this point, i don't have any additional details. victoria. >> you talked about trump from a policy and political point of view. i want to address it more from president obama and how he feels about this personally at this point. does this annoy him? does it press: what is his response? ,r. earnest: for that reason because these are the kinds of questions that many of us have had to answer in a variety of settings, including on places iowa, that i think we are long past being particularly concerned about them. i think a bigger concern and friendly the most relevant issue

whichs the frequency with significant influential players continue to counsel these views as they build political support. that has consequences. it has consequences for the ability of congress to run the country, to pass legislation that has strong bipartisan support. are also consequences in terms of ways the voters view the republican party and the candidates that are running under the republican banner. why do you think that the just of president obama that it just doesn't -- why do you think that is? mr. earnest: i have no idea. i wanted to ask about the

trunk controversy. thatis campaign, he says he didn't get a question, or that the questioner -- not like your -- mentioned muslim terrorist training camps preceding his question, they are saying that mr. trump was referring to wanting to get rid muslim terrorist training camps. does the white house have any view on these camps? are there muslim training camps in this country? mr. earnest: i haven't seen anybody produce any evidence that there are. so, the vast majority of americans take a those views. press: is it the

administration's view that the economy has stalled? mr. earnest: it is not. economy has made really important progress since from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. that we are in the midst of the longest sustained stretch of private-sector job growth in the history of the country. evaluate progress by looking at job creation, the unemployment rate that has been cut in half, five or six years ago, if you take a look at gdp growth, even despite the volatility of the financial it, the stock market has rebounded significantly from the depths of the economic recession. what is true is that the president believes there is a

whole a more that can and should be done to advance our recovery. and make sure that more middle-class families are benefiting from it, there is no denying that. that is one of our principal arguments about republicans shouldn't follow through with their threat to shut down the government. there is no denying the significant progress and momentum that our nation's economy has put out. that is why our economy right now is the envy of the world. press: is it the white house's view that she shows deference to the presidency? is there any indication that she should wait to say what she thinks about this? been given: i have the opportunity to offer campaign advice of the clinton

campaign and i have good friends and colleagues that donated rice for me. press: does the white house have a preference to when she makes her declaration? mr. earnest: she is entitled to make her own decisions about what she says in the context of her campaign. more broadly, on the outreach effort, why, in light of what happened, the u.s. finds this dialogue with russia -- why you think there is some reason for optimism?

mr. earnest: i don't have any more details i can share with you. that thet is notable kind of military to military cooperation that we are seeking at astart is cooperation practical, tactical level. that is obviously different than the kind of military to military cooperation that was in place prior to russia's inappropriate interference in ukraine. our goal is to pursue this to try tocooperation advance the interest of our coalition, and to try to safeguard as much as possible the operations that are underway

as part of that mission. switching topics, french diplomats have said that vladimir pugin and other officials are trying to organize world leaders including the president on the day before to talk about climate -- climate change. i know that you haven't formally announced that president's schedule but i'm wondering if you would talk about whether the president would be intending? announcedt: i haven't it yet though we should have more details on that soon. is that theay united states -- and the president does believe -- that the united nations will continue to play an important coordinating function trying to , tog the world together make some significant commitments to fight climate change. there are talks that are scheduled for the end of this orr in paris where leaders

representatives of nations will come, hopefully ready to make commitments. the united states in coordination with china has made some significant commitments. the chinese have made commitments to reduce carbon pollution in the context of those topics. there are other countries like south korea and mexico that are also announcing steps. it is the policy of this administration that those talks in paris could serve as a very important catalyst for eliciting commitments from countries around the well, thus making contributions to reducing carbon pollution. there is a role for the united nations to play, and the united states has been playing a leading role in encouraging countries around the world to make commitments in the context of those talks. we obviously are strongly

supportive of the process being run by the united nations. we are taking an active role to ensure its success. there is a lot of important work that needs to get done. we will have more details on the itinerary in new york next week. with: after the meeting wondering if, i am there is a requirement for reauthorization? this point, it don't have any contingencies to add on. what we are seeking to do is to find a way to get republicans and congress to accept the invitation that has been on the table to democrats for months to engage in bipartisan talks to try to resolve the budget. we have taken a realistic approach to acknowledging the

facts, which is that republicans have put off talks for so long that it now is it difficult to imagine that they would be able to reach a bipartisan budget agreement before the deadline. said, the president's opposition to locking in the sequester is steadfast. why i did not envision a long extension of funding current levels but rather enough to finallyngress convene talks in reach an agreement implemented, thereby avoiding a government shutdown ensuring that our national security priorities are properly funded. yesterday in a briefing you said what has been going on

with the training of syrian rebels as an indication of those that had been pushing rebels as -- she said it was time for them -- i am wondering if secretary clinton is one of those people that you think should be submitting after this? mr. earnest: the point i am making is that there are some, there are some who have suggested that this is essentially the only necessary part of the strategy for success. i will let secretary clinton described her position but i think -- i feel confident in supportive she was of multilayered approaches that we have been pursuing.

that is everything from , someikes on the ground support for opposition groups inside of syria that have made important progress against isil, trying to prioritize counter finance operations to shut off the strategies that isil uses to activities. we have been actively working with allies to try to stop the flow of foreign fighters to syria. this is an important strategy that we are trying to implement. hasaspect of that strategy been training and equipping. as i mentioned, that is something that has proved to be even more difficult than we expected despite the importance of the operations we have from other countries in the region. i think the reason i cited in

this is that we have frequently ardenthat our most critics when it comes to the situation in syria have very little to say when asked about alternative policies that they think would work better. the most frequently mentioned one is typically a backward looking suggestion that we should have at an earlier date been more aggressive about providing arms to fighters and .eeking to train and equip more the president's view is that it would have been unwise to provide that kind of assistance without thoroughly vetting and getting to know the individuals who would be receiving it. there are good historical lessons to be learned about the of being responsible when providing the kind of assistance. outs: there is a report

that the da is a systemwide reworking. they have significant flaws including bloated bureaucracy and a potentially unsustainable budget. i have not seen the report but i have heard of it. it is 714 pages long. i don't have a comprehensive response to offer you. as a general matter, the president has made it a priority to ensure that americans are getting the kind of health care and benefits that they have earned. the president and this in ministration has implemented a variety of reforms, including the denomination -- the nomination of the new the a secretary. vathe a secretary -- secretary.

metrics are encouraging. we have made important progress. the president, secretary mcdonald, and other senior officials are not going to rest until we accomplish our goal of making sure all of our veterans are getting the kind of care and benefits that they deserve. i know you are asked this referred to ayou gay bishop that would appear at the white house for the pope's visit. is the white house trying to make a statement? is the white house planning on raising any lgbt issues for the pope's visit? i think that the goal is to invite up to 15,000 people to the south lawn of the

white house to welcome the pope. there has been overwhelming interest in attending that ceremony. religiousrked with organizations, including some catholic organizations, to distribute tickets to that event. we would expect a wide variety of americans, who are enthused about the opportunity to see the pope. i think that reflects the pope's stature and the significance of his visit and the way he has ,nspired so many americans including a bunch of us that are not catholic. i would expect that there would be a diverse crowd on the south lawn of the white house to attend that ceremony.

again, i think the diversity of that crowd reflects the diversity of people in this country, that are moved by the teachings and actions of this pope. did the president oppose limit eating -- eliminating -- what agency does he think that power belongs to or should belong to yucca why not congress? mr. earnest: what the president proposed several years ago is merging the commerce department with a number of other government agencies that have when i think you can call overlapping jurisdictions. this is a process that got started at omb. ironically, we have run into

some pretty stiff congressional opposition to putting into place will could be described as commonsense reforms. the goal of making those changes is not to shirk basic governmental responsibility like determining policies about oil experts but rather to make sure that those policies are made and coordinated more efficiently. was the goal of that particular proposal but it hasn't made much progress in the face of stiff opposition from republicans. press: where would the power to determine that go? mr. earnest: presumably -- i haven't looked at those specific proposals in quite some time. i don't know if there is a proposal to move it to another or if it would reside in the newly formed agency. press: you mentioned the

business roundtable speech. in that speech, president obama stressed that the deficits have come down on his watch but he didn't mention the extent to which the national debt has risen on his watch. you rarely mention the debt. is that an oversight or does he not fear that it is a heavy burden on the economy? mr. earnest: i think what most economists and the president are focused on is the sustainability of the debt. that is why we have been so focused on driving down the deficit, to try to get to a level that is sustainable, compared to the overall size of the economy. that is the case that we have regularly made. we have talked into republicans about this. the fact is that the best way

for us to pursue a responsible budget approach is to make smart spending decisions that reduce the deficit down to a level without shortchanging the kinds of investments that are so critical to overall economic growth theory that overall growth is significant to preserving fiscal stability. we have made remarkable progress over the president's tenure in office by reducing the deficit by two thirds. press: does obama believe that that is sustainable? mr. earnest: at this point, what economists tell us is that ,etting the debt and deficit getting the deficit to this level below 3% does put us on a sustainable trajectory, and will allow us to continue to make smart investments that we know are critical to growth.

at the same time, ensuring that we are making responsible decisions. press: in an interview this week with 60 minutes, president theani was asked about chanting's of death to america. do you believe his response to that? i haven't seen the entire interview so i think i will withhold judgment on that until we get a chance to see the interview but i think it will air on sunday night. there is the free plug. just a quick one on you nga. about makingrlier agreements of china on climate change. have you made headway in conversations with other emergent economies?

i don't have a nugget on the status of deliberations, but i think that we have been quite clear that when the president has met with the leaders of those countries, this is an issue that rates highly on their agenda. i think the president traveled wasndia, and climate change the top subject discussed. you saw at the news conference that president obama convened ofh him about the importance u.s.-brazilian cooperations when it comes to steps that would address climate change. these issues are certainly on the agenda at the presidential level. i know that there are other conversations between officials in our country that you mentioned about this topic that are ongoing. press: we have also talked about so-called manipulation of intelligence information.

we recently heard from the house intelligence committee that he believes that as far back as 2012, intelligence may have been manipulated. any response to that? mr. earnest: what we are focused on is dealing in facts and evidence. that is exactly what the inspector general is looking at. i will withhold judgment on that until the inspector general's work has been completed. i will reset the principle i stated before which is that this president is not interested in cooked numbers. they are interested in truth. that is what will best serve the policymaking in decision-making processes. without qualification, nobody in this administration exerted any pressure on anyone at the intelligence level to shade or create an environment that was in any way -- mr. earnest: i am not aware of anything like that.

is the even think that accusation that the inspector general is investigating. the inspector general -- i believe it is the department of defense that is considering actions that may or may not have been taking by a range of officials in the department of defense. i don't think there is any accusations that have been made against white house officials. hr3504 says it would impose requirements on abortions which would likely have a chilling effect on reducing access? that was part of the statement you all made about abortion survivors protection. i want to ask you about your statement, it would likely have a chilling effect on access. do you have any empirical evidence to prove that orser something you are pointed to specifically? mr. earnest: i think that is the assessment of

many health professionals who have looked at this, that this kind of legislation could serve to put some health care providers out of business. those are providers that many families rely on on a regular basis. we can refer you to a health care expert that may have a more specific explanation. is friday, howit about that loss to the broncos? any words for the downtrodden folks in kansas city? brutal ist: i think the way to discredit. it was quite disappointing. is that afteray tough losses like that, character israel the own. we are going to lot a lot -- we're going to learn a lot about this team the next few weeks.

on monday.turning press: let me ask you about the meeting yesterday. pelosi suggested she was still optimistic about the budget deal. harry reid joked that he is so is on the spectrum. is obama closer to nancy pelosi or harry reid on the deal? mr. earnest: right now, the president is in the mode of trying to find some cause for optimism. successfully? mr. earnest: i think it is a work in progress. we -- and i don't just mean the president and me -- i mean

anybody observing this -- we know how to solve this problem and we know what it takes to avoid a shutdown and to make the kind of bipartisan compromises that are so clearly in the best interest of the country and our economy. reach those to compromises is for democrats and republicans to sit down together in good faith and broker a compromise. thatll yield a compromise i feel confident in predicting will have me saying things like the legislation is not perfect. my counterparts can certainly say the same thing. hereis what we are looking . we are just looking for the kind of bipartisan compromise that prevents a government shutdown, that adequately funds our national security priorities and makes sure we are not shortchanging investments.

that is the package. it shouldn't be too hard to find bipartisan common ground. we will have differences of opinion on how to implement those priorities. a budget agreement should be achievable. the optimism category. i think that is typical of congress to wait until the last minute. we are waiting on congress to pass legislation to prevent a shutdown.

press: the president tweeted about the 14-year-old muslim boy in texas. he talked about people expanding their conscious and prejudice. i am wondering -- not to overly conflate things -- but in refusing to make any comments when the audience members said what he said yesterday, did donald trump show prejudice? i don't think i'm

going to opine on that. what he showed his willingness to win political support for his campaign. we have seen far too many leaders in the republican party successfully use that strategy in a cynical way. pursuing a kind of strategy has consequences. it has consequences when it comes to governing the country. when yoursequences name is on the ballot and you are considered by the voters. press: [indiscernible] will the president to 10 that summit? i don't have travel

plans for the president to announce yet. you obviously heard me earlier when i talked about how important the administration believes climate talks are. i don't have any updates on the president's travel schedule. president is hopeful about prospects for the summit. it will require a lot of hard work and a serious commitment on part of countries around the world. there is a lot of important work to be done. as it relates to the travel -- i don't have any updates yet. kerry is talking --ut not having

mr. earnest: our view is that president assad has lost legitimacy to lead the country. he has lost legitimacy because he has shown a willingness or a propensity for using the military microphone of that country to carry out acts of violence against syrian people. the kinds of atrocities that we have seen our stomach-turning. whole domino a effect of consequences that have greatly destabilized that region of the world. we have seen extremist groups, including iso-but not just isil, operate much more freely in that

country. we have seen millions of syrians flee their homes, trying to escape violence. many of those syrians are still inside syria. millions of others have had to leave the country entirely. things, all of those terrible things are a consequence of president assad's leadership. our position has been that he should leave. that is why the administration has acknowledged that for all of we activity inside syria, know that the solution is diplomacy. only by putting into place more stable, effective, and

legitimate leadership are we going to address the root cause of these problems. press: i have heard similar statements from the podium for three or four years. of missions failure -- is there anything that gives the white house confidence that come january 20, 2017, he will not be there still in power, propped up by russia? have elected revamping strategy that would get him out of power? press: the president has acknowledged that all were in

default in the anti-isil is long-term. fact thatful of the we will make progress. sustained setbacks. what we have been focused on is to take steps we believe are necessary to protect american people, to reduce the ability of isil to project power into iraq. ofhave also been supportive u.n.-led efforts to facilitate the political transition inside syria. there have been a number of starts and stops associated with that effort. remainsed states engaged in that process.

press: i have not seen anything that would give leverage if vladimir putin sent troops that would change -- is there anything tangible that the president is asking or give me some changeable thing that would give us new leverage? mr. earnest: there have been profound changes inside syria. over the last year, the president built an anti-iso-coalition, including -- anti-so---

american military pilots inside of syria -- we have seen effective coordination with syrian air its, turks -- air , turks, fighters on the ground supported by the coalition including military airstrikes have succeeded in iso-g still -- --that a previously controlledi that they nowsil strikes carried out by the military including one operation inside syria that resulted in the death of the official and the exploitation of large -- that have given us more insight into syria. we have made a lot of important progress in building relationships inside syria, by working closely with the those operating on the ground and has resulted in i sold's --isai9l

il i losses. i imagine those reportssil's -- the reason. press: you said that you are ok with russia taking on isil but isn't both things -- the reality if they are going to join the --lition -- isn't that mr. earnest: we have long is awledged that there connection between these policy goals. the first policy goal is that a assad has lost legitimacy.

is clear is that the most significant destabilizing aspect of this situation is the growth out.iolence being carried that is why you have seen a focus on military actions. efforts to shut down financing. -- thatwhy that has priority has attracted interest. it does not diminish our interest in trying to bring about an overdue political transition needed in syria because our ultimate success in isil will require

leadership. you are highlighting a significant challenge. suggest a desire to this mess is the fault of the president, but without offering recommendation abut what the president should do instead. should have we invested in equipment. pinning our hopes on training

and equip is not a smart strategy. he insisted it be strataegy. with out whart the department of defense continues to do is evaulate the program. i want to go back to the teenager invited to the white house. there is another teenager in that criticize at the president, claiming he has a pro-muslim bias. killed,hen cops are their families are not invited to the white house. how does the white house react? mr. earnest: i haven't seen the

video so a hesitate to comment. relates to the families of thece officers killed, president spoke at the officers memorial earlier this year and had the opportunity to meet many families that were honoring the memory of their loved ones killed. he was proud to participate in that ceremony. >> trumps controversy, he repeated several times that the republicans have successfully used that strategy. they are successful in using it. mr. earnest: qb the first 1 -- --ss: the american people

this impression that muslims are gaining in the u.s.. president's muslim and all of this. if they are successful as you and knowledge is because there's something that he has been able to do to convince the american people that [indiscernible] a. earnest: we have seen variety of leaders in the republican party, including the third-highest ranking republican in the house of representatives toage in a cynical strategy win votes. in many cases, by count in in thishe reviews country have succeeded in durable basis and of political support. that is a fact. the problem is that there are

consequences. consequences take a variety of forms. one of them is in the approval rating of republicans in congress. another is pieces of commonsense legislation that the vast majority of americans would be good for the country that republicans are not able to pass and in some cases actively block like when it comes to immigration reform. truth is thate the kind of people that can speak to this probably more persuasively than i can are the -- ats in the party here least one of them commissioned a report after the last election to figure at how to solve these problems. the fact is there is an of thess among some

significant problem that they cynical strategy has yielded some short-term benefits for some individuals. there are consequences. [indiscernible] it is a strategy to curry favor with the segment of the voting population. it is clear that is what mr. trump was doing. it is clear that is what his competitors in the primary are doing when they refuse to denounce his cynical strategy. there is a significant challenge addressed in the leaders of the republican party right now. it is clear what their

priorities are. at some point, if the leaders of that party are interested in changing, it will require somebody to summon some courage and stand up and speak out. >> [indiscernible] mr. earnest: the president has spoken to this on a number of occasions, including a speech in cairo. note that even president went to great lengths to make it clear that the american people in the west was not at war with islam. there is evidence that we have gathered from some of the documentation that was recovered in obama's -- osama bin laden's compound that the successful -- that successful messaging was undermining the strategy of al qaeda.

the strategy of al qaeda was predicated on starting a holy war around the world. presidenty the deserves credit from a strategic perspective but for our perspective of the values that the vast majority of people share. he won two elections. leadersparent that some are pursuing a different strategy. [indiscernible] mr. earnest: i would describe

some blame to mr. trump's competitors. refused those who have or declined to denounce his cynical strategy in the reason -- they are doing a for the same reason, they are trying to win votes. mentioned, that stands in contrast to the patriotism of somebody like senator mccain. in the middle of the campaign, at a town hall meeting, somebody that popped up and started saying to him the same things at donald trump heard last night, and senator mccain at the microphone taken away from that person. that is a testament to senator mccain's character but also a testament to the kinds of questions facing republican leaders. how concerned is the

president and this administration that among the massive population that is now -- that there could be in fact said silf al qaeda or i whose main objective is to get a stronghold in europe? our intelligence officials could give you a better sense of how significant that risk would be. i have made clear that in terms of the refugee resettlement process that the administration or this country has long followed. it includes a thorough vetting of these individuals to ensure the safety and security of the american people is not put an undue risk by the resettlement of these refugees. significant sort of --

there is some thought in europe because european union of their basic premise of their existence is open borders and trade with people can go three lee through one country to another. there is concern that that basic premise will no longer hold and that they eu -- it could be in jeopardy which could cause a norm us ramifications for the u.s. mr. earnest: i have observed that the scale of this challenge in terms of the hundreds of thousands of people that we are talking about here -- it is not something that can be solved by just one country. in order to successfully confront this challenge, the nations of europe will have to do what they have done in the past, effectively cooperate in terms of the preventing policies to ensure that they can deal

with this challenge. press: it seems like a lot of the regulations announced [indiscernible] -- [indiscernible] mr. earnest: it sounds like that is what the secretary of commerce did. the cubanclear that government and cuban people now have an incentive that they did not have before to intimidate reforms so they can take advantage of the opportunity for the united states has extended to them. this is not an opportunity because of the expense of the american people, it is an

opportunity to the american people can benefit from as well. the united states government through a variety of officials including the secretary of commerce will continue to press the cuban government to government the kinds of reforms that we believe are overdue. press: what is your assessment now of what congress should do to lithia the embargo that should not physical a lot farther mr. earnest: then i do think we have seen a whole lot of evidence to indicate that those prospects has significantly improved. thatntinue to believe congress should lift the embargo. there are possibly changes that short of lifting the embargo that the administration can pursue that would make progress in normalizing relations between our two countries, enhancing engagement between our two governments, and between the people of the united states and cuba. >> on the next washington journal, adam branson of freedom

works will talk about the group's call for the removal of congressman john boehner from his position of house speaker and the possibility of a government shutdown. later, issues important to black ,omen in 2016, melanie campell and editor in chief of essence join us.will washington journal, live every morning at 7:00 eastern. we welcome your comments on facebook and twitter. today, the house voted on two abortion bills. the first was to eliminate federal funding for planned parenthood. 241-147-one. the second bill, a portion survivors protection act extended legal projections to fetuses that survive an abortion procedure. that passed.

here is three hours of the debate on those bills starting with judiciary committee chair bob goodlatte. courts fraud purposes the agenda and from virginia seeking recognition? >> pursuant to resolution of 40021i call up 4 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3504, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or ttempted abortion. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 421, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, each will control 30 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3504, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: millions of people have viewed videos of representatives of the organized -- organization planned parenthood which performed some 40% of all abortions each year. those videos, recorded under cover, include discussions of instances during the course of an attempted abortion a baby is born, quote, intact, end quote. as one doctor caught on tape said, sometimes if someone delivers before we get to see them for procedure, then they, the baby's, are intact. but that's not what we go for, end quote. another business executive said if you had intact cases, which

we've done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety, end quote. a procurement manager says on a manager, quote, i literally have had women come in and they'll go in the o.r., the operating room, and they're back out in three minutes and i'm going, what's going on. oh, yeah, the fetus was already in the vaginal canal whenever we put her in the stir ups, it just fell out, end quote. and another told investigators she was shown results of one abortion by a doctor as she ecalls, this is the most gestated fetus, the closest thing to a baby i've seen, and she, the doctor, taps the heart and it starts beating, i knew why that was happening. the node -- since the fetus was

so intact she said, quote, ok. this is a really good fetus and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. we're going to procure a brain. that means we're going to have to cut the head open. she takes scissors and she makes a small incision right here at the chin and goes, i would say, maybe a little bit through the mouth and she's like, ok. can you go the rest of the way? and so she gave me the scissors and told me that i have to cut down the middle of the face. and i can't even describe what that feels like, end quote. the house judiciary committee, which i chair, is undergoing a comprehensive investigation of the issues raised by these videos, but as that as other investigations continue, congress must move immediately to protect any children born alive during the course of a failed abortion. the bill before us today is simple yet profound. insofar as it might be a reflection of the nation's

conscience. operative provisions provide in the case of an abortion that results in a child born alive, any health care practitioners present must exercise the same degree of professional care to preserve the life of the child as he or she would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. the bill also provides that the child must be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. in a baby born alive is left to die, the penalty can be up to five years in jail. if the child is cut open for its body parts or some other overt act is taken, the punishment is that for -- is that for first-degree murder, which can include life in prison or the death penalty. babies are born alive during failed abortions. the committee, just last week, heard direct testimony by two grown women who as babies survived attempted abortions. the mother of one of them,

giana, was advised by planned parenthood to have an abortion. but as ms. jesson testified, instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's womb, i was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in los angeles. her medical records state clearly she was born alive during an abortion. she continued, quote, thankfully the abortionist was not at work yet. had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation or leaving me there to die. instead, a nurse called an ambulance and i was rushed to a hospital. doctors did not expect me to live. i did. i was later diagnosed with is he reboundal palsy which was caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain while surviving the abortion. i was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. i do. and is he reboundal palsy is a great gift to me. just think about that.

s. jesson said is he reboundal palsy -- cerebal palsy is a great gift to her. she showed the results of the sort of abortion she survived. today i ask the nation to see in its collective mind the body of a baby, much like this one, born alive during a failed abortion. i ask that we collectively reach down into our hearts and also reach down to the floor. as we vote today, i ask that we as a nation grasp the value of life and also grasp the baby's back, lift its tiny body off the ground and bring it to a hospital and not let her -- and not leave her with the abortionist. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: madam speaker, contrary to the misleading title, this bill is not about protecting children born alive. its real intent is to further

undermine a woman's right to choose, a right that has been constitutionally guaranteed for more than 42 years by roe v. wade. not only does this bill attempt to politicize women's health and limit women's access to abortion, it would interfere with the sacred doctor-patient relationship and substitute a physician's best judgment with the judgment of a handful of politicians. we must not forget that this bill has come to the floor at the same time as the push to defund planned parenthood. this attack on a respected provider of high-quality health care would have a devastating impact on women, especially women in rural communities, low-income women and women of color and would deny women access to preventive care, life-saving cancer screenings and family planning services. approximately one woman in five has relied on planned parenthood for health care at some point in her lifetime. it is a blatant attack on women

and families to defund an organization that uses federal funds to prevent abortions and to help families stay healthy and cannot even use federal funding for abortion. it will be the saddest of ironies that by defunding planned parenthood's critical contraception and other reproductive health services in the name of opposing abortion, we would see more unintended pregnancies and therefore more abortions. among its flaws, h.r. 3504 proposes a standard of care for abortion providers that could interfere with the ability of physicians to make medical decisions for their patients. in doing so, the bill represents an unprecedented level of intrusion by the government into medical decisions. for instance, the bill requires an abortion provider to immediately transport a fetus to a hospital in some cases, even if the fetus is not viable

under existing law and under the standards of care applicable to neonatal physicians. this requirement is so broad and the penalty so severe, up to five years in prison, that one can only conclude that the real purpose of the bill is to intimidate abortion providers out of service. the bill also requires doctors and employees of hospitals and clinics that provide abortion services to report any violations of the bill's standard of care to state or federal law enforcement authorities. any person that fails to comply with these requirements is threatened with fines and up to five years in prison. this is not just the doctors but the cleaning crew and the receptionist. on top of this, the language in this bill completely fails to distinguish between a viable and nonviable fetus, which is the constitutional line that separates abortions that may be

performed without restrictions from those that may be regulated or prohibited. the bill's vague and broad mandates combined with severe penalties will effectively intimidate doctors and ultimately drive them away from the abortion practice, which appears to be the true intent of this troubling bill. this is why so many organizations are opposed to this bill, those like the national women's law sent, aauw, aclu and physicians for reproductive choice. in fact, the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists, which represents 58,000 physicians, opposes h.r. 3504 because it represents gross interference in the practice of medicine, nserting, -- inserting a politician in between a woman and her doctor. thereby making abortion un

available in a practical matter, abortion opponents pontes are seeking to accomplish what they haven't accomplished in the courts or in public opinion. simply put, h.r. 3504 is yet another attack on women's health and rights. when the born-alive infant protection act or bipa, became law 25 years ago, the law clarified that the law was not intended to affect abortion practice or a woman's right to choose. we did not want to constrain or chill medical decisions regarding patient care. that's why judiciary committee democrats voted to support it. the bill before us today appears to directly contradict those assurances. let's not forget, politicians are not doctors. we should be concerned about doing our jobs and fully funding high-quality women's health care instead of trying to keep doctors from doing

theirs. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the chairman of the constitution and civil justice subcommittee of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- mr. goodlatte: and the author of this legislation. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman and also his commitment to protecting these little babies. madam speaker, the united states of america is an exceptional nation whose unique core premise is that declared conviction that we are all created equal and that each of us is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to live. abraham lincoln called upon all of us in this chamber to remember those words of america's founding fathers and, quote, they're enlightened

belief that nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodened on or degraded and imbruted by his fellows. he remembered those that called prosperity when, quote, in the distant future some man, some factions, some interests should set up a doctrine that some were not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that their prosperity, that's us, madam speaker, that their prosperity might look up again to the declaration of independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began, unquote. madam speaker, the sincerest purpose of the born-alive protection survivors protection act is to renew that noble battle, to respect and protect those little fellow human beings among us who are at this moment being trodened on and

degraded and imbruted by their fell -- troddened on and degraded and imbruted by their fellows. they found a torture chamber for little born-alive babies that defies description within the constraints of the english language. . the grand jury said dr. gosnell had a several solution for unwanted babies. he killed them. he didn't call it that. he called it ensuring fetal demise. the way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. he called it snipping. over the years there were hundreds of snippings. ashley baldwin, one of dr. gosnell's employees said she saw babies breathing and described one as two feet long that no longer had eyes or a mouth, but in her words was making like this screeching

noise and it, quote, sounded like a little alien. and now in recent days, madam speaker, numerous video recordings have been released that demonstrate that kermit gosnell was just the tip of the iceberg of the abortion industry's unspeakable cruelty to these little children of god. the vail has now been pulled back and all of us now see the walls behind the abortion industry. and the horrifying plight of its little human victims who we must not forget are the least of these, our little brothers and sisters. our response as a people and a nation to these horrors shown in these videos is vital to everything those lying out in arlington national cemetery died to save. the born alive abortion survivors protection act, madam speaker, protects little children who have been born alive. no one in this body can

absecure the humanity and personhood of these little born alive babies. nor can they take refuge within the schizophrenic paradox, roe vs. wade, has subjected this country to for now more than 40 years. the abortion industry has labeled -- labored all these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds. that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection. but, madam speaker, those who oppose this bill to protect born alive babies now have the impossible task of trying to join born children and unborn children back together again and then trying to convince all of us to condemn them both as inhuman and not worthy of protection after all. to anyone who has not

invincibly hardened their heart and soul, madam speaker, an honest consideration of this ab second degree murder inconsistency is profoundly enlightening. because, you see, this country has faced such paradox and self-imposed blindness before. there was a time that our own house rules banned any discussion or debate in this chamber about the effort to end human slavery in america. but, madam speaker, that debate did come and with it came a time when the humanity of the victims and the inhumanity of what was being done to them became so glaring, even to the hardest of hearts, that it moved an entire nation of people to find the compassion and the courage in their own souls to change their position. and now to this generation, madam speaker, that time has come again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia

reserves. the gentlewoman from california checked. ms. chu: i would like to yield three minutes to our outstanding and leading member of our judiciary committee, the gentleman from new york, representative nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, madam speaker. god bless the united states supreme court for its roe vs. wade decision that liberated the women of this country to make their own decisions, to exercise their own conscious ness, and matter whether they should carry a pregnancy to templet now, i recognize, of course, that there are those who hold the religious conviction that a one celled organism, two cells, is a fully formed human being. they are entitled to that religious conviction. they are not entitled to impose that religious conviction on all the women of this country who may not share it. that's essentially the abortion debate.

but we are not debating abortion today, although some people would like to. we are debating this ridiculous born alive abortion survivors protection act. 15 years ago i stood on this floor and supported the born alive infant protection act. i said it was unnecessary. it simply repeated existing law. it has always been the law. that if an infant is born, whether that birth was intentional or not is irrelevant, that is a person, if you kill that infant, you're guilty of murder or manslaughter as the case may be. you certainly may not do so intentionally. the infant, the born alive infant protection act did not change that. just added superfluous language to the law. it's only purpose was to try to paint people who support the right to choose and support infan at this side. no, it's silly. because it doesn't add anything

to the law. it simply duplicates the existing law so we'll support it. now we have this bill. which says essentially two things. one, it repeats in different language exactly the same provisions from 15 years ago. doesn't change the law that we enacted 15 years ago. doesn't change the law that pre-existed in every state in the union. if you kill a child, it's murder, period. dr. gosnell, i would point out, is in jail for life because he committed multiple murders. nobody, nobody supports what he does and nobody except in some of their fantasies that mr. frank says thinks that planned parenthood or anybody else supports such actions. this bill, however, cannot be supported because it does one harmful thing. this bill says -- it says that the born alive child must be given the same standard of care whether he's born alive in an

attempted abortion or regular birth. that's already the law. of course that's law. it ought to be the law. it must be the law. it always has been the law. but what it also does is it says as soon as the doctor has given that child the proper standard of care, he must rush it to the hospital. regardless of whether that might be good or bad for the child. regardless of the standard of care. regardless of whether the nearby hospital has a neonatal -- 30 seconds more? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ms. chu: i yield one minute more. mr. nadler: regardless of whether the nearby hospitals have neonatal intensive care units. of course the doctor under existing law, everybody associated with the doctor, under existing law has the duty of giving the best possible medical care under any circumstances. and that may be to transport the baby to the hospital. it may be that the baby is too frail to transport. but along comes this bill and

says we don't care about the real situation that doctor face was that infant. we know how to practice medicine in every situation. we in congress. so we are going to say it must be brought to the hospital even if that might kill the child. it's just stupid. that's why this bill must be opposed. not because it changes the standard of law or anything to do with born alive infants, but because it mandates that a child be praut to the hospital when medical care might indicate that that child in that situation should not be brought to the hospital, it may kill children. that's why we must oppose this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. chairman. as a physician, a father and grandfather, let me first respond and say that in the process of a birth, abortion, there's no way one can tell

whether that child is viable until you actually apply health saving tools and techniques to that baby. that argument that viability and all of that made in advance really makes no sense whatsoever. look, committing abortions is not health care for women. the baby dies a horrifically painful and ghastly death. her tiny hands and feet, brain, and spinal tissues are dissected and sold to the highest bidder and her mother is agonizing over the loss of a child. what happens if a child survives this barbaric and inhumane murder attempt? abortionists have been known to snip babies spines, throw children into plastic bags, or simply leave the infant to die away from a human touch and healing care. today's bill, however, will put a stop to the double murder attempt on a baby's life. it will protect children,

infants who are born alive affording these tiny patients immediate medical attention. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, miss maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i stand in strong opposition to this punitive and intrusive bill. i am both disturbed, offended that this latest attempt to restrict women's access to reproductive health care is based on a series of videos that have been found to be grotesquely deceptive and purposefully misleading. this is politics at its most manipulative and politics that should never be permitted to come between a patient and her doctor.

i will not. this bill attempts to criminalize legal medical care and punish millions of women by rolling back reproductive choices. it wages a kind of guerrilla warfare against row v. wade by threatening doctors with jail time for providing care to their patients. the american colleges and congress of obstetricians and gynecologists call the vague requirements, drastic penalties, unnecessary requirements like going to the hospital scare tactics that are unnecessary and wrong. this bill would have the federal government threaten doctors who do their job taking care of their patients with up to five years imprisonment. to make it all even more outrageous, this bill is based on a series of unsupported allegations and ignores the fact that there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by

planned parenthood. in fact, five states have now conducted their own investigations into the charges against planned parenthood and have found that no laws have been broken. instead, the backers of this bill rely on misleading, badly doctored videos released by an extreme anti-choice group as the basis for a slew of legislation to decrease access to care for women in this country who can least afford it. millions of women rely on planned parenthood for their basic health care. ms. chu: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: there is no choice in this country which has been guaranteed by our supreme court without access to choice. this bill attempts to stop the access to choice by putting

doctors in jail, by absurd requirements. i urge my colleagues to respect the relationship between women and their doctors. respect their need for affordable and available health care. and vote no on this punitive and intrusive bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. roskam: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, chairman. my heart is heavy with this debate. my heart becomes very heavy when i hear the descriptions of this awful procedure. and my heart becomes even heavier, madam speaker, when i listen to the twisted logic and the distortions of people who find themselves implicitly defending this. the administration has said

that they will -- president obama has said that he will veto this because it's related to abortion services. yet, mr. nadler moments ago says this has nothing to do with abortion. everybody agrees these babies are born and deserve the protections of the law. he says, basically, it's a sideshow. it's either one or the other, madam speaker. and they don't get to argue it both ways. i think we ought to be able to agree on this. that we are talking about people who are born. who are breathing. whose hearts are pumping. whose fingers are twitching. who have full feeling and deserve every benefit of the doubt and every protection of the law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: i would like to yield two minutes to a leading physician in our congress and that is the congress member from california, mr. ruiz.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. ruiz: as an emergency physician, i am deeply disturbed by the provickses -- provisions in this legislation. the born alive infants protection act was signed into law in 2002. it passed the house by voice vote under suspension of the rules. it was consistent with the already high medical and ethical standards within the physician community. this new bill, however, is unnecessary and dangerous. it criminalizes physicians who make serious and compassionate decisions based on their deep desire to do what's best for the mother, her health and life. it creates a police state and forces health care staffs that do not have medical training to inform law enforcement of their nonmedical questioning of a physician's sound judgment under the threat of prosecution

and imprisonment. this also gives anti-choice lawyers the ability to bully, threaten and harm a physician's reputation and practice. this bill is highly intrusive to the patient-doctor relationship. let's be clear. this is yet another attempt by anti-choice bully politicians to restrict a woman's right to choose and doctors' ability to provide sound, compassionate and safe care for women. it is an aggressive, bullish scare tactic that puts the relationship of a woman and her physician in jeopardy and forces politicians in the middle of decisions that they have no business being involved in. i agree with the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists and other physician groups in opposing

this legislation, and i stand with the women across this great country that have continued to fight for decades to defend their legal right to choose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. and the gentleman from virginia's recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two mints to the gentleman from new jersey, -- minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, a champion for this cause. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: undercover videos have begin brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion. the medical director of planned parenthood of rocky mountain says some babies are intact. that is, madam speaker, born alive, breathing, crying, gasping for amplete one fetal tissue broker describes on the video, watching a fetus that just fell out and left to die.

we have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation and death. humanitarian due diligence requires that born-alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance prospects of survival. abortion clinics, on the contrary, do not have neonatal intensive care units. they are not equipped to protect these children. they are in the business of killing those children. the grand jury in the kermit gosnell case said, he had a solution for unwanted babies. he killed them. he called snipping the born alive baby's spinal cord ensuring fetal demice. an abortion survivor told the judiciary committee said he survived a plained multi-hour abortion because, quote, the abortionist had not been there.

had he been there he would have strangled me or suffocated me leaving me to die. this bill simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. this legislation builds on the landmark born alive infant protection act of 2004 authored by steve chabot by adding enforcement provisions. tragically, president obama, the abortion president, has vowed to veto this pro-child human rights legislation, a position that is extreme, anti-child, inhumane and indefensible. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: and now i would like to yield three minutes to the ranking member of our constitutional subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, representative cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, madam

speaker. i thank you for the time. these are very important bills. this bill and the next bill. to the women of this nation and to the people in america because these are rights that are under attack. there is this born alive bill which came to the floor through rules committee, and the next bill, which stops funding the planned parenthood, but they're all part of the same thing, same bill, same message. because what we're doing here in this congress is messaging, and the message is the republican party wants to defeat roe v. wade. they think that that was a bad bill and that it is wrong to legalize in america for women to have choice. most of the democrats don't think that. neither of these bills went through the committee process, which is really abhorrent. in fact, yesterday we passed a

bill about doing novel ideas and saying you'll get sanctioned as a lawyer if you bring a case that is frivolous and didn't really come through the proper procedures. if we had that kind of rule in congress, these rules wouldn't be allowed on the floor because they're supposed to go through committee where the public has notice, the public has an opportunity to have a witness. majority side has three witnesses. the minority side has one witness. there's answers, thought, input, there's due process. there's petitions grievances. all of this is -- has been abrogated. no due process, comes vate to the floor because these are messaging bills for the american public. the republican party often say we want our country back. what they want back is a country that is pre-1971, before roe v. wade. what they want is a country that is pre-brown v. board of

education. what they want is a country that is prethe voting rights act which has been limited by the supreme court and has not been renewed by this congress nor has it gotten the vote. what they want is a country that's free of many of the immigrants who come to this country and made it great, particularly from south america, the caribbean. and that country's not going to come back. in my state of tennessee, the republicans have filed a bill to declare the supreme court decision on same-sex marriage as illegal in tennessee. nullification dripping from their lips, as george wallace would say, on the courthouse door. it's the same thing today. take our country back. no hispanics, no women's choice, no civil rights, no voting rights. dwight d. eisenhower's 1950 america. he tried to bring us forward. these bills are part of that same attack on the progress

that we made in america. they have not gone through the proper process, and they are attempts to change america in a way that would affect american women adversely. this bill has a definition of abortion that's new, shupet be done. i'd oppose both bills and the rules and thank the speaker for her time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman for yielding. a few years ago a so-called doctor in philadelphia by the name of kermit gosnell was killing babies, literally. he ran an abortion clinic there and as can happen in these houses of horror, some of these innocent unborn children were actually born alive before they

could be exterminated in the womb. so there you have a little now born baby squirming, kicking, sometimes crying right there in front of you on the table. so what did he do? he would take a pair of scissors, plunge them into the baby and sever his or her spinal cord. no care whatsoever about the pain involved. one of his employees who witnessed this barbarism described the baby's scream as follows -- i can't describe it. it sounded like a little alien. well, this wasn't an alien. it was a human being, just like you and me, although in an earlier form of development. well, goznel, thank god, is now in prison. we now learned that the largest abortion provider in this country, planned parenthood, is not only destroying the lives but ttle unborn children selling their body parts for

profit. i might add that planned parenthood aborts more babies each year in this -- aborts than the each year population of the city, cincinnati. we got to stop this slaughter. i introduced a bill called the born alive infant protection act, which was passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president bush back in 2002. it helped but the legislation before us today, introduced by congressman trent franks, improves that law and will rotect more innocent babies. for god's sake, let's pass it today and protect those among us who cannot protect themselves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from extrais -- california is recognized. ms. chu: yes, i'd like to reiterate, this is a bill that has been introduced with

virtually no process. this was introduced less than 48 hours ago with no hearings, no expert testimony. in fact, those on the other side of the aisle are citing as evidence videos that have been shown to be highly edited, that are misleading and fraudulently obtained. there were 47 edits in the video that is shown, and even though planned parenthood doctors said 10 times that such procedures were not done for profit, that was all edited out. this is legislation based on sound bytes and anti-choice rhetoric and not on facts. and i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas, mr.

huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: thank you, madam speaker. earlier this year many of my colleagues and i sat on this floor condemning car mitt gosnell for his murders of babies born alive during attempted abortions. instead of providing compassionate care for these little babies, gosnell muffled their cries by snipping the back of their next with scissors and we have people on the floor today defending that. no child should be treated with such violence and no woman or man should perform such heinous acts of murder. as a father of adopted children of four, i would have given ything to care for these babies. this bill rightly affirms the full protection of the law and punishes any abortionist who

denies these infants their dignity and right to life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. and the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 12 1/2 minutes. as does the gentlewoman from california remaining. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam speaker. at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr.: thank you, madam speaker. i thank -- mr. stutzman: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. what does it say about this congress that today we are on the house floor debating the killing and harvesting of aborted babies? how can there possibly be two sides to this? i don't understand. how can we not take a step back

and look at this objectively? the gentlelady from california mentioned that these videos were highly edited. if you watch the videos -- and i don't know if they have -- but if you watch the videos, how can you say that the doctor who is pulling salad from a salad bowl and mentions she can take the babies and crush the top and the bottom parts of the babies and harvest the body parts in between is highly edited? this is not -- these are not -- this information on these videos shows the barbaric activity. these bills before us today deal with this problem. madam speaker, i implore that this chamber take a step back and look at what is on these videos and the information that we have on these videos and realize we must move forward on these two bills and stop this barbaric action. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: and continues to reserve.

the gentleman from virginia is ecognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield one nute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam speaker. this is a fundamental american value for our founders, life was the first right. they understood that there is an order to things that even nature teaches us. they understood and fully embraced that the first and foremost right is life because without life there is no liberty. without life there is no pursuit of happiness. without life there is no discussion of a right to privacy or right to choose because without life there is nothing to choose. life presupposes and precedes all other rights. our founders understood this, but somewhere along the way to where we are now we have gone

from protecting the right that is the basis of all rights to deciding that unborn children and even children born alive can have their lives taken because their organs and tissues are more valuable than they are. it is inconsembblooble that a nation founded on the idea that life is the indispensable right, the indisputable right to be can i place in our history when living children in their mother's womb and some who have been born alive can be killed with a callousness and cold-bloodedness that none of our forefathers could have dreamed existed in america. this decision whether to continue funding this barbaric practice is about exposing the charade of the federal government supporting women's health care , when in fact, it is really about subsidizing the killing and mutilation of babies with taxpayers' money. this has to stop. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: i would like to yield three minutes to an outstanding

doctor from california, dr. ami berra -- bera. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. bera: thank you. madam speaker, as a doctor i find these bills troubling. the oath i took is do what's best for my patients. one of these bills that is coming up today criminalizes the practice of medicine and questions doctors' judgments. it attempts to intimidate doctors from providing safe, evidence-based medicine, from doing our job, which is sit with our patients, answer their questions, and give them the best medical advice and let them make the decision that is affect their lives. this is unprecedented and sets a precedent where those without any medical training can dictate medical practice and make choices for patients. this definitely oversteps any legal bounds. these are choices that should

be made between doctors and patients. congressional interference into how we practice is overreach, it is a dramatic overreach, and it is dangerous. because it sets a dangerous legislative preference. what makes the health care delivery system in america so great is that it is accessible to folks, and we understand and protect the doctor-patient privilege. that is at the very foundation of the oath betake when we enter the profession of medicine. now, the other bill that we are voting on today also dramatically restricts access. if you think about the number of women in america who get their care from planned parenthood, it is remarkable. the preventive health services of planned parenthood provides, one in five women in this

country have used a planned parenthood facility. it is a remarkably effective way for women to get their health care. and not just women. many men also use planned parenthood. now, we should be having the exact opposite debate. we should be talking about how we can improve access to care. how we can make sure every american has access to all of their reproductive options. we should want to be talking about how we strengthen the doctor-patient relationship. how we take the government out of the exam room. how we leave choices, some of the most intimate choices, to the doctor anti-patient. again -- and the patient. my oath that i took when i entered the profession was to sit with my patients. answer their questions. but then empower them to make the choices that fit their life circumstances. that's what we should be

fighting for. those are our principles. that is who we are as americans. those freedoms. mr. speaker, let's talk about how we improve access to care. let's talk about how we strengthen the doctor-patient relationship. this is about protecting people. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding, madam speaker. last week the judiciary committee heard testimony from people who had survived abortions. they spoke as part of the house ongoing investigation into the practices depicted in the horrific videos that we have all seen. one of these people that spoke

was janet. she told the committee that when her bilogical mother was 7 1/2 months pregnant she went to planned parenthood where they advised her mother to have an abortion. so that's what her mother did. by a miracle and despite the best efforts to end her life, she was born alive. because she was born before the abortionist had gotten into work, a nurse called an ambulance. she was rushed to the hospital. and she lived. though she suffers from cerebral palsy because of the attempted abortion. there are so many others who en't as lucky as guyana -- giana. the born alive survivors protection act. that's what we are voting on today. would help save the lives of those children. it would impose criminal penalties on any medical professional who fails to give

the same medical attention to children born after an abortion as they would to any other premature born baby. the simple fact is that when a baby is born alive, it doesn't matter how he or she was born. they are living human beings who deserve our care. but we also are here today to take and talk in particular about planned parenthood. the organization that tried to take giana's life. i think for the purpose of this debate it's very important to understand what this organization is. many on the other side say that they are just devoted to women's health. the facts say something different. it in the last year on record 327,653 rmed abortions. that was in one year.

anyone who tells you that they are not in the abortion business doesn't know that number. some defend them because they provide women health services. but they don't have a monopoly on women's health. there are tens of thousands of alternatives, all across the country, for women. from community health centers, to pregnancy health centers, to maternity homes, medical clinics, and more. community health clinics actually outcome planned parenthood clinics by the thousands. and they offer the same health services to women if not more. so if we know that this organization performs hundreds of thousands of abortions per year, and we know that women have access to other sources for care, the question is, should we force taxpayers to fund a business that spends its oney aborting 372,653 children

per year? should we force taxpayers to fund an organization whose paragraph barrack practices, as vividly shown in those videos, disregard the value of the sanctity of the most innocent human lives? the gruesome videos that we have seen opened the eyes of america. as we struggle to understand how something so barbaric could happen in this country, we need o get all the facts. are patients given sufficient informed consent? were the body parts of babies sold for profit? these are all -- these and more are the questions we need to answer. while we find those answers, we have a moral responsibility to put a moratorium on the funding. there is no reason the american people should be forced to give their money to such an organization. and there is no reason, absolutely no reason, that we

must choose between funding women's health and compelling taxpayers to support abortion. so, as we approach this vote, i want every member to ask themselves a simple question. in the face of these videos and with all the attorneys women have for health -- attorneys women have for -- attorneys -- alternatives women have for health, why would you force someone to pay for something so evil? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania vebled for one minute. mr. rothfus: thank you, madam speaker. to reflect on what the gentleman from california was saying, recalling the testimony last week of survivors of abortion. their stories have -- are

remarkable. they show a deep appreciation they have for their lives and they are so grateful to have survived the attacks on their lives. so many others who did not survive will never have the chance to express such gratitude. we also know from ultrasound technology to see how unborn children grow and develop. their humanity is abundantly clear. so should be their right to life. our declaration of independence recognizes that the right to life is unalienable given by our creator. president kennedy it pushed back against those who would undermine the precept of our nation when he recognized that, quote, the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebearers fought are still at issue around the globe. the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of god. giving survivors the same care, abortion survivors the same care and legal protection any

other child born at the same level of gestation would receive at birth is humane and essential. it complies with the equal protection bedrock of our country. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, the chairman of the house republican policy committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. messer: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, proverbs 31: 8 calls us all to speak for those who can't speak for themselves. that's why i'm here today. i refuse to say nothing while planned parenthood executives are revealed. casually, putting a price tag on human life and haggling over the dollar value of an aborted child's lungs, kidneys, and heart. these actions are unthinkable.

and this legislation is actually a modest proposal that would place an immediate one-year moratorium on all federal funged of planned parenthood. -- funding of planned parenthood. it takes a half a billion dollars that taxpayers send to planned parenthood every year and putting it instead in the hands of community organizations and health clinics that focus on save lives not ending them. madam speaker, no matter where you fall on the abortion debate, we can all agree that no unborn child should be dismembered and sold part by part. where that's happening, let's stop t. join together -- stop it. join together to speak for those who can't speak for themselves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman

from florida, congress member deutsch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. deutch: i thank my friend from california. i rise today to urge my colleagues to reject these bills and get to work. u.s. federal government is set to shut down in a matter of days. shouldn't we be working together to stop a preventable crisis that will hurt our economy and tarnish our nation's image? it's our job. that's what we are here to do. instead, we are debating a bill that's based on a false premise. not talking about some debunked and discredited viral videos on the internet. nor am i talking about the lie that defunding planned parenthood will prevent federal dollars from funding abortion. as many of my colleagues have already pointed out, our laws have long prohibited federal dollars from being used to pay for abortion. what i'm talking about, madam speaker, what i'm talking about is the 28 men who wrote speaker boehner this summer demanding,

demanding that we either defund planned parenthood or stop funding the federal government. 28 men who i guarantee you have never relied on just one health provider in their community to get a pap smear. 28 men who i guarantee you have never had to end a sentence about their educational goals or financial or career aspirations with the phrase, unless i get pregnant. . 28 men to deny basic health care to millions of women, millions of women, i might add, that have been marginalized by this congress. their voices are not being heard today nor are they not being represented. not in these bills. why? because speaker boehner would rather let 28 men set the agenda for this entire house than seek out bipartisan support needed to fund education programs, health care , veterans' programs and services for our seniors. that's what we should be doing.

madam speaker, these bills defund access to health care that has nothing, absolutely .othing to do with abortion and, madam speaker, we are talking about the 350,000 abortions that planned parenthood prevents every year by providing contraception and health care and education. i understand, i understand that my colleagues don't recognize the reproductive rights of women. i understand that's their view. i, madam speaker, recognize those women have those rights and i urge my colleagues to reject these bills. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. babin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. babin: thank you, mr.

chairman. madam speaker, we must pass this bill today, the born-alive abortion survivors protection act. we've seen the gruesome videos. they're not doctored. i dare say none of these folks that we're hearing from the other side of the aisle have watched them all. how can they make a recommendation or an appraisal? they show senior planned parenthood officials, former employees and tissue procurement company discussing the sale of intact unborn baby parts. this is disgusting. it is inhumane. a society and culture that refuses to stand up and say this will not be tolerated is a society that is in grave danger. a child born alive during an abortion procedure is the most vulnerable living human being on earth and they should be granted full legal protections. medical practitioners who fail to provide necessary care for that baby must be prosecuted to

the fullest extent of the law, and this bill does just that. while it is a sad -- it is so sad that an act of congress is required to ensure such compassionate care, we must do all we can to provide for the safety of babies that are born alive as a result of failed abortion procedures. it is absolutely necessary that we end this inhumane practice today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: i still reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. wittman: i rise in support of the born-alive abortion protection act. i would like to thank chairman

goodlatte and mr. franks. my mother chose life. i was abopted as a newborn. when a baby is born alive after an abortion, health care professionals have seconds to act. these children deserve the same level of care as any child facing a medical emergency. this bill holds health care professionals accountable for making the health and well-being of a baby who survives an abortion their first priority and for making every effort to provide the resources to keep that child alive. this bill should not divide us. it is about saving lives. we talk about giving voice to the most vulnerable children in our communities and to the elderly with disabilities who is more vulnerable than a child whose life begins just as someone tries to end it? my mother gave me the gift of life and i believe every child should receive that same gift. this is not about the wizard of oz strategy the other side wants to portray and don't pay any attention to the man behind

the curtain. this is about the true sense of protecting life. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 5 1/2 minutes, and the gentlewoman from california has seven minutes. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. thank you, mr. speaker. my wife and i are adoptive parents. we have a family only because two women in very difficult situations chose life, and so this issue of protecting the unborn is dear to me and my family which is why whether you are pro-choice or strongly

pro-life as i am, i think americans can agree we should never use taxpayer dollars to fund these abortions and we should never use taxpayer dollars to reward organizations lives vest the unborn, or tissues for compensation. these are gruesome practices. it's time to defund any organization, planned parenthood or others, and begin seek criminal penalties against those who profited from the sale of body parts of unborn children. this is the true human rights issue of our time, and those who defend this funding or these gruesome practices are on the wrong side of history. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entlewoman reserves.

mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. mr. smith: i thank -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for yielding. again, i want to thank bob goodlatte for doing a wonderful job as chairman of the judiciary committee, a true human rights champion and a man who really understands these issues and the hearing with the abortion survivor exposes the fact there are survivors. i remember years ago there was a philadelphia inquirer piece called "the dreaded complication," and it was all about all of the children who survived later term abortions. and you know what the response of the abortion lobby was? we need a better means, a more effective and efficacious method to destroy those babies. and that was part of the genesis of partial birth abortion. if you drain a