landscape? >> easy question. . . . .the opposition. be honest. of a giant problem however the opposition has spent going along with our diplomacy most recently. so it is almost a fixed player so the opposition ability is light and the

trade and equip program is going very bad they. and the larger concern that i had when the troops were attacked edits a huge problem and unless the united states will make political concessions to its allies in the region with the fate of the regime so now we're at a crossroads because it is now propping up the regime. i do think we have the answer to that question yet.

>> the position is so divided it is very difficult and then inside your position. if you looked at saudi arabia you get money from catarrh or turkey because we're in the economic, a new economy in syria. the only way to survive.

so there is a conflict and they know very well but it is the key to the system but it is the key. the system could be destroyed. with the east and west don't have anything to urdu. but to be a of parts of the solution and after.

>> on that note we will bring the panel to a close. i am quite sure this to

>> jan you look awesome in your red blazer. >> with a nice color. >> that is a nice color. >> the rules committee will consider hr 3495 women's public health and safety ability, bill's based upon the basic principles i believe of federalism under this bill, a state would be granted the discretion to with hold medicaid funds from a clinic or doctor that provides abortion services. pretty trait forward. hr 3495 represents a continuation of efforts to pass meaningful legislation that prioritizes opportunities that

represent values and sanctity of human life, which we believe is important and we heard from the pope last week how important all life is. this gives an opportunity for states to use federal funds accordingly. with us today, the gentlewoman from tennessee, marcia blackburn, energy commerce commit were. joining her, her colleague jan schakowsky in red. we are orange and red today. before we are both witnesses to come forward to give testimony i'd like to defer to my dear friend, gentleman from massachusetts, he'd like to make -- >> i welcome you both here today. i want to state for the record that the law in this country is that no federal funds can be used for abortion and i just want to remind my republican colleagues that we are only days away from another government shutdown. and the last government shutdown that my friends thrust upon the nation caused the american

taxpayers $24 billion. so i have a hard time believing that preventing medicaid patients from seeing their doctors is the best use of our time. but you're in charge. you run the show. i look forward to the testimony. thank you very much. >> i thank you very much. i'd like to just briefly address the issue that the gentleman brought up, it's a good point, and that is we are very concerned and recognize the constitutionality of what we're trying to do as well as the calendar. we are waiting at this time the united states senate, who is gaining their momentum to decide the piece of legislation. and you will find that we'll be asked to come back to the rules committee some time as quickly as the united states senate does their work, they had been working on these issues diligently, holding vote, having discussions, working with each

other. we're trying to do the same over here. and i do appreciate the gentleman, i know he and i will be on the floor, mrs. slaughter, judge hastings, talking about the importance of ensuring that this government and the continuity of funding streams continues. you have my highest of commitment from, i believe, the rules committee side, knowing that we will, as quickly as we can, be calling a hearing, we will not delay at all work that needs to be done and get it to the floor so this pod q. can act accordingly. i appreciate the gentlemen. >> i appreciate the gentlemen's reassurance but, as recent history has taught us, just because the rules committee considers something and even reports on a rule doesn't mean that the republican conference accepts it. we have found ourselves in a -- on a number of occasions coming back to rules committee with -- trying to manage a crisis. i hope we can keep the government open but i think

that's what our priorities should be. again, beating up on poor women is not my idea of a constructive use of our time. i yield back my time. >> i thank you very much. i appreciate the gentlemen very much. ladies, please, if you'll feel free to come to the witness table. both of you are no strangers to the rules committee, to your friends that count on you not only being here and giving us expert witness testimony, but also the graciousness that you bring representing yourself, your district, your party, and your ideas. and as mrs. blackburn knows, mrs. schakowsky, you've been up here plenty of times we try to deal with difficult subjects in a polite way. you will be afforded that also. and mrs. blackburn, represents thoughts and ideas i agree with, but even when i don't agree, you will be given the assurances that you'll be dealt with fairly up here. i want to thank both of you for

being here. without objection, anything in writing will be entered into the record. we encourage you, we have an awesome stenographer, give her whatever you want and encourage also to speak into the microphone with that green light on when you're give than time. the gentle woman from tennessee, wife of mr. chuck blackburn, my dear friend, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate the opportunity to come before you on hr 3495. this is the women's public health and safety ability. it's a bill that mr. duffy authored and brought to us at energy and commerce committee. we have, as you see before you, an amendment that will become the bill. as you appropriately stated, this is a bill about flexibility and about giving the state more flexibility as to who they choose to include in their

medicaid program, health care providers. and they may want to have people who do not perform or participapar participate in the performance of elective abortions. we have some states who sought to end medicaid contracts and they've been blocked from doing so by cms. currently, we have four states in litigation, louisiana, arkansas, alabama, utah, are in litigation over these very issues. so this is a step that we can take that says, let's give the states the flexibility that they are requesting and that they need. they have proven that they need the flexibility and let's allow them to make these -- make these decisions. and with that, i will yield back. thank you very much. miss schakowsky welcome.

the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you so much for allowing me to testify, once again. i am testifying in opposition to 3495. here we go again. to consider legislation that is purported to protect women but the truth is that this bill is yet another attack on women's health and their ability to make their own choices. the misleading name,women's public health and safety act, seeks to target and exclude abortion providers or anyone who will even remotely support or is involved with a provider or entity that provides abortions from participating in medicaid even though not a single federal dime is spent on providing that abortion. in fact, i've been calling this legislation yet another radical assault on women's health care. this bill would permit a state to terminate a provider from medicaid solely on the basis that the provider also provides

access to a safe and legal abortion without federal dollars, without regard for impact on access to care and leaving no recourse for that provider. excludeing a provider from medicaid solely on the basis that the provider also provides access to safe and legal abortions would be bad enough, but the legislation doesn't stop there. this legislation would allow a state to terminate a provider from medicaid if that provider has had any sort of, quote, participation, unquote with an abortion. what constitutes participation on the part of an entity is completely undefined. let's be clear, the blackburn amendment does not change hr 3495 underlying purpose, intent, or its devastating impact. the blackburn amendment gives states the ability, to, quote, establish criteria, unquote for

determining if a provider, quote, performs or participates in the perform 'of unquote abortions would be allowed in the medicaid program. this broad language would give states an unchecked authority to exclude any provider the state defines as participating without any consideration to the health needs and concerns of its medicaid enrollees. some examples of how this -- how far this criteria could go, a state could exclude a hospital for offering life saving care as required under the federal emergency medical treatment or mtola law. if a state determines care was provided went there was not an immediate threat to the woman's life but instead a serious health care threat or entire hospital systems could be excluded because many hospitals provide abortion services.

this would not only mean medicaid patients could losing asa s access to their choice of medical providers for all of their health care services but particularly harmful in rural areas, where there are fewer hospitals to serve communities. this bill allows the government unprecedented involvement in a woman's own personal health care decisions, right down to who she chooses as her provider. that's why historically federal medicaid rules have always regardless of which party is in power provided the right of medicaid beneficiaries to seek care from a trusted and medically qualified provider of their choosing. this bill is one more assault in the long list of republican assaults on women's health. we know that if this legislation had been enacted in the past month when governor jindal tried to kick planned parenthood out of medicaid, there would have been only 29 providers left across the state to serve more

than 5,000 additional patients. louisiana is not a unique case. in two-thirds of the 491 counties in which they are located, planned parenthood health centers serve at least half of all women obtaining contraceptive care from safety net health centers. one-fifth of the counties in which they are located, planned parenthood sites are the sole safety net family planning center. the medicaid statutory provider choice protections are there for a reason. that language protects against the ideological and political whims of politicians at the expense of women. the claim that this legislation seeks to protect women could not be further from the truth. this is yet another attempt for republicans to erode the fundamental constitutionally protected right for safe and legal abortion, this legislation which would undermine the right of a woman to choose her own provider or the right of a

provider to support or provide safe action to legal abortion a yield back. >> thank you very much. this is an issue back home for me also. and i have, i'm sure every one of our members, whether from new york, whether from dallas, texas, have strong opinions. i believe state legislatures know a lot about this issue. they know a lot, for instance i learned other day there's no planned parenthood organization in the country that has a mammogram available to it. i thought that was women's health care. so we have isolated it down, and miss schakowsky i believe you appropriately said it this business abortion services. i believe the stated could be given latitude therein. i respect you being here. miss blackburn, i thank you for

being the bill. i'd like to say thank you to both you the gentle woman from north carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman. in the interest of time i will say that i will associate myself with your remarks on why we're here today and the concerns that the people in our districts have on this issue. it is the number one issue i hear from everyone in my district and i think we are doing the right thing with this legislation. i thank mr. duffy for inducing it and miss blackburn for bringing it here. i respect our colleague, miss schakowsky, but totally disagree with her. i yield back. >> gentlewoman yields back the time. mrs. slaughter's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. appreciate that. i know we all know very well why we're here, trying to get enough

votes to pass the cr. if we throw out something extraneous like this may assuage people somewhere but i'm not getting any great slclamor and never had about this. i'm not sure about the mammogram issue. i know planned parenthood does a lot of cancer screening. i ask unanimous consent to put this statement -- >> without objection. >> let me read it. administration strongly opposes house passage of hr 3495, because it would restrict women's health and reproductive choices. hr 3495 would permit a state medicaid program to stop paying for any covered benefits providing to eligible individuals by qualified health care providers solely because providers were involved in abortions. longstanding federal policy which we already know, already prohibits use of federal funds for abortions.

except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother would be -- woman would be endangered. by permitting withholding of federal medicaid funding for those providers, clinics or hospitals, hr 3495 likely would limit access to both critical women's health services and health care throughout local communities across the nation. and would have a disproportionate impact on women and low income individuals. moreover, it would undermine a woman's right upheld by the supreme court to make her own choices about her body and her health care, and if the presidewere presented with hr 3495 he would veto the bill. i the question i would like to ask, is this constitutional? >> thank you, miss slaughter. we have the requirement by house republicans that you have to state the constitutionconconsti.

the rules committee handles that check. i'm sure they can present that to you. >> since this is a protective right under the constitution, re-v. wade, it seems odd. i know every time they try to do cases where they change the limits of how long first trimester is, permitted that the courts restrict them every single time. i guess this would get, what, another court case, if it were to become -- >> no, ma'am, i don't think so at all. the absence of this bill is called the court cases. as as said earlier, you have four states currently in litigation now. >> because they tried to pass a bill like this? >> no, ma'am. because they were trying to do some restrictions on their providers. >> and they will -- is this federal court, miss schakowsky, you know about the four cases,

four states? >> i think that the point is also, this would not just take away funding or that portion of the services that a health care -- >> planned parenthood -- >> that means -- >> close down a hospital. >> -- it would close down a provider, clinic or entire health care system that for all -- >> for all medicaid patients? >> yes. that would provide all services. >> certainly is drastic, to try to assuage people's concerns so they can vote for the cr. we know why we're here. we don't have any misunderstanding about that. we are here to, on our side, show that we show up for rules committee. but i will seriously, because four states trying to do it, you want to do it here because you think that would make it legal for those four states? >> i think that what we're hearing -- >> or would it not still be a constitutional issue? >> what we're hearing from

states is they would like the flexibility to determine who is the provider in their medicaid program. now, as you will remember, back in the mid '90s, the many states went through the cms waiver process in order to be able to do experimentation with the delivery systems for health care. >> right, that doesn't have anything to do with constitutional question. >> what this has to do with is the determination of how the states utilize their funds, that they are receiving. >> but you do restrict it to people who are providing services for women's reproductive health. >> there is nothing in this that restricts a woman's right or access to abortion, absolutely nothing. >> it does, if you take away the people who provide it. if you shut down a hospital or health care clinic. you don't think so? >> you reposition that.

when something is important -- >> you reposition it. >> you reposition funds. exactly what we have done. >> good grief. >> the community health centers, see planned parenthood -- >> planned parenthood -- let's -- let me reclaim ply time. there's no question here. community health centers made it perfectly klee they can take it on. >> they do. >> 99% done by planned parenthood the one you want to fight has nothing to do with abortion. a number of planned parenthood centers don't do abortions at all. and so what you're saying here, when talk about repositioning it, i think what you really are doing is you're taking away needed health services. they also serve men who come to planned parenthood for services in health diagnoses and things, medicines they're allowed to have. something i've been absolutely -- ever since we passed the health care bill, it

is absolutely astonished me, and i can't for the life of me understand why you all want to take health care away from people. it's beyond me. people who can afford it, can get it. if you don't come in that category, you're out of luck as far as congress is concerned. i yield back balance of my time. >> thank you very much. gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i apologize for being late. there must have been something discussed i'm unaware of. i'll ask my colleague, miss blackburn, i have read this legislation from front to back and i don't see any language closing any facilities or anybody, but that's the conversation i walked in on. has something been added to the bill that would close a facility? >> mr. woodall, there is nothing in here that closes any facility. what it does is to allow the states the flexibility they have asked us. if they could get for utilization of those funds, and

participants in their medicaid delivery system. and as we have seen as planned parenthood has reduced services that they offer to women, and most of the women's health care services now are outsourced, if you will. and it's important the states are saying, we really need some more flexibility and, as i said, there are four states who are ready in a lawsuit over this issue. so, as we look at the funding on women's health, what we want to do is make certain that the money is going to get to the point where it will meet the needs of those communities and flexibility is helpful in that regard. >> i'm a big fan of local control, but there are often some moral issues that we do deal with here. i certainly think life is one of those. i think providing critical care to communities that need it is one of those.

i was looking for the mandate in this language. is there a requirement that a state -- >> no, it's a flexibility requi requirement. mr. duffy had done the bill. when it came to energy and commerce, we did an amendment that becomes the bill. and as you can see, it is section 2,en creasing state flexibility in determining participation of providers who perform or participate in the performance of abortions. and so what you have is the insertion of flexibility into the allocation of this funding stream. that is something that the states would like to have. it's how you move money forward to meet the greatest need and it's the reason for bringing the bill forward. >> i tell constituents back home, when they talk about the fights that happen in washington, sometimes we are just fighting about how to love on each other and disagree what loving on each other looks like here. when it comes to health care and

issues, as difficult as some of these are, i feel certain that there's no one in this room going to love on the constituents of georgia more than the folks who run the georgia medicaid. appreciate you bringing the bill to give them flexibility. i yield back my time. >> mr. mcgovern. >> i just feel it's important to state for the record so people understand, each year planned parenthood offers preventative services for women to screener to cancer, sexually transmitted infects and prevent unintended pregnancies more than 90% provided by planned parenthood are preventative, including primary care services such as contraceptives, sexually transmitted infection test, treatment, cervical and breast cancer screenings. each year planned parenthood health centers provide nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings, nearly 500,000 breast cancer screenings, i'm

look at some of the testimonies on behalf of planned parenthood, i have testimony from a woman named ashley, quote, when i was 23, i found a lump in my breast. i made an appointment at planned parenthood, nurse practice in additioner in found the lump and arraigned for my first ma'am grap. i had a biopsy and lump removed. it came back negative. planned parenthood put me in contact with a group to help me pay for the procedure. normally it would have cost 1200 but i paid 200, which was all i could afford. if it weren't for planned parenthood i would not have been able to get the procedure and keep myself healthy and go on and on about this. but whether or not this would shut down a hospital if you deny the trite medicaid reimbursement or a health care system, it might very well, mr. woodall depending on the hospital we're talking about. but at a minimum what you're saying is that you -- that somehow it's okay to shut down

health services for poor women because medicaid serves low income populations. what you're doing is denying access to, in many cases life-saving preventative care to poor whip which i think is quly. we have more bills that fall into the category, but does anybody believe in regular order anymore or -- >> yes, sir. i do. >> well, you know, again, given the fact this bill, i mean, doesn't have to be voted on today, i mean, you could do next week, but i mean, were there any hearings on this bill? was there a mark-up? miss blackburn, do you recall a hearing or mark-up on this bill? >> we did not do a hearing on this specific bill but we have -- >> no mark-up either? >> new york we haven't done a markup. we have done lots of hearings on the issue.

>> that is regular order and again, i know, you know, some of the critiques of this bill are that the -- that you knyou broa use of language could have unforeseen -- my colleagues on the republican side i know you control the house, is it too much to ask we go through the committee process to ask some of these concerns? i know you guys think you know everything and you -- everything to you is really clear. but there is -- people go on these committees for a reason so they can have a say in the legislative process and routinely they get blocked out. here we are with a bill that is not urgent, not gone through the committee process, not gone through any markups, designed to punish poor women and take away the access to health care, and i just think this is a lousy process. it's a lousy bill. but at a minimum, even if you bring lousy legislation before

the rules committee it ought to go through regular order. the committees ought to mean something in congress swin creaand increasingly they mean nothing. >> we will do exactly that, we give specific intent to the energy and commerce committee to appropriately look at in detail this issue so facts and figures are available not just within committee but become generally available for the entire -- >> that is your special committee on planned parenthood you're talking about? >> i think you'll see -- >> what -- i'm going to follow the same things -- >> if you get a former committee to look into this, i think, you know, it would make more sense for you to report legislation out after the committee work i think sounds like a waste of money, but you ought to -- you committees in jurisdiction already. you have to have hearing before

you bring legislation to the floor. >> i appreciate the gentlemen. he's far enough along if the state wants flexible the state can get flexibility. if the state chooses not to take up flexibility they won't get the flexibility. >> if you have a governor or a state legislature than basically wants to take away the right of a woman to make this very difficult choice with regard to abortion, then they can -- they will do it. notwithstanding what the supreme court has said. you somehow think that's okay. or if a health care provider provides abortion services to women, which is legal, that you are saying that the state legislature should have the right to take away all medicare -- medicaid reimbursement to the health care system for kracancer screenings

other preventative care. come on. the good news is this is going nowhere. the bad news is that it continues this drum beat, you know, beating up on poor women. and i think it is -- it is wrong. but i have said enough. i yield back my time. >> gentlemen yields back his time. the point is we believe in regular order and believe that we will have a detailed analysis and report that will be available from the committee system. thank you very much. the gentlemen from louisville, texas, dr. burgess. >> thank you mr. chairman. of course, mr. chairman, as you know, in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding and said we're only going to pay for services that are not associated with an institution that provides abortion services and, as a consequence, in fact, i think the figures sort of speak volumes about that, that there are now increased dollars going for women's health that are not

associated with those that provide abortion services. now, the publication politifact is not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement by joe oman head of the texas alliance for life, who said that texas funding for women health services is at historically high levels and in fact increased another 50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including additional $50 million. so politifact look act the statement that texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels, actually ended up rating this claim as true. again, politifact not generally one that is kind to people on the conservative side. so i thought that was

significant. now, we did have a hearing along a similar issue in the energy and commerce committee, last week or the week before, and i want to submit for the record the texas women's health program provider survey patient capacity report. this is from january of 2013. that was two years after governor perry key coupled planned parenthood and medicaid funding some there was concern that perhaps the level of care was going to drop off. the conclusion of the texas womens health program providers survey was that, overall, texas women's health program patient capacity results -- the results are positive. in most areas survey found that the state has the capacity to serve even more women in 2013. again, reference the politifact

article that the last legislative session in 2015 increased that additional $50 million. all this is to say it can be done. we done have to ask the american taxpayer to fund a procedure that they find abhorrent, and the funding for women's health care has not been affected in the state of texas even though governor perry decoupled. >> will the gentlemen yield in there's no federal funding that can be used to perform abortion, that's the law. but decoupling -- >> we have been through this before. you know the money's fundable, can be used for anything in the organization. so i think actually, for the people of texas, governor perry has set us on a good path and this provides flexibility for other governors to do the same. so mr. chairman, i'm grateful to our witnesses, grateful for the presentation today. i thank you for having the hearing. i yield back my time. >> thank you, gentlemen, very much from louisville, texas. the gentlemen from florida.

do you seek time? >> yes. >> the gentleman's recognized. >> in the movie "frozen" which i've had the good fortune of seeing several times with my grandchildren, both grant daughters, the character elsa sings a song, i wish i knew all of the words -- >> excuse me, judge hastings. is your microphone on? they're saying they cannot hear you. >> i'm saying that in the movie "frozen," the character sings a song that says "let it go" and "let it go" is what the republicans need to do, not just with this particular measure but there seems to be this obsession that i've witnessed now for 22 years of involvement with what a woman's right to choose is.

like mr. mcgovern i associate myself with his remarks. the dramatic thrust seems always to go toward poor women. and that by at least my reasoning allows rich women that have abortions don't have this problem and if we were to just listen to people, i guess we figure that rich women don't have abortions. i think i told a story when i was a child, when a wealthy women got pregnant, it was they would go to europe on vacation for a period of time. well, my question, i guess, to representative blackburn, i have great respect for her legislative skills and passion on this issue it rivals mine on

the opposite side, and i appreciate that, but in some counties, miss blackburn, planned parenthooder is the only place for safety net recipients to receive family planning care. and so where do you recommend that they seek treatment if the provider has been expelled from the state's medicaid program? i heard you earlier say that they would go into the system but there's some counties that don't have community health facilities. >> one of the things that we have found, mr. hastings, is that you have over 13,000 community health and federally qualified health centers in the country and then with planned parenthood you have a much smaller number of smaflts. the community health outreach

outnumbers the planned parenthood availability tremendously. one of the things that we have seen also is planned parenthood has curtailed and outsourced many resources, is that your faith-based clinics, your fqhcs, community health systems are the ones that have been picking up the slack on those. >> but you -- you answered what you wanted to answer. you did not answer my question. when no facility exists, or other than planned parenthood, where would you have women -- >> in rural and underserved areas, i am not aware of there being any county in this country where there is only -- >> are you aware of counties where there is no community health center it. >> i'm aware there are community health departments and federally qualified health centers and services are available through those. they're more readily available than they are through the planned parenthood centers. we have 55 planned parenthood

affiliates around the country. some of them have as many as 20 different clinics. >> i want to claim my time for a moment. i agree community facilities if you look at the overall number outnumber the number -- >> yes, and the access is greater. >> you still are not getting to the root of my problem. >> i want to make the point, this bill does not specifically mention planned parenthood. so there are counties and there are community health centers that do with their own money or private insurance money, whatever, provide abortion services. so this is legislation that could also take those providers out of the system. this deals with any one -- the state -- for example, cook county, if the legislature decided that cook county health systems, and that's clinics and it's also the hospital, could

not be a medicaid recipient because with nonfederal money for poor women, it does provide the whole range of services, including abortion services. the state legislature, i guess, posing as doctors, you know, would decide that this health service should not be available. and that would be that. >> it would seem that the legislation it itself is incredibly far reaching and would essentially allow a state to exclude any provider or entity that has provided an abortion or any entity or provider that has had any sort of association or involvement with abortion. listen to the language, and i ask unanimous consent to include a letter over the signature of mark defrancisco. >> without october, it will be

entered into the record. >> who is the president of the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists. he says, on behalf of the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists, representing 57,000 positions and partners in women's health, i urge you to vote no on the women's public health and safety act. this intentionally vague bill should not be enacted into law. in falling far short of any standard for sound federal health legislation and policy it would serve only to scare providers away from providing comprehensive compassionate care to women and leave women without the care they need. america needs more obgyns participating in medicaid program, in the medicaid program. this bill would do the opposite.

when it comes to the house floor, i urge you to vote no. don't be fooled by the title of this bill. this legislation is nothing more than the latest in a string of attacks against women's health. i find it strange that where current law denies federal medicaid coverage of abortion and that congress currently imposes unfair limitations on insurance companies of abortion, federal dollars are with held from covering a woman's abortion except in limited circumstances and we all know those and federal insurance coverage of abortion is restricted. i don't know why we're here other than what miss slaughter said, i'd like to associate myself with her remarks, all we're doing is giving some

currency to those who don't want to vote for a clean cr. i might add, mr. chairman, i'm in full disagreement with foreman waiving the six committee rule for energy and commerce to form some committee to go on yet another unnecessary probe into not only an organization, but just to give vent to the feelings of some. i don't want a special committee to preserve our providered. i don't need a special committee to preserve what is the law of the land. ultimately, what you all seek to do, and it is that you continueo down this path is to set the

stage ultimately for the overturning of roe v. wade and that's basically not this little bitty provision here. this is just one of many over 22 years leading in that direction. and i strongly urge that because some people have a view that is different than mine or does not make my view be the prevailing view, but the prevailing sentiment in this country is that women should have the right to control their bodies and to make a determination as to who it is they wish to associate with as a physician and for a law that limits that association flies in the face of all of the anti talk about obamacare where people were talking about you will have your right to choose your own physician.

and then you come here and say to poor women, hell no, you don't have that right to go to the providers that are in that area. we should be ashamed of ourselves putting ourselves in that position. and i certainly will stand in complete opposition to not only this legislation but the ultimate aim that you have. and that is overturning roe v. wade. i'll yield back. >> ventleman yields back his time. any other republicans seek time? i see none. i would -- does the gentleman from colorado seek time? >> yes. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i wanted to see if i'm understanding how this bill works. the other week there was a specific bill around planned parenthood funding. this bill now doesn't mention planned parenthood but it could defund the community health

clinics which last week, if i recall, many of the republicans were arguing how don't worry about planned parenthood, the community health clinics will somehow serve all the women. now they're doing a bill that seems to defund -- the community health clinics rely on -- my understanding is these two would cut off access for poor women to health care? >> well, it could, if those clinics, which we have in cook county and some other places in the state of illinois, also were to dare to participate -- that's the word. so i'm not sure exactly what that means, in abortion services. they could be cut off just as easily as a planned parenthood clinic could be cut off and defunded. and understand that there are many, many poor women for whom

these clinics are the lifeline. that's what we're talking about. we talk about medicaid, you have to meet fairly strict income and asset requirements in order to get on the program. and they rely on these medicaid providers. and any one of them could be gone. >> what might that word participate mean? would that might mean if a doctor says your pregnancy could be dangerous to your health and you might need to look at alternatives if it's a nonviable fetus, could all those things be considered participating? >> i'm certainly confused on what that could mean. >> ms. blackburn, if a doctor found that a pregnancy could be life threatening for the mother, if they were to inform her of that, would that be participating and, therefore, render the clinic of a potential loss of finisheding? >> i'd direct you to page two of

the bill line three and reading through the end of the bill where you will see that flexibility is given there. and again, as i have said previously, this is about flexibility for the state. we have states that have sought to owned their contracts, their medicaid contracts. they've been blocked from doing that by cms. they are seeking help from us. this is a way to make that happen. we have four states that currently are in litigation. >> one moment please. which part of the bill. i take it your amendment or the bill you're referring to? >> the amendment. >> and which lines? >> page two, line three and reading to the end. >> exception, okay. in fact, what you will see is that this allows a state to choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its medicaid program. whether it's institutions,

agencies, entities. this is something that states have said to us, y we'd like to have this flexibility and it gives the state a maximum flexibility so they can come in and set these programs, work with these providers. in texas, dr. burgess gave us a great example of when they did the decoupling in texas. we know it worked and that access to care increases when you allow the states that flexibility. and the stats that come from texas certainly are proof of that. you can look at some of the faith-based and community clinics that have provided necessary outreach. and the way their numbers have -- >> there's nothing to stop any of these clinics from doing outreach now. this refers to potential loss of funding for clinics that have a series of health services that

you disagree with. the exception that you pointed to is only for a life endangering physical condition, not for a health endangering physical condition, and it would require a very high burden on an imminent danger of death unless an abortion is performed. often when a doctor is working with a patient, one of the reasons this is not a good area for government to get involved with is it's a lot more nuance in that. the doctor might alert the woman there are high risks with a particular pregnancy or that the pregnancy could have severe health implications. it may or may not reach this standard of immediately life endangering physical condition. there's a lot broader set of circumstances which are custom ear customarily to make sure that the parent -- the mother is awear of the impact on her

health. i really see these bills from last week and this week is a double wammy. one targeting planned parenthood specifically. the second one threatening to undercut the very system of community health clinics last week which were touted as potential alternatives to planned parenthood for women, insufficient as they are with not enough locations to serve nearly the number of women that are currently served by planned parenthood. these two bills are currently the wrong direction and we'll also be talking about another select committee or special committee shortly. agon again, my view is the only committee of jurisdiction on these matters is a woman, her doctor and god and any other legislative body simply doesn't have jurisdiction. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. seeing no time being requested by any other member, i want to thank both of you for taking time to be with us as we spoke up front.

this is an important and sensitive issue, and i appreciate both of our witnesses appropriately portending their views with respect to each other and this committee. i want to thank both of you for your time. if you'll please make sure you say anything that you came in writing with. this is the women's health and safety act and the chair will be in receipt of a motion for the gentlewoman, the vice chairman of the committee mrs. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move the committee grant hr-3595, the woman's health and safety act a closed rule. it provides one hour debate equally dividing control of the chair and ranking minority member for their respective desing inys. all points of order. the rule provides the amendment printed in the rules committee report shall be considered as

adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered read. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. finally, section two of the rule waives clause 68 of rule 13 requiring a two-thirds vote to consider rule on the same day as it is reported from the rules committee. against any resolution reported from the rules committee through the legislative day of october 1, 2015. >> you heard the motion from the gentle woman from north carolina as well as what i believe is a straightforward explanation of the rules. amendment or discussion to that? >> yes, mr. chair. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment to the rule. hr-3495 is yet another bill that has failed to go through regular order. there have been no hearings or mark-ups on this bill. meaning we have not heard from expert witnesses and no one has had an opportunity to even offer

amendments to improve this bill. even worse, today's closed rules self-executes a hand-picked republican amendment denying members the opportunity to vote on it and completely shuts down the amendment process for the other 434 members. and i would like to put on the record the statement about what happened in other places where they tried to shut down the planned parenthood providers. in indiana, it led to an hiv epidemic. we all know about that. in texas, it led to tens of thousands of women not getting care. and in tennessee it's led to a 1400% drop in services. is it too much to ask that we follow regular order and allow the house to work its will on a measure of such importance. mr. chairman, i move the committee grant hr-3495 and open rules so all members, both sides of the house, have an opportunity to offer amendments

on the floor as we were elected to do. >> you've heard amendment and the discussion, further discussion by any member of the committee? seeing none the vote will be on. those opposed no? the gentlewoman asked for a role call. >> ms. fox? >> no. >> mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> mr. burgess? >> no. >> mr. stiver? >> no. >> mr. collins? >> no. >> mr. burn? >> no. >> mr. newhouse? >> no. >> ms. slaughter? >> yes. >> mr. mcgovern? >> aye. >> mr. hastings? >> aye. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> what's the total? >> four yeaayes, nine nays. the gentleman from colorado?

>> i have a very special guest tonight. my sister is here. i wanted to welcome her to the rules committee. >> that's awesome. >> so we've had your dad. we've had your son. >> it's a big month for family. >> big month for family. >> it's a big month for family, mr. majority leader -- i mean mr. chairman. >> this is awesome and we're delight audio. >> currying a little favor over there. >> i know how that works. where is she from? >> she's from boulder, colorado. >> boulder, colorado. great. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> no further amendments or discussions? the vote will be on the motion from the gentlewoman. aye? >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no. >> roll call vote? >> ms. fox? >> aye. >> mr. cole? >> aye. >> mr. woodall? >> aye. >> mr. burgess? >> aye.

>> mr. stivers? >> aye. >> mr. collins? >> aye. >> mr. burns? >> aye. >> mr. newhouse? >> aye. >> ms. slaughter? >> no. >> mr. mcgovern? >> no. >> mr. hastings? >> no. >> mr. polis? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. >> nine yeas, four nays. >> the gentle woman from north carolina, mrs. fox, will be handling this for republicans. >> and mr. hastings for democrats. >> and judge hastings for democrats. i'd like to, if i can, be as clear as i can be, not knowing when the senate will perform their duties, knowing that rather quickly, as soon as we receive it, we would want members to know, put us on notice. but our next scheduled meeting is for wednesday at 3:00. knowing that if the senate gets their work done, we'd come in as

quickly as possible. i'll deal with hopefully this -- >> it is probably because of the timing, because of the timing, i'd anticipate that. but i know miles and hugh will be in contact. i'll do my very best to get with you. >> can't wait to see what's in it. >> i know you will. me, too. thank you very much. this now finishes the committee work for the day.