increased risk of contagion, weakened the bargaining power of workers, and accelerated inequality. how should we respond to these trends? there are those who argue that the ideals enshrined in the u.n. charter are unachievable or out of date, a legacy of a postwar era not suited to our own.

effectively, they argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history and that predate this institution, the belief that power is a zero-sum game, that might makes right, that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones, that the rights of individuals don't matter, and that in a time of rapid change, order must be imposed by force. on this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law. we see an erosion of the democratic principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution's mission, information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society restricted. we're told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder, that it's the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. in accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like bashar al-assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.

the increasing skepticism of our international order can also be found in the most advanced democracies. we see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock, movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants. most ominously, we see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to sectarianism, or tribalism, or racism, or anti-semitism, appeals to a glorious past before the body politic was infected by those who look different, or worship god differently, a politics of us versus them.

the united states is not immune from this. even as our economy is growing and our troops have largely returned from iraq and afghanistan, we see in our debates about america's role in the world a notion of strength that is defined by opposition to old enemies, perceived adversaries, a rising china, or a resurgent russia, a revolutionary iran, or an islam that is incompatible with peace. we see an argument made that the only strength that matters for the united states is bellicose words and shows of military

force, that cooperation and diplomacy will not work. as president of the united states, i am mindful of the dangers that we face. they cross my desk every morning. i lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and i will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary. but i stand before you today believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. we cannot look backwards. we live in an integrated world, one in which we all have a stake in each other's success.

we cannot turn back those forces of integration. no nation in this assembly can insulate itself from the threat of terrorism, or the risk of financial contagion, the flow of migrants, or the danger of a warming planet. the disorder we see is not driven solely by competition between nations or any single ideology. and if we cannot work together more effectively, we will all suffer the consequences. that is true for the united states, as well. no matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the united states cannot solve the world's problems alone.

in iraq, the united states learned the hard lesson that even hundreds of thousands of brave, effective troops, trillions of dollars from our treasury, cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land. unless we work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law that offer legitimacy to our efforts, we will not succeed. and unless we work together to defeat the ideas that drive different communities in a country like iraq into conflict, any order that our militaries can impose will be temporary. just as force alone cannot impose order internationally, i believe in my core that repression cannot forge the

social cohesion for nations to succeed. the history of the last two decades proves that in today's world, dictatorships are unstable. the strongmen of today become the spark of revolution tomorrow. you can jail your opponents, but you can't imprison ideas. you can try to control access to information, but you cannot turn a lie into truth. it is not a conspiracy of u.s.-backed n.g.o.'s that expose corruption and raise the expectations of people around the globe, it's technology, social media, and the irreducible desire of people everywhere to make their own choices about how they are governed. indeed, i believe that in today's world, the measure of strength is no longer defined by the control of territory. lasting prosperity does not come

solely from the ability to access and extract raw materials. the strength of nations depends on the success of their people, their knowledge, their innovation, their imagination, their creativity, their drive, their opportunity, and that, in turn, depends upon individual rights and good governance and personal security. internal repression and foreign aggression are both symptoms of the failure to provide this foundation. a politics and solidarity that depend on demonizing others, that draws on religious sectarianism or narrow tribalism or jingoism may at times look like strength in the moment, but over time its weakness will be exposed.

and history tells us that the dark forces unleashed by this type of politics surely makes all of us less secure. our world has been there before. we gain nothing from going back. instead, i believe that we must go forward in pursuit of our ideals, not abandon them at this critical time. we must give expression to our best hopes, not our deepest fears. this institution was founded because men and women who came before us had the foresight to know that our nations are more secure when we uphold basic laws and basic norms, and pursue a path of cooperation over conflict. and strong nations, above all, have a responsibility to uphold this international order.

let me give you a concrete example. after i took office, i made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body, the nuclear nonproliferation regime, was endangered by iran's violation of the n.p.t. on that basis, the security council tightened sanctions on the iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something. but we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish iran. our objective was to test whether iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. for two years, the united states and our partners, including

russia, including china, stuck together in complex negotiations. the result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. and if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. that is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should. that same fidelity to international order guides our responses to other challenges around the world. consider russia's annexation of crimea and further aggression in eastern ukraine.

america has few economic interests in ukraine. we recognize the deep and complex history between russia and ukraine. but we cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. if that happens without consequence in ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today. that's the basis of the sanctions that the united states and our partners impose on russia. it's not a desire to return to a cold war. now, within russia, state-controlled media may describe these events as an example of a resurgent russia. a view shared, by the way, by a number of u.s. politicians and commentators who have always been deeply skeptical of russia, and seem to be convinced a new

cold war is, in fact, upon us. and yet, look at the results. the ukrainian people are more interested than ever in aligning with europe instead of russia. sanctions have led to capital flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more educated russians. imagine if, instead, russia had engaged in true diplomacy, and worked with ukraine and the international community to ensure its interests were protected. that would be better for ukraine, but also better for russia, and better for the world, which is why we continue to press for this crisis to be resolved in a way that allows a sovereign and democratic ukraine to determine its future and control its territory. not because we want to isolate russia, we don't, but because we want a strong russia that's invested in working with us to

strengthen the international system as a whole. similarly, in the south china sea, the united states makes no claim on territory there. we don't adjudicate claims. but like every nation gathered here, we have an interest in upholding the basic principles of freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce, and in resolving disputes through international law, not the law of force. so we will defend these principles, while encouraging china and other claimants to resolve their differences peacefully.

i say this, recognizing that diplomacy is hard. that the outcomes are sometimes unsatisfying. that it's rarely politically popular. but i believe that leaders of large nations, in particular, have an obligation to take these risks, precisely because we are strong enough to protect our interests if, and when, diplomacy fails. i also believe that to move forward in this new era, we have to be strong enough to acknowledge when what you're doing is not working. for 50 years, the united states pursued a cuba policy that failed to improve the lives of the cuban people. we changed that. we continue to have differences with the cuban government. we will continue to stand up for

human rights. but we address these issues through diplomatic relations, and increased commerce, and people-to-people ties. as these contacts yield progress, i'm confident that our congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore. [applause] change won't come overnight to cuba, but i'm confident that openness, not coercion, will support the reforms and better the life the cuban people deserve, just as i believe that cuba will find its success if it pursues cooperation with other nations. now, if it's in the interest of major powers to uphold international standards, it is even more true for the rest of the community of nations. look around the world.

from singapore to colombia to senegal, the facts shows that nations succeed when they pursue an inclusive peace and prosperity within their borders, and work cooperatively with countries beyond their borders. that path is now available to a nation like iran, which, as of this moment, continues to deploy violent proxies to advance its interests. these efforts may appear to give iran leverage in disputes with neighbors, but they fuel sectarian conflict that endangers the entire region, and isolates iran from the promise of trade and commerce. the iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. but chanting "death to america" does not create jobs, or make iran more secure.

if iran chooses a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the iranian people, and good for the world. of course, around the globe, we will continue to be confronted with nations who reject these lessons of history, places where civil strife, border disputes, and sectarian wars bring about terrorist enclaves and humanitarian disasters. where order has completely broken down, we must act, but we will be stronger when we act together. in such efforts, the united states will always do our part. we will do so mindful of the lessons of the past, not just the lessons of iraq, but also the example of libya, where we

joined an international coalition under a u.n. mandate to prevent a slaughter. even as we helped the libyan people bring an end to the reign of a tyrant, our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind. we're grateful to the united nations for its efforts to forge a unity government. we will help any legitimate libyan government as it works to bring the country together. but we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse. and that's why we should celebrate the fact that later today the united states will join with more than 50 countries to enlist new capabilities -- infantry, intelligence,

helicopters, hospitals, and tens of thousands of troops -- to strengthen united nations peacekeeping. [applause] these new capabilities can prevent mass killing, and ensure that peace agreements are more than words on paper. but we have to do it together. together, we must strengthen our collective capacity to establish security where order has broken down, and to support those who seek a just and lasting peace. nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in syria. when a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one

nation's internal affairs, it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that's not a single nation's national security problem, that is an assault on all humanity. i've said before and i will repeat -- there is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like isil, and the united states makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. we do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. and we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists. but while military power is

necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in syria. lasting stability can only take hold when the people of syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. the united states is prepared to work with any nation, including russia and iran, to resolve the conflict. but we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo. let's remember how this started. assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating

live together peacefully. the united states is prepared to work with any nation, including russia and iran, to resolve the conflict. but we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo. let's remember how this started. assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating return to the prewar status quo. let's remember how this started. assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the environment for the current strife. and so assad and his allies cannot simply pacify the broad majority of a population who have been brutalized by chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing. yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out isil. but realism also requires a managed transition away from assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the syrian people can begin to rebuild. we know that isil, which emerged out of the chaos of iraq and syria, depends on perpetual war to survive. but we also know that they gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. so part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. part of that effort must be a continued rejection by muslims of those who distort islam to

preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-muslims of the ignorance that equates islam with terror. [applause] this work will take time. there are no easy answers to syria. and there are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the middle east and north africa. but so many families need help right now, they don't have time. and that's why the united states is increasing the number of refugees who we welcome within our borders. that's why we will continue to be the largest donor of assistance to support those refugees. and today we are launching new efforts to ensure that our people and our businesses, our universities and our n.g.o.'s can help as well, because in the faces of suffering families, our nation of immigrants sees ourselves. of course, in the old ways of thinking, the plight of the powerless, the plight of refugees, the plight of the marginalized did not matter.

they were on the periphery of the world's concerns. today, our concern for them is driven not just by conscience, but should also be drive by self-interest. for helping people who have been pushed to the margins of our world is not mere charity, it is a matter of collective security. and the purpose of this institution is not merely to avoid conflict, it is to galvanize the collective action that makes life better on this planet. the commitments we've made to the sustainable development goals speak to this truth. i believe that capitalism has been the greatest creator of wealth and opportunity that the world has ever known. but from big cities to rural villages around the world, we also know that prosperity is still cruelly out of reach for too many.

as his holiness pope francis reminds us, we are stronger when we value the least among these, and see them as equal in dignity to ourselves and our sons and our daughters. we can roll back preventable disease and end the scourge of hiv/aids. we can stamp out pandemics that recognize no borders. that work may not be on television right now, but as we demonstrated in reversing the spread of ebola, it can save more lives than anything else we can do. together, we can eradicate extreme poverty and erase barriers to opportunity. but this requires a sustained commitment to our people, so farmers can feed more people, so entrepreneurs can start a business without paying a bribe, so young people have the skills they need to succeed in this modern, knowledge-based economy. we can promote growth through trade that meets a higher standard. and that's what we're doing through the trans-pacific partnership, a trade agreement that encompasses nearly 40% of the global economy, an agreement that will open markets, while protecting the rights of workers and protecting the environment that enables development to be sustained. we can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies, and help economies lift people out of poverty without condemning

our children to the ravages of an ever-warming climate. the same ingenuity that produced the industrial age and the computer age allows us to harness the potential of clean energy. no country can escape the ravages of climate change. and there is no stronger sign of leadership than putting future generations first. the united states will work with every nation that is willing to do its part so that we can come together in paris to decisively confront this challenge. and finally, our vision for the future of this assembly, my belief in moving forward rather than backwards, requires us to defend the democratic principles that allow societies to succeed.

let me start from a simple premise -- catastrophes, like what we are seeing in syria, do not take place in countries where there is genuine democracy and respect for the universal values this institution is supposed to defend. [applause] i recognize that democracy is going to take different forms in different parts of the world. the very idea of a people governing themselves depends upon government giving expression to their unique culture, their unique history, their unique experiences. but some universal truths are self-evident. no person wants to be imprisoned for peaceful worship. no woman should ever be abused with impunity, or a girl barred from going to school.

the freedom to peacefully petition those in power without fear of arbitrary laws, these are not ideas of one country or one culture. they are fundamental to human progress. they are a cornerstone of this institution. i hear it from america's adversaries and i hear it from some of our friends. i disagree. i believe a government that suppresses peaceful dissent is not showing strength, it is showing weakness and fear. [applause]

history shows that regimes who fear their own people will eventually crumble. institutions built on the consent of the governed endure long after any individual is gone. that's why our strongest leaders, from george washington to nelson mandela, have elevated the importance of building strong, democratic institutions over a thirst for perpetual power. leaders who amend constitutions to stay in office only acknowledge that they failed to build a successful country for their people -- because none of us last forever. it tells us that power is something they cling to for its own sake, rather than for the betterment of those they purport to serve.

i understand democracy is frustrating. democracy in the united states is certainly imperfect. at times, it can even be dysfunctional. but democracy, the constant struggle to extend rights to more of our people, to give more people a voice, is what allowed us to become the most powerful nation in the world. [applause] it's not simply a matter of principle, it's not an abstraction. democracy, inclusive democracy, makes countries stronger. when opposition parties can seek power peacefully through the ballot, a country draws upon new ideas. when a free media can inform the public, corruption and abuse are exposed and can be rooted out.

when civil society thrives, communities can solve problems that governments cannot necessarily solve alone. when immigrants are welcomed, countries are more productive and more vibrant. when girls can go to school, and get a job, and pursue unlimited opportunity, that's when a country realizes its full potential. [applause] that is what i believe is america's greatest strength. not everybody in america agrees with me. that's part of democracy. i believe that the fact that you can walk the streets of this city right now and pass churches and synagogues and temples and mosques, where people worship freely, the fact that our nation of immigrants mirrors the diversity of the world, you can find everybody from everywhere

here in new york city, the fact that, in this country [applause] everybody can contribute, everybody can participate no matter who they are, or what they look like, or who they love, that's what makes us strong. and i believe that what is true for america is true for virtually all mature democracies. and that is no accident. we can be proud of our nations without defining ourselves in opposition to some other group. we can be patriotic without demonizing someone else. we can cherish our own identities, our religion, our ethnicity, our traditions, without putting others down. our systems are premised on the notion that absolute power will corrupt, but that people, ordinary people, are fundamentally good, that they

value family and friendship, faith and the dignity of hard work. and that with appropriate checks and balances, governments can reflect this goodness. i believe that's the future we must seek together. to believe in the dignity of every individual, to believe we can bridge our differences, and choose cooperation over conflict. that is not weakness, that is strength. [applause] it is a practical necessity in this interconnected world. and our people understand this. think of the liberian doctor who went door-to-door to search for ebola cases, and to tell families what to do if they show symptoms. think of the iranian shopkeeper

who said, after the nuclear deal, god willing, now we'll be able to offer many more goods at better prices. think of the americans who lowered the flag over our embassy in havana in 1961, the year i was born, and returned this summer to raise that flag back up. [applause] one of these men said of the cuban people, "we could do things for them, and they could do things for us. we loved them." for 50 years, we ignored that fact. think of the families leaving everything they've known behind, risking barren deserts and stormy waters just to find shelter, just to save their children.

one syrian refugee who was greeted in hamburg with warm greetings and shelter, said, "we feel there are still some people who love other people." the people of our united nations are not as different as they are told. they can be made to fear, they can be taught to hate, but they can also respond to hope. history is littered with the failure of false prophets and fallen empires who believed that might always makes right, and that will continue to be the case. you can count on that. but we are called upon to offer a different type of leadership, leadership strong enough to

recognize that nations share common interests and people share a common humanity, and, yes, there are certain ideas and principles that are universal. that's what those who shaped the united nations 70 years ago understood. let us carry forward that faith into the future, for it is the only way we can assure that future will be brighter for my children, and for yours. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on behalf of the general assembly, i wish to thank the president of the united states

of america for his statement just made. may i ask representatives remain seated while we greet the president. >> vladimir putin told the gathering of world leaders there was no alternative to cooperating with syria president assad's military. isis has seized parts of syria and iraq. for aent putin called coalition with majority muslim care -- countries as members. [applause] >> i have the honor to welcome his excellency, vladimir putin,

president of the russian federation and to invite him to address the assembly. >> your excellency, mr. president, mr. secretary general, distinguished heads of state and government. ladies and gentlemen. the anniversary of the united to talkis an occasion about history and talk about our future. countries joint efforts to create accommodations for the post-war world that we remind you that the key decisions on of cooperations of states and the establishment of the united nations were made in

our country. it was born at the cost of tens and millions of lives. it helped that humanity through turbulent times -- it saves the world from upheaval. is unique intions its legitimacy, representation. true that the u.n. has been criticized for not being efficient, that the decision-making of fundamental issues stalls to two

insurmountable differences among the members. however, i would like to point out that there have always been differences throughout all of these years. -- has always been exercised by the u.s., the u.k., france, china, the soviet union. it is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization -- its founders did not think there had always been unanimity. the purpose is to reach taking different views and opinions and consideration. decisions debated are either taken as resolutions are not.

actions states might and defiedlegitimate international law. the end of the cold war, everybody was aware of a single center of domination. those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were that if theyink were so exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the united nations itsead of legitimizing necessity often creating obstacles or in other words terms in the way. it has become commonplace to see that in its original form, has become obsolete and completed

his historical mission. the world is changing. the u.n. must be consistent with this transformation. russia is ready to work together with partners on consensus. we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the organization is extremely dangerous. it could lead to a collapse of international relations. they were be no other rules left with the rule of four we get a world dominated by selfishness. a world increasingly dictated by -- then equality. they would be less democracy and freedom.

it is basically about freedom. and the right to feel one's own future for every person or nation. colleagues, the question of the onealled legitimacy -- should not play with her manipulate words. turn in international law and have transparent uniformly understood -- we are all different and we should respect that. conform to the only right one. we should all remember what our

fathers taught us. we must also remember episodes from the history of the soviet union, social experiments and attempts to push changes and other countries based on ideological preferences, often leading to tragic consequences. into degradation rather than progress. however, from learning from others mistakes, everybody just keeps repeating them. so-called democratic revolutions continued. the situation in the middle east such politicala, and social problems have been piling up for a long time. people wished for changes, naturally. rather thanurn out? , there has been

a brazen destruction of national institutions and set of the triumph of democracy, we have violence, poverty. nobody cares a bit about human rights including the right to life. those, doelp asking you realize what you have done? i'm afraid nobody is going to answer that. policies based on punitively have been abandoned. that the power has been filled with extremists and terrorists.

tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banner of the so-called islamic state. servicemen who were thrown out into the street after -- in 2003. libya,ruits come from whose country that was destroyed. -- and now the ranks have been joined by the members of the so-called moderate syrian opposition supported by the western countries. first they armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called islamic state. besides the islamic state itself did not just come from nowhere. it was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes. having established a foothold in iraq and syria, the islamic state has become active in other regions. it's seeking dominance in the islamic world.

it goes further than that. the situation is more than dangerous. in these circumstances it is hypothetical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the proceeds of trafficking and illicit trade in oils and arms. it will be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extreme groups and place them among service in order to achieve political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them. to those who do so, i would like to say dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people. but they are no way primitive. they are just as clever as you

are. you never know who is manipulating whom. there is data of arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it. we believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, to arm them, are not just shortsighted. this may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially give the islamic state camps train militants from many countries, including the european countries. russia is not an exception. we cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return home and continue their evil doings. no one wants this to happen. no one but president assad's

forces we know all about the troubles. resisting those just like the nazis so evil and hatred of humankind.

what we propose is to be guided by common values and interests rather than ambition. we must join efforts to her dress the problems that all of us are facing and create generally broad international coalition against terrorism. similar to the anti-hitler coalition, it would unite forces that resist those just like the -- nazis so evil and hatred of humankind. and naturally, the modern countries are to play a key role in the coalition. also because the islamic state does not only pose a direct

threat to them, but also desecrates one -- against terrorism. similar to the coalition it could unite a broad range of forces that is the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes. it makes a mockery of islamists from its true humanistic values. i would like to address the muslim leaders as well. your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. it is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived and who, due to various standards, found themselves among terrorists need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to if fratricide. russia will shortly convene as the current president of the security council and ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the middle east. first of all, we propose discussing whether it's possible to agree on the resolution named at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the islamic state and other terrorist organizations.

once again, this ordination should be based on the principles of the u.n. charter. we hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization as well as social and economic recovery. then, dear friend, there would be no need for new refugee camps. today the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed neighboring countries and then europe itself. there are hundreds of thousands of them now and there might be millions before long. in fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of people. and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including europe. i would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. however, the only way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore the statehood where it has been destroyed, the government

institutions where they still exist or being re-established to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic, and material nature to countries in a difficult situation and certainly to those people who, besides all the orr deals, will not abandon their homes. literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the u.n. charter. in other words, everything in this field that has been done and will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. he above all, i believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government's institutions in libya, support the new government of iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of syria. dear colleagues, ensuring peace

and regional and global stability remains the key of the international community with the u.n. we believe this means creating a face of equal and invisible security which is not for the select few yet it is a time consuming task. but there is no other alternative. however the thinking of the times of the cold war and -- political areas is still present among some of our colleagues. plus they continue their policy of expanding nato -- soviet union has collapsed and nevertheless nato continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure than they offered the poor soviet countries a false choice either to be with the west or the east. sooner or later the logic of confrontation was bound to spark a. this is what happened in ukraine

where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside and a civil war result. i'm confident that only through implementation of the minks agreement of february 12, 2015, can put an end to the blood shed and find a way out. ukraine's territorial integrity cannot -- what is needed to the genuine consideration for the interest and rise of the people and respect to their choice. there is a need to coordinate with them as provided for the key element of the country's political structure. these will guarantee that ukraine will develop as a civilized state, as essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation both in europe and euroasia. ladies and gentlemen, i have mentioned these common space

economic agreement on purpose. not long ago it seems that in the economic fear with its objective market laws we left without dividing lines. we will build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the w.t.o. principles for the freedom of trade, investment, and open competition. nevertheless, today, it has become more commonplace in addition to pursuing political objective, these sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors. i would like to point out another sign of growing economic selfishness. some countries have chosen to create growth and exclusive economic association. with a negotiation behind the

scenes in secret from its own citizens, business community, and other countries. other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. it seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of game have been changed in favor of a group of the privileged with the w.t.o. having no say. this could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economy. these issues affect the interest of all faiths and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. that is why we propose discussing them within the u.n., w.t.o., and g-20. contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, russia proposes original economic project. i refer to the so-called integration of integration based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. as an example, i would like to cite our plans to interconnect the eurasian economic conclusion. we still believe that harmonizing the integration process within the eurasian economic union and european union is highly promising.

ladies and gentlemen, the issues that effect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. it is in our interest to make the u.n. climate change conference to be held in december in paris a success. as part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse gas emissions to 70%, 75% of the 1990 level. i suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. yes, we might diffuse the problem for a while by setting quotas on harmful emissions, taking other measures. but we will not solve it that way. we need a completely different approach. we have to focus on introducing

fundamental and new technologies which will not damage the environment but would be in harmony with it. also they would allow us to restore the balance between the biosphere by human activities. it is a challenge. but i'm confident humankind has intellectual potential to address it. we need to join our efforts. i refer to the states that have a solid research basis and that have made significant advances in fundamental science. we propose convening a special forum for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat, and climate change. russia would be red host such a forum. ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it was on the 10th of january, 1946, in london, that the u.n. general assembly gathered for its first session.

a columbian diplomat and chairman of the commission opened the session by giving, i believe, a definition of the basic principles that the u.n. should follow which are free will, and spirit of cooperation. today his words sound as a guidance for all of us. russia believes in the huge potential of the united nations which should help us avoid a new global confrontation and engage in strategic operation. together with other countries we'll consistently work towards central coordinating role of the u.n. i'm confident by working together we will make the world's stable and safe as well as provide conditions for the development of all states and nations. thank you.

[applause] >> in ukraine is due to a military coup. more from the u.n. in a minute. the president of planned parenthood will testify before a house committee today. republican members of congress of offered bills to defund the group because of the sale of fetal tissue for medical research. the cpa offers the planned parenthood receives $450 million a year from the federal government. our live coverage is at 10:00 on c-span3.

>> when you look at the role the society,ourt weighs in our history series have to have relevance. when we thought about what we could do, a series on the court made all the sense in the world. >> it is an equal branch of government. the third branch of government. has fundamental impact. >> cases are heard that impact our lives. there are so many interesting cases in the court history. with you roe versus about brown versus the board of education. but we want the didn't is talk about dublin the legal side of the case, but the people involved. they are human beings.

they felt they were being wronged. they brought their cases to the court. >> what people will find fascinating are the personal stories. favorite is the story. when you hear this personal story of this woman in this situation, they will fall in love with these cases. they will feel passionate about what happens in the courts. >> that the 12 cases was difficult. it was a front wheel at the. are evolvingt understanding of rights in america. you really to learn about the history of the country and the rights in america. cases produced in

cooperation with the national constitution center. delving into 12 supreme court cases that influenced. life monday nights at 9:00 eastern on october. as a companion to a new series, the book. cases with the 12 brief introduction into the background. it was written by tony morrow. it was published by c-span. landmark cases is available for $8.95. -- atur copy it .ww.c-span.org

. [applause] dear xi jinping: , theagues, 70 years ago earlier generations of my kind thought aerobically secured a victory of the worlds, anti-fascists, thus closing a dark page in the annals of human history. that victory was a hard one. 70 years ago, the earlier generation of my kind had the foresight to establish the united nations. this universal and representative and authoritative international organization has carried my kind's hope for a future and ushered in an era of cooperation. it was a pioneering initiative

never undertaken before. 70 years ago, the earlier generation of my kind pulled wisdom and adopted the charter of the united nations, laying the cornerstones of the contemporary international order and establishing the fundamental principles of contemporary international relations. this was an achievement of profound impact. colleagues,t, dear on the third of september, the chinese people together with the world's people solidly commemorated the 70th anniversary of the victory of chinese represent -- chinese resistance against -- ,s the main theater in the east china made a national sacrifice of over 35 million casualties in its fight against japanese militarism. it not only saved itself and its

people from subjugation, but also gave strong support for the forces against aggression in the pacific theaters. thus making historic contributions to the victories of the world's anti-fascist war. history is a mirror. only by drawing lessons from history can the world avoid repeating past calamity. we should review history with awe and caution. changed, butot be the future can be shaped. mind is notory in to perpetuate hatred, rather, it is for mankind not to forget its lesson. remembering history does not

we aim to pass the torch of peace from generation to generation. mr. president, dear colleagues, the united nations has gone through the test of time over the past seven decades. it has witnessed efforts made by all countries to uphold peace, pursue peace, and build homeland cooperation. having reached a new historical starting point, the united nations needs to address the central issue of how to better promote world peace and development in the 21st century. the world is going through a historical process of accelerated evolution. the peace and progress will be powerful enough to penetrate the and s of war, poverty,

backwardness. the movement was a multiwar, and the rise of developing countries irresistable rend of history. there are new challenges we must face. the idea is to create a world truly shared by all. peace, democracy, freedom are he commonalities of man kind and the goals of the united nations. yet, these goals are far from being achieved, and we must continue our endeavor to meet them. n today's world, all countries

are interdependent and share a common future. builds a new er title for win-win cooperation. a community of shared future for mankind. to achieve this goal, we need to make the following effort. e should build partnerships in which countries treat each other as equals and show mute twal understanding. the principal of sovereign understanding underpins the charter. ll countries are equals. the strong and rich should not bully the small and poor. the principle of sovereignty not

only means the sovereignty and territory of all countries are inviolable and their internal affairs are not subject to interference, it also means that all countries like to independently treat systems and social tasks should be upheld. [applause] we should adopt new provisions for win-win outcomes and reject the outdated mind set means one's gain is the other's loss or that winner shall take all.

complication is an important form of democracy. and it should also become an important means of exercising contemporary international government. we should resolve these differences without confrontation. we should forge a global partnership and embrace a new approach to state-to-state relations, one that features dialogue rather than confrontation. major countries should follow the principles of no conflict, confrontation and win cooperation in handling their negotiations. should treat small countries as equals and take a right approach to justice.

[applause] we should create a future with shared benefits. in the age of global economics, all countries are interlinked and have an impact on one another. no country can maintain absolute -- no country can achieve stability out of another country's instability. the law of the jungle leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong. it is p the way for countries to conduct their relations. those that use force will find

they are only lifting a rock from under their own feet. we should abandon cold war mentality and foster a new vision of common, cooperative, and sustainable security. we should give full flight to the central world of the united nations and its security council in ending conflict and keeping peace. so as to turn hostility into amnity. we should find international cooperation in international and social sales and take a holistic approach to addressing traditional and non-traditional security threats to prevent conflicts from breaking out in the first place. we should promote open, innovative, and inclusive development that benefits all.

the 2008 international crisis has taught us that allowing countries to blindly pursue profit can only create a crisis and that global prosperity cannot be built on the shaky foundation of a market without moral constrainted -- constraints. the brewing gas between rich and poor is both unsustainable and unfair. it is important for us to use both the invisible hand and the visible hand to form synergy between market forces and government function and strive to achieve both efficiency and airness.

development is meaningful only when it is sustainable and inclusive. to achieve such inclusion twal s openness, mute assistance, and cooperation. in the world today, close to 800 million people still live in extreme poverty. nearly six million kids die before the age of 5 each year and nearly 60 million children are unable to go to school. the just concluded u.n. sustainable summit that adopted he post-2015 agenda. we must translate our commitments into actions and work together to ensure that everyone is free from want, everyone has access to

development, and everyone lives with dignity. [applause] we should increase intercivilization exchange to promote harmony and respect for differences. the world is simply more colorful as a result of its cultural diversity. diversity breeds exchanges. exchanges create integration, and integration makes progress ossible. in their interacks, civilizations must respect differences. only through diversity can the world maintain many and survive.

no civilization is superior to thers. different civilizations should have dialogue instead of trying to replace each other. the history of man kind is a process of exchanges, interactions, and intergration amufpk -- integration among different civilizations. we should respect all civilizations and treat each other as equals. we should draw inspiration from each other to boost the creative development of human civilization. should build abeco-system that puts mother nature and green development first. man kind may utilize the nature and try to transform it, but we are, after all, a part of the ature.

we should care for nature and not place ourselves above it. we should reconcile industrial evelopment with nature and pursue harmony between man and nature to achieve sustainable development of the world and the all-around development of man. to build a sound ecoling is vital to man kind's future. all members of the international community should work together to build a sound global eco environment. we should protect nature. we should firmly pursue green, and rbon, circular sustainable development.

china will shoulder its share of responsibility, and china will continue to play its part in his common endeavor. we also urge global communities to honor their emission reduction commitments and help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. [applause] mr. president, dear colleagues, the over 1.3 billion chinese people and more are endeavoring to recognize the chinese dream f great international renewal. the dream of the chinese people is closely connected with the

dreams of other peoples of the world. we cannot recognize the dream of the chinese people without a stable international order and the understanding, support, and help from the rest of the world. the realize zation of the chinese dream will -- the realization of the chinese dream will contribute to global peace and development. china will continue to participate in building world peace. we are committed to peaceful development, no matter how the international landscape may evolve and how strong china may ecome, china will never pursue expansion or sphere of influence. [applause]

china will continue to contribute to global development and the win-win strategy of opening up. we are willing to share our development, experience, and opportunities with other countries. and we welcome other countries to board china's express train so all of us will achieve financial development. [applause] we will stay committed to the peaceful path. china was the first country to put its signature on the u.n. charter. we will continue to uphold the principles of the u.n. charter.

quha will continue to stand together with other developing countries. we firmly support greater representation and voice of developing countries, especially african countries in the ternational governans -- governance system. i wish to take this opportunity to announce china's decision to establish a 10-year, $1 billion u.s. dollars, cha-cha-u.n.-peace development fund to support the unup's work.

to advance multilateral ooperation and develop development, i also wish to announce that china will join the new u.n. peacekeeping capability readiness system. and has thus decided to take the lead in setting up a permanent peacekeeping police squad and form a peacekeeping standby force. of 8,000 troops. i also wish to announce that china will provide eye total of

$100 million u.s. dollars of free military assistance in the union in the next five years to support the african immediate esponse to crisis. mr. president, dear colleagues, as the united nations enters a new decade, let us unite even more closely to forge a new partnership of win-win ofperation and ape community hared future for man kind. let the vision of a world free of war take root in our heart. let fairness spread acrs the world. thank you all.

[applause] ssembly, i wish to thank xi inping of china. [applause] 6 >> president of planned

today.ood will testify the numerous bills to defund group. the congressional budget office estimates that planned parenthood receives $450 million a year from the federal government. 10:00ve coverage at eastern on c-span3. >> this is our annual contest for students to think critically of issues of national importance by creating a documentary in which they can express those views. it's important for students to have the opportunity and platform to have their voices heard on issues that are important to them. they can create a documentary. we do get a wide range of entries.

the most important aspect of every documentary is going to be content. we have had winners use a cell that are others created using more high-tech equipment. we have done many different issues that they have created videos on. we have topics ranging from education, the economy, and the environment. it's showing a wide variety of issues important for students. riverng more water in the would have better impacts for the coastal community and the businesses i have cited. we have definitely come to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> prior to the ada children with disabilities were not given the opportunity of education. >> this year's theme is road to the white house. s the issue you most want

candidates to discuss during the 2016 presence of campaign? -- presidential campaign? requirements is to include c-span footage. this footage should complement and further their point of view and not just dominate the video. it is a great way for them to include more information on the video that furthers their point. president obama. waterfirst will is the and resources development act. fish sticks and mystery meat tacos. >> there is a vital role the federal government place. it is especially vital for students with disabilities. >> students and teachers can go to our website at student cam.org. on that website, they will find more information about the rules and requirements. they will also find teacher tips , rubrics to help them incorporate into the classroom,

more information about prices, incorporating c-span video, and ways to contact us if they have further questions. the deadline for this year's competition is january 20, 2016, exactly one year away from the next presidential inauguration. later today, the house debates the rule on a bill that would allow states to exclude planned parenthood and other groups that provide abortion services from participating in medicaid programs. here's the house rules committee meeting on the bill from yesterday. >> pretty straightforward. hr 3495 represents a

continuation of efforts to pass meaningful legislation and prioritize the- sanctity of human life and which we heard from the pope last week about how important all human life is. this gives an opportunity for the states to use federal funds accordingly. with us today is marsha blackburn, and joining her is her colleague jan kotowski in red. we have orange and red today. before we have both of our witnesses come forward to give testimony, i like to defer to my different from massachusetts. book and you both here today. i just want to stay for the record that the law in this country is that no federal funds can be used for abortion. i want to remind my

colleagues that we are only two days away from government shutdown. the last government shutdown customer can taxpayers $24 billion. i have a hard time believing that preventing medicaid patients from seeing their doctors is the best use of our time, but you are in charge. you run the show. i look forward to the testimony and thank you very much. >> i thank you very much and i would like to briefly address the issue the gentleman brought up and that's a good point. we are very concerned and recognize the constitutionality of what we are trying to do as well as the calendar. we are waiting at this time the senate, who's is getting its momentum to decide the piece of legislation. you'll find we will be asked to go to the rules committee as quickly as the united states senate does their work.

theseill be working on issues diligently, holding votes, having discussions, working with each other. we are trying to do the same over here and i do appreciate the gentleman. i know that he and i will be on the floor and the slaughter and judge hastings and we will be the importance of this government and continuity of funding streams continue and you have my highest of commitment from the rules committee side knowing that we will as quickly as we can be calling a hearing. we will not delay at all the work that needs to be done and we will get this to the floor so this body can act accordingly. >> i appreciate the gentleman's as recente, but history has taught us, just because a rules committee considers something, it does not mean the republican conference accepts it. we found ourselves on number of occasions coming back to the trying to manage

a crisis. i'm hoping to keep the government open, but i think that's what our priorities should be. beating up on poor women is not my idea is not a constructive use of my time. >> thank you for your time. ladies, feel free to come to the witness table. both of you are no strangers to the rules committee and to your friends that count on you not only being here and giving us , butt witness testimony the graciousness with representing yourself, your district, and your ideas. --ms. blackburn motives knows, we deal with difficult subjects and it light and respectful way. we try to do that and you will be afforded that also. mrs. blackburn represents thoughts and ideas that i agree with.

it even when i do not agree, you will be given the assurances that he will be dealt with fairly of here. fair of yourill be pick anything that you write will be in the record. we have an awesome stenographer to give whatever you got into encourage to speak into the microphone with that green light on. tennessee is from recognize. you.ank i've reshipped opportunity to come before you on hr -- the women's public and safety act, a bill which mr. duffy offered and brought to us at the energy and commerce committee. you an issued before 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 and health care providers. and they may want to have people who do not perform or participate in the performance of elective abortions. and we have some states have sought to end their medicaid contract and they have been blocked from doing so by cms. currently, we have four states that are in litigation -- louisiana, arkansas, alabama, and utah. they are in litigation over these very issues. this is a step that we can take that says let us give the states the flexibility that they are requesting and they need. they have proven that they need the flexibility and let us allow them to make these decisions. with that, i will yield

back. rep. sessions: please make sure the green light is on. the gentleman is recognize. -- gentlewoman is recognized. >> i'm testifying in opposition to 3495. here we go again. the 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. women'seading name public health and safety act seeks to target and exclude abortion providers or anyone who an entityely support that provides abortions from participating in medicaid even though not a single federal done spent on providing that abortion. in fact, i've been calling this legislation yet another radical assault on women's health care. stateill would permit the to terminate the 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 the impact on access to care him and leaving no recourse for that provided. excluding 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 does not stop there. this legislation would allow the state to terminate a provider for medicaid if that provider has had any sort of with anpation" abortion. what constitutes participation on the part of an entity is completely undefined. let us be clear. the blackburn amendment does not change hr 3495 underlying purpose, intent, or its devastating impact.

the blackburn amendment give states the ability to "establish criteria" for determining if a whatder that "performs participates in the performance be in thens" would medicaid program. this broad language would give states the unchecked authority to exclude any provider the state defined as participating without any consideration to the health needs and concerns of its medicaid enrollees. some examples of how far this the stateould go -- could exclude a hospital for offering life-saving care is required under the federal emergency medical treatment or mtala law. when there was not an immediate threat to the woman's life, but instead it was a serious health care threat or entire hospital systems could be excluded

because many hospitals do provide abortion services. this would not only mean that medicaid patients could loose access to their choice of medical providers for all their health care services, but could be particularly harmful in rural areas where there are funeral fewer hospitals to serve communities. this bill allows the government of president involvement in a woman's own personal health care decisions right down to who she chooses as her provider. historically federal medicaid rules have always, regardless of which party is in power provided the right saveaid beneficiary to care. this bill is one more in the long list on assaults on women's health. we know this is like legislation enacted in the past month when

governor jindal tried to kick planned parenthood out of medicaid. this would certainly than 5000 additional patients. louisiana is not a unique case. in two thirds of the 491 counties in which they are located. planned parenthood self -- health centers provided half of all contraceptive safety care. which of the counties in they're located, planned parenthood sites are the sole safety net family planning center. medicaid statutory provider of choice protection are there for a reason. that link which protects against the ideological and political whims of politicians at the expense of women. the claimant this legislation seeks to protect women cannot be further from the truth. another attempt for republicans to erode the fundamental constitutionally protected right for safe and legal abortion. this legislation which would

a womane the rights for to choose from provider of the right of a provider to support provide access to safe and legal abortion should be rejected and i yield back. rep. sessions: thank you very much. this is an issue back home for me also. i have -- i'm sure everyone of members, whether you're from new york or from dallas, texas has to a policeons state legislatures know a lot about this issue. they know a lot that i learned the other day that there is no planned parenthood organization in the country that has a mammogram available to it. i thought that was women's health care. we have isolated it down. a. kautsky, i believe you adeptly said this is about

abortion services. i believe the state should be given that latitude here and. i respect you being here and miss blackburn, i thank you for bringing the bill and i like to say thank you to both you and the gentlewoman from north carolina. the vice chairwoman is not recognized. best now recognize. -- now recognize. foxx: i will talk about the concerns that people have in 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 and i think mr. duffy for introducing it ever miss blackburn bringing it here. , butpect our colleague totally disagree with her. i yield back. gentlewomans: the yield factor time. ms. slaughter is recognize.

th this may assuage some people somewhere, but i'm not getting any great collaborative about this. i'm not sure about the mammogram issue either. i know that planned parenthood does a lot of cancer screenings. i really need to check on that. in any case, i have unanimous consent to put the statement. let me read this because it is short. the administration strongly objects hr 3495 because it would restrict women's health and reproductive choices. hr 3495 would prove it -- prevent estate covered program to provide benefits to eligible individuals i qualified health care provider's solely because those providers were involved in abortions.

long-standing federal policy which we all know prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape or interest or in the life of the mother being endangered. by permitting and withholding federal medicaid funding for clinics, orers, hospitals, hr 3495 would likely limit access to critical women's health services and health care throughout local communities across the nation. it would have a disproportionate impact on women and low income individuals. moreover, it would undermine a woman's right o upheld by the supreme court to make her own choices about her body and her health care. presentedsident were with hr 3495, he would veto the bill. the question i would like to ask congresswoman blackburn -- is this constitutional? rep. blackburn: thank you, ms. slaughter. we have the requirement by house

republicans let you have to state the constitutionality of the bill. vice chair foxx: did you check on it before you did that? rep. blackburn: your rules committee actually handles that check. i'm sure they can present that to you. vice chair foxx: this is a protected right under the constitution by roe v wade. to changee you try the case of how long the first trimester is, the courts all restrict them everything that time. i guess this would get another court case if it were to become? rep. blackburn: i do not think so at all. the absence of this bill is what is the court cases. i said earlier that you have four states currently in litigation right now. vice chair foxx: because they try to pass a bill like this? rep. blackburn: no, ma'am. they were trying to do some restrictions on their providers. vice chair foxx: is this a federal court?

do you know about these court cases? rep. schakowsky: i want to make another, if i could. -- comment if i could. this would not just take away funding for that portion of the .ervices that means it slows down a provider, a clinic, or an entire for alllth care system medicaid patients. it would provide all the services. vice chair foxx: it certainly is drastic to try to assuage people's concerns to vote for the cr. we know why we are here and we do not have any misunderstanding about that. we are here on our site to show that we show up for the rules committee. because four states our time to do it and you want to do it here because you think that would make it legal for the states?

or what not still be a constitutional thing? what we arern: hearing from the state is that they would like the flexibility to determine who is the provider in the medicaid program. as you will remember, back in that many states went to the cms waiver process in order to be able to do is fermentation with the delivery systems for health care interstate. ms. slaughter: but that does not have anything to do with the constitutional question. rep. blackburn: what this has to do with is the determination of how the states utilize their funds that they are receiving. ms. slaughter: you do restrict it to people who are providing services for women's reproductive health. rep. blackburn: there's nothing in this that restricts a woman's right or access to abortion. absolutely nothing. ms. slaughter: it doesn't if you take away people can provide it.

if you shut down a hospital or health care clinic -- you don't think so? rep. blackburn: unique position. the funds.sition that is exactly what we have done. the community health centers -- planned parenthood. ms. slaughter: let me reclaim my time. there's no question that community health centers have made it clear that they cannot take this on. 99 for sunday work done by 99% of theenthood -- work done by planned parenthood has nothing to do with abortion. a far number of planned parenthood centers do not do abortions at all. here -- you saying talk about repositioning it. you're really doing is you're taking away needed health care. they also serve men who come to planned parenthood for services and diagnosis.

there are medicines that they are allowed to have. ever since we passed the health care bill, it is absolutely astonished me and i cannot for the life of me understand why you all want to take health care away from people. it is beyond me. people who can afford it get it and if you cannot fit in that category, you're out of luck as far as this is concerned. the generals: we ge moment guilds back could time. the gentleman from georgia has before. >> there must be something discussed that i am unaware of and alas my colleagues -- ms. blackberry, i've read this legislation from front to back and i do not see any language closing any facilities for anybody, but that is the itversation i walked in on is something added into this bill that would close a facility ? rep. blackburn: there is nothing in here that would close the facility. and alas the states the flexibility they asked us if

they can get utilization of those funds and participants in their medicaid delivery system. as plannedseen parenthood reduced the services , most ofr to wi women the women's health care services are now outsourced, if you will. it is important that the states are saying we really need some more flexibility. as i said, therefore states that are already in a lawsuit over this issue. 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 atds of those communities flexibility is helpful in that regard. fan ofodall: i'm a big local control, but there are often some moral issues that we do deal with here. i certainly think that life is

one of those. i think providing critical care to communities that needed is one of those. looking for the mandate in this language. is there a requirement? rep. blackburn: it is a flexibility requirement. mr. duffy had done the bill. when it came to energy and commerce, we did an amendment that comes with the bill. -- increasing2 state five stability in determining participation of providers who perform participate in the performance of abortions. insertionave is the of flexibility into the allocation of this funding stream. that is something that the states would like to have. it is how you move money forward to meet the greatest need and it is the reason for bringing the bill forward. rep. woodall: i tell constituents back home when they talk about the fights that happen in washington that sometimes we are fighting about

how to love on each other. we disagree on 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 is no one in this room as went to love on the constituents of georgia more than the folks who run the georgia medicaid program. i appreciate you bringing this bill to give them for stability. rep. sessions: mr. mcgovern. just feel it'si important to state for the record, just so people understand this, that each year planned parenthood offers preventative services to millions of women to screen for cancer and sexually transmitted infections and to prevent unintended pregnancies. one of the 90% of services provided by planned parenthood preventative, deskconscious of this contraceptives, socially transmitted infection testing, and cervical cancer screening. each year, planned parenthood

centers provide 400,000 cervical cancer screenings, nearly 500,000 breast cancer screenings. i'm looking at some of the of plannedn behalf parenthood. i have testimony from a woman who says, "when i was 23, i found a lump in my breast. i made an appointment at planned parenthood. it is practitioner found the scheduled a biopsy. the results came back negative. may mutate tohood $200 which was all i could afford. where not for planned parenthood, i would not have had the procedure to keep myself healthy." she goes on and on about this. whether or not this shutdowns a hospital or denies them and medicaid reimbursement, it might very well -- minimu dall: what at a

you're saying that it i what you are saying is that it serves low income populations. when you're doing is deny access to many cases life-saving preventative care to poor women, which i think is quite frankly offensive. i do this every time we have a all and i am doing this quite bit now because we have more bills that fall into this category, but does anybody lead in regular order anymore? rep. woodall: yes, sir, i do. rep. mcgovern: this bill does not have of you voted on today. he could do it next week. were there any hearings on this bill? was there a markup, miss blackburn, that your call a hearing or markup on this bill? rep. blackburn: we did not do a hearing on this specific bill. rep. mcgovern: so no markup

either i assume. that is regular order. again, i know some of the critiques of this bill are that e broad use of language can have unforeseen consequences for patient care. controlled you the house, but is it too much to ask to go through the committee process to examine some of these concerns? i know you think you know everything and everything to you people goclear, but on these committees for reason so they can have a say in the legislative process. and routinely, the yet blocked out. here we are with a bill that is not urgent and has not gone through the committee process or markups and designed to punish poor women and take away their access to health care. i just think this is a lousy process.

it's a lousy bill. a mental, even if you bring lousy legislation before the rules committee, it ought to go through regular order. committees on to mean something in this congress. increasingly, they mean nothing. with that, you'll back my time. rep. sessions: the gentleman would be pleased with legislation he will see scene where we do exactly that, where we give specific intent to the energy and commerce committee to appropriate look at in detail this issue so that the facts and figures are available, not just within the committee but become generally available. rep. mcgovern: is that your special committee on planned parenthood you are talking about? rep. sessions: i think you will see that it will follow the exact same things. rep. mcgovern: if you get a former committee to look into this, i think would make more sense for you to report legislation out after the committee, which i think sounds like a waste of money, but you ought to have committees with

jurisdiction already. you ought to let committees do their work and have hearings before you bring legislation to the floor. rep. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman and i think he is formally recognizing that the states want to flexibility. the state can get the flexibility. if the state chooses not to take the flexibility come they will not be flexibility. rep. sessions: if you have a rep. mcgovern: if you have a governor or state legislature that basically wants to take away the right of a woman to make this very difficult choice with regard to abortion, that they will do. what theot with supreme court has said. you somehow think that is locateok. was a health-care provider provides abortion services, which is legal, you say the state legislature should have the right to take away all medicare,