heavily minority district. and i would argue that its efforts are positive in health education, the work it does in pap tests for cervical cancer and s.t.d. cancer and men pause treatment and breast exams and outreach to the latino community, all services that would not be there if it were not for these committed workers and committed workers of planned parenthood. community health clinics to be gutted and as was indicated, all we're doing on the floor of the house, the question has to be, one, are we going forward in helping the american people
create jobs, or even in this amendment, causing thousands of americans to lose their jobs in a worthy cause of helping those who many times cannot help themselves. what about those who suffered a violent act of sexual assault, where do they go? what do we say about a planned parenthood who throughout its existence over the last couple of decades have received violent threats, bomb threats. i'm reminded of the police support that this local chapter had to have because of the constant threats upon their staff. so this is not all peaches and roses. we are saying here, allow them to do their work, which is assisting a young woman by the yame of karen, 28 years old, between jobs, newly married and did not have any health care and saw a pregnancy test that she got from the drug store and couldn't believe what it said.
she didn't know where to go. she was frightend, 28 years old, but went to planned parenthood and without any pressure, she had the test and discovered she was pregnant. and the nurse didn't ask her any indicting questions, simply said, what do you want to do? and she thought about it, and she decided to say she wanted to have the baby. don't let those stories go untold, where women are counseled and go forth with their plans with the idea to planned parenthood and let's not have more violence on the floor of the amendment and vote down this particular amendment to continue them to continue the women. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: i rise in strong support of the pence amendment. the hyde amendment has been in
place for decades. there is overwhelming support that we don't want our tax dollars to subsidize or support abortion in any way and people listening to the debate tonight, those on the life, pro--democrats, shouldn't be distracted by the discussion of the health care services provided by the organization planned parenthood. planned parenthood could solve this public policy problem they've got by simply refusing to perform abortions. if they stop performing abortions, it's not an issue. if planned parenthood would stop turning a blind eye or stop being indifferent to the criminal conduct that's been exposed and lead the charge to see the criminal complaints are sworn out against people associated with planned parenthood or their employees engaged in criminal conduct, a lot of this problem would go away. all they have to do is say they
are going to stop performing abortions. this is not about the health care services they provide in other areas. this is about the exact that the overwhelming majority of americans don't want to use their dollars used for abortions. there is a straight vote, whether or not you will vote to permit your constituents' tax dollars to be used to fund or subsidize abortion. that's the question for the house tonight. it's not complicated. and planned parent hood is not entitled to these tax dollars. there's no punishment being given here. we as a congress will make the public policy decision tonight in this vote whether or not planned parenthood should continue to receive tax dollars. that's been decided for decades. no tax dollars should be used to subsidize or fund abortion. that's been the position of the
congress for many decades and continuing that tonight by ensuring that no tax dollars flow through obamacare, which by the way, does allow our tax dollars to be used for abortion, because what is not excluded is included in the obamacare bill, which allows for our tax dollars to be used for abortion by subsidizing exchange plans that provide coverage for abortion. therefore, this vote is truly very simple. will we, the congress of the united states, permit our tax dollars to be funding abortion. and i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. make no mistake -- the chair: the gentleman from texas must remain on his feet.
you may proceed. mr. broun: make no mistake about it, this is about abortion. just prior to coming to the floor tonight before this debate ever began, i was answering an email i got from a friend of mine in atlanta and he said stop the public funding of abortion and i was talking to him on the phone when i saw mr. pence start this debate and he was telling me about his sister-in-law that had an abortion 30 years ago. she has nightmares and visions of two babies she aborted. i'm a medical doctor. i have performed all these health services that my democratic colleagues keep talking about and have for years. i like women. i'm married to one. i've two daughters and i have done pap smears and breast examinations and sexually transmitted disease tests and
all the health care services that my democratic colleagues keep talking about that. this is not about that. we keep hearing about the hyde amendment. and certainly the hyde amendment is in play. but make no mistake about this, what planned parenthood does is the proverbial shell game is shifting funds so taxpayer dollars still go to an organization that provides abortion and the more we pour money to this organization, the more abortions they are going to try to promote and provide. and in fact, planned parenthood was established on the philosophy of eugenics and still carrying out those today. there are more black babies killed today than white babies or any colored babies. we have seen where planned
parenthood operatives have even promoted -- i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: so this is all about preventing abortion. i know my democrat colleagues are well meaning. they all say the same talking points and i believe that you all believe what the democratic colleagues say. and i know they are well meaning. but the american people demand better. my patients demand better. your taxpayers, democratic colleagues, demand better. this is about abortion. planned parenthood is not going to shut down if the pence
amendment is passed. and this continuing resolution is signed into law. planned parenthood won't go away. they can continue to supply the services that they get from other financial sources. they could continue to provide abortions. it's not going to even stop that. i believe very firmly in my heart that we must fight abortions, because these are babies. i introduced h.r. 212, which is the sanctity of human life act which defines that life begins at fertilization and that's when all of our lives began. those babies deserve the right of personhood and deserve the right to live. so this debate is about life. it's about giving children the right to grow up and become functioning citizens in our
society. and it's about taxpayers' funds continuing to support an organization, the largest provider of abortions in the world to continue that process of killing babies. so we must take the taxpayer funds away. it's not going to stop planned parenthood from doing pap smears, breast examinations, s.t.d. exams, all those things that my democratic colleagues keep talking about. it's not going to stop that. what it will do is take taxpayers' dollars out of the equation. planned parenthood can no longer do the cost shifting and use taxpayer dollars for other purposes besides the stated purpose of abortion. and hopefully they won't continue to provide abortions with taxpayer dollars.
it's not fair to taxpayers and not fair to women and not fair to my patients, not fair even to planned parenthood patients that aren't seeking abortions. i encourage my colleagues, let's have some civility here and let's think about what really this is all about. it's about abortion, not providing health services to underprivileged women. i provided those services. i have given away hundreds of thousands of dollars of my services in my four decades of my career practicing family medicine. i care for my patients. i want them to have the services that they need. i have provided those services. but this is about abo
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on