with a huge market, it is more expensive. nancy is an economist with bna and you can check out their work. host: the house is about to come in. we will put you over to c-span3 if you want to watch the congressional oversight committee on planned parenthood that is expected to begin momentarily. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. september 29, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable steven m. perlozzo, to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority leader and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five lints. -- minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday we witnessed thugs, tyrants, and dictators from russia, iran, and cuba, speak before the general assembly at the united nations. with straight faces each claimed to be defenders of peace, of international standards, of

human rights. principles that putin, rouhani, and castro have made a living out of ignoring and abusing to the detriment of the people who live under their oppressive rule. president obama had an opportunity to set the tone to call for reforms at the badly mismanaged united nations. the to challenge the status quo. and re-establish america's leadership and credibility. instead, he used it as an opportunity to pay lip service ideals and values and to abdicate america's role as a world leader. a void that is now being filled by our adversaries like russia, ran, china, and syria. ideals d the russians continue their aggressive actions in ukraine and are murderous assad regime. iran has had a record number of since the so-called

moderate leader, rouhani, took office, and thousands of ethnic and religious minorities are imprisoned and sentenced to death. the president has done everything in his power not to upset the iranians because he doesn't want to ruin the chance for a nuclear deal, a deal which will cause a nuclear and conventional arms race in the region. and his words yesterday proved to be empty rhetoric when matched to his policies and actions in the past. not to be outdone, raul castro double downed on his now sendin hardware to the intransigence, further demonstrating that the obama administration offered concessions to the regime which resulted in even greater by that hated cuban

dictatorship. but per usual with the president it was the blame america first narrative that he was trying to pedal -- piddle with his misguided policies towards cuba. president obama used this opportunity to undermine the united states congress and by that hated cuban dictatorship. but per usual with the president it was the blame america first e u.n. vote on the cuban embargo, he stated, quote, i am confident that our congress will inevitably an eventual lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore, end quote. president obama failed once again to put the onus on the castro regime to release all political prisoners, to hold free and fair elections, to respect human rights, in order for us to lift the embargo. the cuban embargo language in the law is clear, all the conditions, mr. speaker. conditions that have to be met in order for it to be lifted. conditions that the castro regime has no interest in abiding by. president obama should stop ignoring current law and stop losing -- loosening regulations on a regime that has done nothing to deserve this praise. the castro regime is the one responsible for the human rights violations occurring in cuba,

and the constant beatings against pro-democracy leaders. the u.s. embargo cannot be held responsible for that. does castro say, oh, hi to beat the heads of the very -- i had very t the heads of the peaceful group ladies in white walking to church because the embargo says i must beat their heads in. does castro say i cannot have any political party operating in cuba other than the communist party because the embargo, has me, obligates me, to only have this political party operating? say i cannot respect human rights in cuba because that nafty u.s. embargo forces me to -- nasty u.s. embargo forces me to violate human rights. of course not. that is lunecy. that is only responsibility that castro can claim. the castro regime has done nothing to unclinch its iron fist, ngata. -- nada. mr. speaker, president obama's

remarks yesterday at the u.n. made him part of the problem with what's wrong with that broken institution and once again it highlighted that his misplaced priorities and misguided foreign policies has not kept our country any safer. that is why it is up to us in congress to be proactive and to push for reforms at the united nations and that's why this week i am reintroducing my u.n. transparency accountability and reform act. my bill would fundamentally change the way that we fund this failed institution by shifting e funding mechanism from voluntary contributions in order to make the organization more effective and accountable to its objectives. for example, the human rights council does not deserve our assistance when countries like some of na, venezuela, the world's worst human rights violators, push a decidedly

anti-american, anti-israel agenda at the council. we should not fund these bodies at the u.n. we should only fund the one that is we believe are working. the one that is are transparent. the ones who are accountable to member states that donate their budgets. mr. speaker, the obama administration has had seven years to implement reforms and it has failed. it's time for congress to take the lead and i urge my colleagues to sign up to my bill this week. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from organizeon, mr. plaur -- oregon, mr. plaur, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. amidst all the turmoil on the world stage i think many of us are still processing the visit from pope francis last week. his call for us to care for the planet, for our fellow man, for of god's creatures.

in the background here on capitol hill, there's a little turmoil in terms of what's going to happen after the resignation of speaker boehner. there looks to be a little good news that we will avert a , at least shutdown for a few months. and we continue to have the defund ted crusade to planned parenthood. i have been focusing on the epidemic of deaths from prescription drug overdose and hair win. -- harrow win. mr. speaker, it's defund planned parenthood. something creating problems from portland, oregon, to portland, maine. yet in the midst of that epidemic there was a starke symbol of our dysfunction on our failed -- stark symbol of our dysfunction on our failed war on drugs when the f.b.i. released data yesterday that showed in the last year we arrested over 620,000 people for simple marijuana possession.

that's 1,700 people a day, more than one every minute for something that most americans now think should be legal. there are over 200 million americans that live in states where they can get access to medical marijuana. four states and the district of columbia have legalized adult use, and more states are going to be voting on it again this year. yet we have arrested over seven million people over the last 10 years. costing billions of dollars, and that can turn lives upside-down. of young men ives of color, especially african-americans. who are arrested many times more even though their use is the same as white young men. it sort of fuels that

frustration that one can understand in the african-american community. i would suggest that it's time for us to focus law enforcement resources on real drug problems. deal with that epidemic of prescription drug abuse and heroin overdose. let's deal with making sure that our children are safe rather than at risk for a vast drug distribution net work congress can help move some things forward right now. one that we could stop the insanity of having thousands of state legal marijuana businesses being conducted on an all cash basis. they can't have bank accounts. this is an attractive source of revenue for people who would like to rob them. let's let the states make their own policies until we reclassify

marijuana, frankly no more -- less dangerous than tobacco in is completely legal every state. in the meantime, we should at least stay out of the way. t states formulate their own policy, and have local authorities deal with real problems not creating unnecessary ones. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair wreck -- recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, for five minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. for many in california, including my own family and neighbors, it's an exciting time this year. this is harvest time. busy, but again a very enjoyable time. we look forward to as farmers and ranchers. you see more combines, shakers, sweepers, running from sun rise to sunset working to fill the next truckload with this season's crops. and you see the men and women

responsible producing for nearly half of all u.s. grown egetables, nuts, and fruits. but this year's harvest as well as most of our state paints a different picture. going dry and less and less drunk loads of crops leaving the farms. as a farmer myself, we know it's the last truckload that leaves the field that is the one you make your living on. from the grapes and world renowned wines to going dry and are down, production is lower causing a troubling ripple effect in the region and across our nation's economy in the form of lost jobs and revenue. and less choices for high quality problems grown by americans for our american consumers.

numbers for this year are troubling. prices are down and farm yields per acre are down. according to recent u.c. davis study, just california alone is set to lose about $2.7 billion due to the droughts. farm employment is down over 10,000 jobs this year as well as the 21,000 or so indirect jobs that will also be lost by those involved in the production and processing of farm crops. are d lower labor income is estimated to fall by at least $716 million, being replaced by an lrl troubled and strapped unemployment. direct crop revenue losses are to be up to $900 million, straight out of growers' pockets. in addition the rice harvest is expected to cover only 375,000 acres, down from a peak of 560,000 acres. the almond supply is expected to decrease by 4%, foningsly losing market share to foreign interests. california dairy production is down by at least 3% costing to straight out of an $250 million, a number that's shown significant increases in other states as well this year. alfalfa shipments are lower than last year and the livestock industry face losses of an

estimated $100 million to replace it. mr. speaker, these are real numbers that are not only set to get worse but we cannot simply stand by and watch as farmers, ranchers, small town economies, ag employees face more water rationing and faloed feelts. california and the west cannot afford another year of inaction from congress. i rise today to urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and both house and senate to come to the table, advance commonsense drought solutions, such as new water $2 storage and infrastructure, to provide relief now and in the future. such as a res. vire no northern california and desalination projects in our cities. let's get them permitted and approved and in the pipeline. we can't wait any longer. we need these forms -- reforms now and in the future. the state is growing, population is growing, and we grow the finest and best crops and export them not only to the rest of the country but much of the world. mr. speaker, not doing anything now or this year is a dereliction of our responsibility and betrays

americans who expect us to provide the products they consume and enjoy. these fine ag products that give america the reputation as being the breadbasket of the world. let's just do t i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, while there is talk of a two-month spending bill to keep the government open before time runs out this week, we have yet to see it. and passing a short-term bill will only postpone a republican shutdown, not stop it. as long as it remains a possibility we need to talk costs to everyday families. closing the government doors this time around means millions and millions of americans may be cut off from their federal food assistance benefits. 45 million americans rely on

the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or snap, to help put food on the table. snap is our nation's premiere anti-hunger program, and it is one of the most effective and efficient of any federal programs. 2/3 of all snap recipients are the most vulnerable among us. children, seniors and the disabled. and millions more are working families who may be working one, two or three jobs just to make ends meet and sometimes it's still not enough. snap is a critical program that millions of americans depend on to keep from going hungry. mr. speaker, during the last republican shutdown in 2013, snap had contingency funds available from the stimulus law that meant snap benefits continued uninterrupted. but stimulus funding was cut off in november of 2013, so this time around, there's no backup plan for snap. current law prevents the u.s. department of agriculture from spending snap money it doesn't have. without congressional action, usda will be forced to shut off retailers from accepting snap

benefits within the first few days of october. that means families won't be able to use their snap benefits to purchase food at any store that normally accepts snap, including grocery stores, big box retailers and corner stores. mr. speaker, it is unfathomable to me that this would happen, that republicans would threaten the food benefits of tens of millions of american children, families and seniors. and all just so score political points with their right-wing base. whether the republicans shut down the government this week or in december, it is unacceptable to leave struggling families out in the cold. as our economy continues to recover, i would remind my colleagues that snap is one of the quickest, most effective economic multipliers we have. every $1 in snap benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. about 80% of snap benefits are redeemed within two weeks of

receipt and about 97% are spent within a month. every day snap pumps money back into our local economies and supports local companies. and they can be spent only on food. meaning the family can use the other income like paying rent, utilities and medical care. mr. speaker, not only would a government shutdown have a devastating impact on hungry families, it has the potential to result in serious economic harm to retailers that could ripple throughout our economy. already food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens are bracing to serve an influx of clients if snap benefits are cut off. but despite the incredible work they do, these charities are already overburdened. the demand for food assistance is incredibly high. they are working tirelessly every day to meet the need, and charities are already forced to pick up the slack from an inadequate snap benefit. all too often, the benefit runs out before the end of the

month, and families must turn to charities just to cobble together enough to eat. i cannot begin to imagine how overwhelmed anti-hunger agencies will be if millions of americans lose access to snap next month or the month after. unfortunately, in a republican-controlled congress, with a habit of going from one crisis to the next, this scenario is all too realistic. a government shutdown would literally take food away from hungry americans. it would be devastating for millions of americans that are already struggling to put food on the table and make ends meet. families who rely on snap cannot afford to have their food benefits disrupted, even for a day. mr. speaker, we should be working to end hunger now, not making hunger worse in this country. the richest country in the world. quite frankly, it's unconscionable we are even in a situation where millions of hungry people are at risk of losing their food benefit. last week pope francis delivered an inspiring message to congress. it is unthinkable that we could so quickly forget his call for

compassion and helping the least among us. for millions of american families who are already struggling to put food on the table, we should be giving them a hand up, not taking food away. nobody in this chamber will go without food if the republicans shut down the government. none of our kids will go without food, but millions and millions of our fellow citizens will. for the sake of 45 million americans across the country and more than 700,000 in massachusetts who depend on snap, i urge my republican colleagues to work with democrats on a long-term bipartisan budget that puts families first. families who rely on snap shouldn't have to worry about losing their benefits at the end of every short-term funding bill. whether it's this week or in december, our most vulnerable families simply cannot afford another republican shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rooney, for five minutes. -- mooney. i apologize.

mr. mooney: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mooney: i would like to take the time to recognize spruce and seneca on their 50th year as a national recreational area. spruce nobs was established by asan act of congress on september 28, 1965, and has been enjoyed by families from all over the country ever since. it is located in pendleton county in the eastern panhandle area of my district in west virginia. i was lucky enough to have had the privilege to visit just last month. as the only true peak on the east coast of the united states, it lures rock climbers from all around and boasts some of the most spectacular scenery on this side of the mississippi. let me tell you, it is even more beautiful in person. don't take my word for it, though. i encourage everyone to plan a rip to this national treasure.

thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to take the time to recognize the historic event that took place last week on september 24, 2015, his holiness, pope francis, became the first pope to ever address congress. i would like to thank all that were involved in this planning process that led to the significant event, especially speaker john boehner. it was truly an honor to take part in the first papal address to congress. pope francis' message was one of hope and love and reminded us that we need to keep fighting for the sanctity of life, marriage, family and religious liberty. pope francis clearly stated that there is a moral obligation to protect the unborn babies. protecting the unborn is one of the issues that compelled me to run for political office in the

first place, and i'm committed to continuing to fight in congress. during his address, the pope said, quote, the golden rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development, pope francis said. i am convinced that this is the best way, since every life is sacred, every human person is indo youed with inalien dignity, closed quote. i am proud to be the lead sponsor of h.r. 816, the life of conception act. the life of conception act is a necessary component in the long-term protection of the unborn. in the 1973 roe vs. wade decision, the supreme court justices wrote, that since the beginning of life is not defined by law, it is open to interpretation. the life at conception act

simply defines by congress that the life of a child begins at conception. establishing personhood would protect the right of life to unborn children who are the most defenseless among us and who need our protection. this bill sets a standard for promoting and encouraging a culture of life. if enacted, it would simply affirm that unborn children are deserving of protection. we currently have 122 co-sponsors of this important bill, and i encourage my colleagues in the house to co-sponsor as well. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for five minutes. mr. costa from california for five minutes. mr. costa: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for knife minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. costa: thank you, mr. speaker. this congress is making a habit

unfortunately of acting in crisis mode, which is irresponsible and does a disservice to the faith and the trust that the american public has placed in us as their elected representatives. and this has a direct baring on our economy. the pope spoke to the need for us to come together and negotiate bipartisan solutions for the many challenges facing the united states and the world. the first and most pressing issue is to fund government. thankfully tomorrow the house is expected to vote on a short-term continuing resolution just to do -- to do just that. i hope my colleagues will vote in favor of a clean continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown. there is no justification to shut down government. yes, we have our differences. we negotiate that in a budget process. however, we know that this is a short-term fix, and that a real solution to fixing our nation's

very real and very serious budget problems is in producing a long-term budget, and we should do that in december. instead of moving from one crisis to another crisis, we must get back to work of governing responsibly. responsible governance requires that we come together, work hard, compromise on a bipartisan budget that will not result in poorly thought out across-the-board spending cuts, more commonly known as sequestration. failing to govern responsibly and compromise will negatively impact industries so vital to america. that includes our agriculture economy, which provides the food that we eat on america's dinner table. it includes manufacturing and service industries that provide goods and services that we trade, and finally it will severely impact programs that supports our nation's future like public safety, research

and development, costing billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. in addition to negotiating a bipartisan budget agreement, we need to address the impacts of sequestration and the congress must address the debt ceiling this december without fanfare that could further throw our economy into chaos. if the united states were to default on its loans or to fail to live up to its promises to those of retirement age, it would send our economy in a downward spiral just at the time when we're recovering from this great recession. unfortunately, not all the areas of the united states are feeling the recovery's effects equally. in the san joaquin valley that i represent, many of my constituents are still feeling the effects of the recession. in addition to the unnecessary impacts of our failure to invest in infrastructure, our water infrastructure that we terribly need to invest in as well as our transportation

infrastructure. vital programs, like the ex-im bank, the highway trust fund, the land and water conservation fund have either expired or will soon expire. the export-import bank, which has created, has sustained 1 1/2 million private sector jobs, expired june 30. by refusing to bring up the re-authorization of the bank for a vote, american jobs are being threatened and congress is undermining the ability of the american businesses to compete in a global market. the highway trust fund is set to expire on october 29. our nation's roads, bridges, highways, railroads are out of date and need -- are in dire need of repair. i haven't seen a bridge or road that's republican or democrat. this is investing in america. the long-term transportation bill was last passed by congress in 2009. since then congress has had 34 short-term patches. that is simply irresponsible.

it is not only -- it not only puts americans' safety at risk, but it undermines our ability to create or sustain american jobs by investing in our infrastructure. congress must act to work on a bipartisan basis to re-authorize these programs and countless of other federal programs that are set to expire , not only this week but in december when we address the long-term funding for the next fiscal year. otherwise, there will be another threat to shut down government in december. it's irresponsible. last week pope francis reminded us of our responsibilities. the better angels in all of us. he said, and i quote, a good political leader is one with the interests of all in mind and seizes the moment in the spirit of openness and pragmatism. a good political leader always opts to initiate processes ather than simply possessing

spaces. so therefore, the question we should be asking, are we simply possessing spaces or are retrying to find together the common good for the common man, as pope francis suggested? i hope his spiritual guidance will allow us to work together to do what we were sent here to do which is the people's work. that's what we were sent here to do on behalf of all americans. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired, the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. hompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to -- in honor of two future farmers of america teams from my district after they placed first and second at a national competition this past weekend. the competition known as the big e hosts teams from schools from the east coast and the

mid-atlantic regions which compete in a wide variety of categories, including poultry science, equine events, dairy science, and much more. a team from bellfont, pennsylvania, placed first in the poultry science career development event and was responsible for judging the birds and rating their quality along with other criteria. the second team from the central pennsylvania institute of science and technology in pleasant gap, pennsylvania, placed second in the nursery and landscaping division. they were tasked with designing and selling a landscaping plan. the team is now working on a landscape project for pennsylvania's farm show in january. mr. speaker, i rise to congratulate the accomplishments of these future farmers and also recognize the important work performed by the f.f.a. the success of these young people shows that the industry is in good hands and agriculture has a bright future. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, for five minutes. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, members of the house, the foolish and wasteful squandering of the americans' hard-earned taxpayer dollars are once again on display in the war in the middle east and in syria. before i get to my point, i want to remind my colleagues here that we spent $3 trillion on the war in iraq. that's right, $3 trillion. look where it's gotten us? i'd like to remind my colleagues that for one of those trillion we could have graduated every college kid in america and vocational school kid in america debt free. instead we have saddled them with debt that's crippling their

ability to get ahead and our economy to grow. it's no secret that bridges are falling down here in america. and trains are coming off the rail. those trillion dollars, we could have rebuilt our infrastructure and transportation system in this country. once again, creating good jobs and opportunities and laying the foundation for our economy to grow. for another trillion of those dollars, we could have given the american taxpayers a trillion dollar tax break, would they not have loved that and do they not need that? instead, we are still looking at $2 trillion going forward and taking care of the men and women who serve, the warriors, the patriots, the men and women who are willing to stand up and protect us but who lost arms and lost legs and suffered severe brain injuries. yes, that's right. $2 trillion going forward tending to and caring for them. and that is a moral obligation that we are obligated to and

must fulfill. now to my point today, last year congress authorized $500 million to be spent on training the so-called moderate free syrian rebels. and now we have learned that only a handful, like four to five, has showed up for duty. according to the u.s. central commander for troops in the middle east. back in june republican congressman kirk claussen and i an amendment to the defense appropriations bill to stop funding this so-called free syrian rebel program. why? well, the hard cold fact is that many of their leaders told us at the time that they would not use the money to fight and join us in the fight against isil. and now we ask the house not to appropriate an addictional --

additional seeing $600 million that the $500 million that was spent has already been wasted and misspent. unfortunately, our colleagues at the time did not follow our bipartisan recommendation on this important issue and the house did go ahead and appropriate an additional $600 million for that failed program. and now that we know only a handful are showing up for duty, it's not too late to stop this additional $600 million from going forward for this failed program. so i'm calling for the immediate removal of that funding. after all, we did pass my amendment prohibiting congress from funding so-called rebels where there was clear proof that the money was being misspent. mr. speaker, the proof could not be more clear in this case. this isn't about agreement seei that the or

disagreement with involvement -- our involvement in these middle east conflicts. this is about the tragic and the foolish and the senseless wasteful squandering of $1.1 billion of hard-earned american taxpayers' dollars. mr. speaker, mr. claussen and i both worked as businessmen before coming to the congress for decades. and anyone who knows anything about business can tell you this. no private sector company ever succeeded by spending huge amounts of money on employees who never showed up for work. or worse yet, turned their allegiances to an opposition or competitive company. that's no way to run a business. that's no way to govern. and it's certainly no way to win a war. i plead with my colleagues to come to their bipartisan senses, join mr. clawson and me and help us put an end to this tragic and wasteful spending of hard-earned american taxpayers' dollars.

the american taxpayers are counting on us. let's not disappoint them. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. >> veterans affairs spending starting at noon eastern on c-span. on the planned parenthood bill, he the house rules committee met yesterday

which denies medicaid funds to be given to that organization or any other abortion providers. this bill is due on the house floor today. here's a look at that meeting s it took place yesterday. mr. sessions: the women's public health and safety act. the bill is based upon the basic principles i believe of federalism under this bill, a state would be granted the discretion to withhold medicaid funds from a clinic or doctor that provides abortion services. pretty straightforward. home run 3495 represents a continuation of efforts to pass meaningful legislation that prioritizes opportunities that represent values and sanctity of human life which we believe is important and which we heard from the pope last week how important all life is. this gives an opportunity for states to use federal funds accordingly. with us today is the jom from

tennessee, marsha blackburn, the energy and commerce committee, and joining us is jan schakowsky in red. we have orange and red today. before we have both of our witnesses that come forward to give testimony, i'd reich to defer to my dear friend, the gentleman from massachusetts, for any opening statement i'd like to make. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i just want to state for the record the law in this country is no federal funds can be used for abortion. i just want to remind my republican colleagues that we are only days away from another government shutdown. and the last government shutdown that my friends thrust upon the nation cost the american taxpayers $24 billion. and so i have a hard time believing that preventing medicaid patients from seeing their doctors is the best use of our time. you're in charge. i look forward to the show. i look forward to the testimony. thank you very much. mr. sessions: i thank you very much.

i'd like to briefly address the issue that the gentleman brought up and it's a good point and that is we are very concerned and recognize the constitutionality of what we're trying to do as well as the calendar and we are waiting at this time the united states senate who is gaining their momentum to decide the piece of legislation, and you'll find that we'll be asked to come back to the rules committee sometime as quickly as the united states senate does their work. they have been working on these issues diligently, holding discussions, working with each other. we're trying to do the same over here. and i do appreciate the gentleman, ms. slaughter, and we know how important funding streams continues. you have the highest

commitment, i believe from the rules committee side, knowing that we will as quickly as we can be calling a hearing. we will get -- we will not delay at all the work that needs to be done and we'll get us to the floor so that this body can act accordingly. i do appreciate the gentleman. mr. mcgovern: and i do appreciate jat's reassurance. s a recent -- the gentleman's reinsurance. as just as recently that it reports out a rule doesn't mean that the republican conference accepts it. and we find ourselves on a number of othercations coming back to the rules committee with -- occasions coming back to the rules committee with a number of crisis. beating up on poor women is not my idea of constructive use of our time. but i yield back my time. mr. sessions: i thank you very much and i appreciate the gentleman very much. ladies, please, if you'll feel free to come to the witness table. both of you are no strangers to

the rules committee, to your friends that count on you, not only being here and giving us expert witness testimony but also the graciousness that you bring representing yourself, your district, your party and your ideas. and as mrs. blackburn knows, ms. schakowsky, you've been up here plenty of times, we try to deal with difficult subjects in a plight and respectful way. we try and do that, and you will be afforded that also. and mrs. plaque burn represents thoughts and ideas that i agree with -- and mrs. blackburn represents thoughts and ideas that i agree with and even if i don't agree you will be given the assurance that will be dealt with. without objection, anything will be in the record. we have an awesome stenographer. i ask you to speak in the microphone when you are given the green light. the jom from tennessee, the

wife of mr. chuck blackburn, my dear friend, is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to come before you on h.r. 3495. this is the women's public health and safety act. it's a bill that mr. duffy authored. and brought to us at energy and commerce committee and we have, as you see before you, an amendment that will become the bill. as you appropriately stated, this is a bill about flexibility and about giving the states more flexibility as to who they choose to include in their medicaid program, health care providers, and they may want people who do not perform or participate in the performance of elective abortions. and we have some states who have sought to end their medicaid contracts and they have been blocked from doing so by c.m.s.

currently we have four states that are in litigation. louisiana, arkansas, alabama and utah are in litigation over these very issues. so this is a step that we can take that says let's give the states the flexibility that they are requesting and that they need. they have proven that they need this flexibility, and let's allow them to make these -- make these decisions. and with that i will yield back. mr. sessions: thank you very much. ms. schakowsky, welcome. delighted. if you make sure the green light is on. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. schakowsky: thank you very much for allowing me to testify once again, and i'm testifying in opposition to 3495. here we go again. to consider legislation that is purported to protect women but the truth is that this bill is yet another attack on women's

health and their ability to ake their own choices. this seeks to target and exclude abortion providers or anyone who even remotely supports or is involved with a provider or entity that provides abortions from participating in medicaid even though not a single federal dime is spent on providing that abortion. in fact, i've been calling this legislation yet another radical assault on women's health care. this bill would permit a state to terminate a provider from medicaid solely on the basis that the provider also provides access to a safe and legal abortion without federal dollars, without regard for the impact on access to care and leaving no recourse for that provider. 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 doesn't stop there. this legislation would allow a state to terminate a provider from medicaid if that provider as had any sort of, quote, participation, unquote, with an abortion. what constitutes participation on the part of an entity is completely undefined. and let's be clear. the blackburn amendment does not change h.r. 3495 underlying purpose, intent or its devastating impact. the blackburn amendment gives states the ability to, quote, establish criteria, unquote, for determining if a provider that, quote, performs or participates in the performance of, unquote, abortions would be allowed in the medicaid program. this broad language would give states an unchecked authority to exclude any provider the state defines as participating without any consideration to

the health needs and concerns of its medicaid enrollees. some examples how far this criteria could go, the state could exclude a hospital for offering life-saving care as required under the federal ergency medical treatment or mtalla law. if the state determines the care was provided when there is not an immediate threat to the a n's life but instead was serious health care threat or entire hospital systems could be excluded because many hospitals do provide abortion services. this would not only mean that lose id patient could access to their choice of medical providers for all of their health care services but could be particularly harmful in rural areas where there are fewer hospitals to serve communities. this bill allows the government

unprecedented involvement in a woman's own personal health care decisions right down to who she chooses as her provider. that's why historically federal medicaid rules have always, regardless which party is in power, provided the right of medicaid beneficiaries to seek care from a trusted and medically qualified provider of their choosing. this bill is one more assault in the long list of republican assaults on women's health. we know that if this legislation had been enacted in the past month when governor jindal tried to kick planned parenthood out of medicaid, there would be only 29 providers left across the state to serve more than 5,000 additional patients. and louisiana is not a unique case. in 2/3 of the 491 counties in which they are located, planned parenthood health centers serve at least half of all women obtaining contraceptive care from safety net health centers

and 1/5 of the counties in which they are located, planned parenthood sites are the sole safety net family planning center. the medicaid statutory provider choice protections are there for a reason. that language protects against the ideological and political whims of politicians at the expense of women. the claim that this legislation seeks to protect women could not be further from the truth. this is yet another attempt for republicans to erode the fundamental constitutionally protected right for safe and legal abortion. this legislation, which would undermine the right of a woman to choose her own provider or the right of a provider to support or provide access to safe and legal abortion should be rejected. and i yield back. mr. sessions: thank you very much. this is an issue back home for me also, and i have, i'm sure, every one of our members, whether you're from new york,

whether you're from dallas, texas, have strong opinions. i believe state legislature know a lot about this issue. they know a lot, for instance, i learned the other day that there's no planned parenthood organization in the country that has a mammogram available to it. thought that was women's health care. so we have isolated it down and, ms. schakowsky, i believe you very adaptly, very appropriately said it, is about abortion services. and i think the states should be given that latitude therein. i respect you being here. mrs. blackburn, thank you for bringing the bill. i want to say thank you to both of you and the vice chairman of the committee is now recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. in the interest of time, i will say that i will associate myself with your remarks on why

we're here today. the concerns that the people in our districts have on this issue, it is -- it is the number one issue i hear from everyone in my district, and i think we are doing the right thing with this legislation. i thank mr. duffy for introducing it and mrs. blackburn for bringing it here. i respect our colleague, ms. schakowsky, but totally disagree with her and yield back. mr. sessions: the jom yields gentlewoman he yields back her time. ms. slaughter is recognized. ms. slaughter: i appreciate the chairman. we are trying to get the votes to pass the c.r. and somehow we throw out something extraneous like this that mays a wage people somewhere but i'm not getting great clammer, i never had about this. i'm not sure about the madamo combram issue either, but a i know that planned parenthood does a lot of cancer screening.

and i -- i really need to check on that. in any case, i ask unanimous consent to put the statement of administrative policy and let me read it. it's very short. the administration strongly opposes the house passage of h.r. 3495 because it would restrict women's reproductive choices. it would permit a state medicaid program to stop covering benefits provided to eligible individuals by qualified health care providers solely because those providers were involved in abortions. long-standing federal policy, which we already know, already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother would be -- woman would be endangered. now, by permitting withholding of federal medicaid funding for those providers, clinics or hospitals, h.r. 3495 likely would limit access to both critical women's health

services and health care throughout local communities across the nation. and would have a disproportionate impact on women and low-income individuals. moreover, it would undermine a woman's right upheld by the supreme court to make her open choices about her body and her health care, and if the president were presented with h.r. 3495, he would veto the bill. and the question that i would ask congresswoman blackburn, is this constitutional? mrs. blackburn: thank you, ms. slaughter. you know, we have the requirement by house republicans that you have to state the constitutionality of the bill. ms. slaughter: do you have to check on it before you do it? mrs. blackburn: your rules committee actually handles that check. so i'm sure they can present that to you. ms. slaughter: since this is a protected right under the constitution, roe v. wade, it really seems odd to me. i know when they try to do

cases when they change the limits how long the first trimuster is, permitted that the courts restrict them every single time. so i guess this would get just another court case if it were to become -- mrs. blackburn: no, ma'am. the absence of this bill is what is called the court cases. as i said earlier, you have four states that are currently in litigation right now. ms. slaughter: because they tried to pass a bill like this? mrs. blackburn: no, ma'am. because they were trying to do some restrictions on their providers. ms. slaughter: is this federal court? ms. schakowsky, is this -- ms. schakowsky: i think the point is also, this would not only take away funding for that portion of the services that it -- that means that closes down a provider, a

clinic or an entire health care system that -- ms. slaughter: for all medicaid patients? ms. schakowsky: yes. ms. slaughter: it would seem drast i can for people to vote for the c.r. we all know where why we're here and we don't have any misunderstanding about it and we're here to -- on our side to show that we show up for rules committee. but i would seriously, because four states are trying to do it and you want to do it here because you think it would make it legal for those four states? mrs. blackburn: i think that what we're hearing -- what we're hearing from the states is they would like the flexibility to determine who is the provider in their medicaid program. now, as you will remember, back in the mid 1990's the many states went through the c.m.s. waiver process in order to be

able to do experimentation with the delivery systems for health care. ms. slaughter: but that doesn't have anything to do with a constitutional question. mrs. 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. mrs. blackburn: this has anything to do that restricts a woman's right or access to abortion. ms. slaughter: if you shut down a hospital or a health care clinic, you don't think so? mrs. blackburn: you reposition that. if spg that's -- ms. slaughter: you reposition it? good grief? mrs. blackburn: see, planned parenthood -- ms. slaughter: let me reclaim my time, mrs. blackburn. there's no question that community health centers have made it perfectly clear they

can't take this on. mrs. blackburn: yes, they can and they do. ms. slaughter: the one you want to fight has nothing to do with abortion and a far number of planned parenthood centers don't do abortions at all. and so what you're saying here, when you talk about repositioning it, i think what you really are doing is you're taking away needed health service. they also serve men who come to planned parenthood for services and alth diagnosis medicines they are allowed to have. i've being absolutely -- ever since we passed the health care bill, it is absolutely astonished me and i can't for the life of me understand why you want to take health care away from people. it's beyond me. people who can afford it can get it. if you don't come in that category, you're out of luck as far as congress is concerned. i yield back. mr. sessions: thank you very much.

the jom is georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i apologize being a few minutes late and there was something discussed that i am unaware of. i ask my colleague from the energy and commerce committee, mrs. blackburn, i read this legislation from front to back and i don't see any language closing any facilities for anybody but that's the conversation i walked in on. is -- has something been added to this bill that would close a facility? mrs. blackburn: mr. woodall, there is nothing in here that closes any facility. what it does is to allow the states the flexibility they have asked us. if they could get. for utilization of those funds and participants in their medicaid delivery system. and as we have seen, as planned parenthood has reduced the services that they offer to women and most -- most of the women's health care services now are outsourced, if you will, and it's important.

the states are saying, we really need some more flexibility, and as i said, there are four states who already are in a lawsuit over this issue. so as we look at the funding on women's health, what we want to do is make certain that the money is going to get to the point where it will meet the needs of those communities and flexibility is helpful in that regard. mr. woodall: i'm a big fan of local control, but there are often some moral issues that we do deal with here. i certainly think life is one of those. i think providing critical care to communities that need it is one of those. i was looking for the mandate in this language. is there a requirement that a state -- mrs. blackburn: no. it's a flexibility requirement. and mr. duffy had done the bill. and when it came to energy and commerce, we did an amendment that becomes the bill, and as you can see, it is section 2.

increasing state flexibility in determining participation of providers who perform or participate in the performance of abortions. and so what you have is the insertion of flexibility into the allocation of this funding stream. . 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. rep. mcgovern: i just feel it's 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. more than 90% of services provided by planned parenthood health septemberers are previnive, including sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment and cervical and breast cancer screenings. each year, planned parenthood centers provide 400,000 cervical cancer screenings, nearly 500,000 breast cancer screenings. i'm looking at some of the testimony on behalf of planned parenthood. i have testimony from a woman name ashley who says, quote, when i was 23. i found a lum national park my breast. i made an appointment at planned parenthood. it is practitioner found the lump and scheduled a biopsy. the results came back negative.

plan parenthood put me in contact with a group to help pay for the procedure. normally it would cost $400. but i played $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 if you deny them a right to medicaid reimbursement or health care system, it might very well, mr. woodall, depending on the hospital we are talking about, but at a minimum what you're saying is that you -- that somehow it's ok to shut out health services for poor women. because medicaid serves low income populations. what you are doing is denying access to in many cases lifesaving preventive care to poor women, which i think is, quite frankly, offensive. i just want to -- i do this every time we have a bill before -- i'm doing it quite a bit now because we have more and more bills that fall into this

category. does anybody believe in regular order anymore? or -- mr. sessions: i do. mr. mcgovern: given the fanlt that this -- fact that this bill -- you could do it next week. but i mean were there any hearings on this bill? was there a markup, mrs. blackburn? do you recall a hearing or markup on this bill? mrs. blackburn: we did not do a hearing on this specific bill. mr. mcgovern: no markup, either. mrs. blackburn: not a markup. mr. mcgovern: that is regular order. and again i know some of the critiques of this bill are that the -- it's broad use of -- its broad use of language could have unforeseen consequences for patient care. i just say to my colleagues on the republican side, i know you control the house, is it too much to ask we go through the committee process to examine

some of these concerns? i know you guys think you know everything. everything to you is really clear. but there is -- people go on these committees for a reason so they can have a say in the legislative process and routinely they get blocked out. here we are with a bill that not urgent, not gone throughout committee pros serks not gone through any markups, that is designed to punish poor women and take away their access to health care. i just think this is a lousy process. a lousy bill. at a minimum even if you bring lousy legislation before the rules committee, it ought to go through regular order. the committees ought to mean something in this congress and increasingly they mean nothing. with that i yield back my time. mr. sessions: thank you very much. by the way the gentleman will be pleased with legislation that he'll see soon where we do exactly that. where we give specific intent to the energy and commerce committee.

to look at this in details so the facts and figures are in detail not just within the committee but generally available. mr. mcgone: is that your special committee on planned parenthood? mr. sessions: you need to follow -- mr. mcgovern: with respect -- if you formed a committee to look into this, it would make more sense for you to report legislation after the committee, which i think sounds like a waste of money, you ought to -- you have committees of jurisdiction already. but yell at the committees -- let the committees do their work and have hearings before you bring legislation to the floor. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman. i think he's following up recognizes the state wants this flexibility. the state can get the flexibility. if the state chooses not to take the flexibility come they will not be flexibility. rep. mcgovern: if you have a governor or state legislature that basically wants to take

away the right of a woman to ake this very difficult choice with regard to abortion, that they will do. navending what the supreme court has said. you somehow think that is ok. or if a health care provider provides abortion services to women, which is legal, that you are saying that the state legislature should have the right to take away all medicare, medicaid reimbursement for that health care system for cancer screenings, for other preventive care. i mean, come on. the good news is that this is going nowhere. the bad news is that it continues this drumbeat of beating up on poor women and i think it is wrong. i've said enough and i yield back the time. rep. sessions: my point is that we do believe in regular order and believe that we will have a detailed analysis and report

that will be available from the committee system. thank you very much. the gentleman from louisville, exas, dr. burgess. dr. burgess: in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding to the medicaid system for planned parenthood and that we're only going to pay for the services not associated with an institution that provides abortion services. s a consequence, i think the figures speak volumes about that that there are increased dollars going for women's health that are not associated with those hat provide abortion services. the publication politifact is not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement from the texas alliance for life saying that funding is at historically high levels and just increased

another $50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note that texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including an additional $50 million. politifact looking at the tatement that texas is funding this at high levels ended up rating this claim as true. this is not one that is kind to people on the conservative side. i thought that was significant. we did have a hearing along a similar issue in the energy and commerce committee last week or the week before and i do want to submit for the record the texas women's health program provider survey patient capacity support. this is from january of 2013. that was two years after

governor perry decoupled planned parenthood and medicaid funding. so there was concern that perhaps the level of care was going to drop off. the conclusion of the texas women's health program provider survey was that overall texas women's health program patient capacity -- the results are positive. in most areas, the survey found hat the state has the capacity to serve even more women into - in 2013. a reference as the article that any last legislation that it increased $50 million. this is all to say that it can be done. e do not have to ask the american taxpayer to fund a procedure they find abhorrent. the funding for women's health care has not been affected in the state of texas, even though governor perry decoupled. rep. mcgovern: there is no

federal funding that can be used to perform abortion. that is the law. rep. burgess: you know the money is fungible can be used for anything in the organization. i think for the people of texas that governor perry set us on a good path and this provides the flexibility for other governors to do the same. mr. chairman, i'm grateful to our witnesses. i'm grateful for the presentation today. i the hearing. yield back my time. rep. sessions: they can very much. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: in the movie "frozen" which i've had the good fortune of seeing several times with my grandchildren, both granddaughters, the character elsa sings a song -- i wish i knew all of the words to it. i should as much as --rep.

sessions: is your microphone on? they are saying they cannot hear you. rep. hastings: in the movie "frozen," the character sings a song that says "let it go." and let go is what the republicans need to do not just with this particular measure, but there seems to be this obsession that i witnessed now presentation today. i thank you for having for 22 years of involvement with what a woman's right to choose is. like mr. mcgovern, i associate myself with his remarks. the dramatic thrust seems always to go toward poor women. by my reasoning allows that rich women that have abortions don't have this problem.

if we were to just listen to people, i guess we would figure that rich women do not have abortions. i think i've told the story of when i was a child one and will the -- when a wealthy woman got pregnant, they would go to europe on vacation for periods of time. y question to representative blackburn -- and i've great respect for her legislative skills and passion on this issue it rivals mine on the opposite side. i appreciate that. in some counties, miss blackburn, planned parenthood is the only place for safety net recipients to receive family-planning care. so where do you recommend that they seek treatment at the provider has been expelled from

the state's medicaid program? i heard you earlier say that they would go into the system, but there are some counties that do not have community health acilities. mrs. blackburn: one of the things that we have found, mr. hastings, that you have over 13,000 community health and federally qualified health centers in the country. with planned parenthood, you have a much smaller number of facilities. the community health outreach outnumbers the planned parenthood availability tremendously. one of the things we have seen also is planned parenthood has curtailed and outsourced many of their resources. your faith-based clinics, your fqhcs, your community health systems have been the ones picking up the slack on those.

rep. hastings: you answered what you wanted to answer. you did not answer my question. hen no facility exists other than planned parenthood, where would you have women go? mrs. blackburn: in rural and underserved areas, i am unaware of being any county in this country --rep. hastings: are you aware of counties that have no committee health centers? rep. blackburn: i know that there are committee health departments and federally qualified health centers, and that services are available for those and they are more readily available than they are through planned parenthood centers. we have 55 planned parenthood affiliates around the country. some of them have as many as 20 different clinics. rep. hastings: i agree with you that community facilities -- if you look at the overall number -- outnumber the number. mrs. blackburn: and the access is greater. rep. hastings: you're still not getting to the root of the problem.

rep. schakowsky: this is not specifically mentioning planned parenthood. there are counties and community health centers that do with their own money or private insurance money or whatever provide abortion services. this is legislation that could also take those providers out of the system. this deals with anyone -- for example, cook county, if the legislature decided that cook county health systems, that's clinics and also the hospital, could not be a medicaid recipient because with nonfederal money for poor women, it does provide the whole range of services, including abortion services. the state legislature, posing as doctors, would decide this health service should not be available. and that would be that. rep. hastings: it would seem the

legislation itself is incredibly far-reaching and would essentially allow the state to exclude any provider or entity that has provided an abortion or any entity or provider that has had any sort of association or involvement with abortion. listen to the language and i ask innocently -- unanimously to include a letter over the signature of the president of the american conference of obstetricians and gynecologists. it says, on behalf of the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologist, representing 50,000 physicians and partners in women's health, i urge you to vote no on the women's public health and safety act. this intentionally vage bill

should not be enacted into -- vague bill should not be enacted into law. in falling far short of any standard for sound federal health legislation and policy, it would serve only to scare providers away from providing comprehensive, compassionate care to women and leave women ithout the care they need. america needs more ob/gyn's participating in medicaid programs. this bill would do the opposite. when it comes to the house floor, i urge you to vote no. do not be fooled by the title of this bill. this legislation is nothing more than the latest in a string of attacks against women's health."

i find it strange that where current law denies federal medicaid coverage of abortion and that congress currently imposes unfair limitations on insurance coverage of abortion, federal dollars are withheld from covering a woman's abortion except in limited circumstances, and we all know those. and federal insurance coverage of abortion is restricted. i do not know why we are here other than what ms. slaughter said and i would like to associate myself with her remarks. all we are doing is giving some currency to those who do not want to vote for a clean cr. i might add, mr. chairman, i'm in full disagreement with waiving the six committee rule for energy and commerce, to form some committee to go on yet

another unnecessary probe into not only an organization, but just to give vent to the feelings of some. i do not want a special committee to preserve our providers. i do not need a special committee to preserve what is the law of the land. ultimately, what you all seek to do, and it is that you have continued down this path, is to set the stage ultimately for the overturning of roe versus ade. that is not basically this little bitty provision here. this is one of many over 22 years leading in that direction. i strongly urge you that because

some people have a view that is than mine does not make my view be the prevailing view, but the prevailing sentiment in this country is that women should have the right to control their bodies and to make a determination as to who it is they wish to associate with as a physician and for a law that limits that association, flies in the face of all of the anti-talk about obamacare where people would talking about you won't have your right to choose your own physician, and then you come here and say to poor women, hell no, you don't have that right to go to the provider that are in that area. we should be ashamed of ourselves, putting ourselves in that position. and i certainly will stand in complete opposition to not only this legislation but the ultimate name that you have and

that is overturning roe vs. wade. yield back. mr. session: does any other republican seek time? seeing none, does the gentleman from colorado seek time? the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chair. ms. schakowsky: i'm wanting to see how this bill works. the other week there was a specific bill around planned parenthood defunding. this bill now doesn't mention planned parenthood, but it could actually defund the community health clinics, which last week, if i recall, many of the republicans were arguing how don't worry about planned parenthood, the community health clinics will somehow serve all the women. now they are doing a bill that to defund, as you know, community health centers rely on medicaid funding. am i understanding these two off access to cut

-- for poor women to health care? rep. schakowsky: it could. if those clinics, which we have in cook county and some other places in the state of illinois, also were to dare to participato -- that is the word and i'm not sure what that means -- an abortion services, they could be cut off just as easily as it planned parenthood clinic could be cut off and defunded. understand that there are many, many poor women for whom these clinics are the lifeline. that is what we are talking about. when we talk about medicaid, you have to meet fairly strict income and asset requirements in order to get on the program. and they rely on these medicaid providers. any one of them could be gone.

rep. polis: what might that word participate mean? would that mean if a doctor says your pregnancy could be dangerous to your health and you might need to look at alternatives if it's a nonviable fetus. would that can be -- that is the word and i'm not? rep. schakowsky: i've certainly confused on what that would mean. rep. polis: miss blackburn, if a doctor found that a pregnancy could be life-threatening for the mother, if they were to inform her of that, without the -- would that be participating and therefore render the clinic a potential loss of funding? rep. blackburn: i would direct you to page two line three of the bill or you will see that flexibility is given there. again, as i have said before previously, this is about flexibility for the state. we have states that have sought to end their medicaid contracts. the have been blocked from doing that by cms. they are seeking help from us.

this is a way to make that happen. we have four states that currently are in litigation. rep. polis: which part of the bill were you directing? your amendment or the bill? rep. blackburn: on the amendment. rep. polis: which lines? rep. mcgovern: page two, line three. rep. blackburn: yes for what you will see is that this allows the state to choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its medicaid program. whether it is institutions, agencies, entities, this is something they have said to us, yes, we would like to have this flexibility. it depiffs the states a maximum flexibility so they can come in and set these programs, work with these providers. in texas, dr. burgess just gave us a great example, of when they did the decoupling in texas we

know it works. access to care increases when you allow the states that flexibility and the stats that come from texas are certainly proof of that. you can look at some the faith-based and community clinics that have provided necessary outreach and the way their numbers have increased. rep. polis: there is nothing to stop any of these clinics from doing outreach now. this refers to potential loss of unding for clinics that have a series of health services that you disagree with. the exception that you pointed to is only for a life endangering physical condition, not for a health endangering physical condition. it would require a very high burden on the imminent danger of death unless an abortion is performed. often when a doctor is working

with a patient, one of the reasons that this is not a good area for government to get involved with, there's a lot more nuance than that. the doctor might alert a woman that there is high risk with a particular pregnancy or that the pregnancy could have severe health implications. it may or may not reach the standard of immediately life endangering physical condition. there is a lot broader set of circumstances, which are customarily -- in fact, it is the responsibility of the doctor with hippocratic oath to make sure that the mother is aware of the impact on health. i really see these bills from last week and this week as a double way me. -- double whammy. one is targeting planned parenthood specifically in the second one is threatening to undercut the very system of committee health clinics, which just last week were touted as potential alternatives to planned parenthood for women, insufficient as they are with not enough locations to serve nearly the number of women that

are currently served by planned parenthood. i think that these two bills are clearly the wrong direction. i think we will be talking about another select committee or special committee shortly. my view on that is that the only committee or jurisdiction on these matters is a woman, her doctor, and god any other legislative body simply does not have jurisdiction and i yield back. rep. sessions: thank you very much. i see no time being requested by ny member. i want to thank both of you for taking time to be with us. as we spoke up front, this is an important and sensitive issue and i appreciate both of our witnesses appropriately for presenting their views with respect to each other and this committee. i want to thank both of you very much for your time. please make sure you say to the stenographer anything you came here with writing and i thank you very much. this now closes the hearing

portion of hr 3495, the women's health and safety act. the chair will be in pursuit of otion from the mrs. fox. ms. foxx: i move the committee move the women's public health safety act and closed rule. it provides one hour debate and equally provides control with the chair and the energy,'s with their respective needs to report consideration of the bill. the rules waives all points of order in consideration of the bill. the rule provides the amendment printed in the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted an the bill as amended shall be considered as read. the rule waives all points of order against provisions of the bill as amended. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. finally, section 2 of the rules waives clause 6-a of rule 13 requiring a 2/3 vote to consider a rule on the same day as it is reported from the rules committee against any resolution

reported from the rules committee through the legislative day of october 1, 2015. mr. sessions: you heard the motion of the the gentlewoman from north carolina, as well as what i believe is a straightforward explanation of the rules. is there amendment or discussion to that? ms. slaughter: yes, mr. chair. mr. session: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: i have an amendment to the rule. h.r. 3495 is yet another bill that has failed to go through regular order. there have been no hearings or markups on this bill. meaning we have not heard from expert witnesses and no one has had an opportunity to even offer amendments to improve this bill. even worse, today's closed rule self-executes a handpicked publican amendment denying members the opportunity to vote on it and completely shuts down the amendment process for the other 434 members. and i'd like to put on the record a statement about what happened in other places where

they tried to shut down the planned parenthood providers. in indiana, it led to an h.i.v. epidemic. i know we all know about that. in texas, it led to tens of thousands of women not getting care. and in tennessee, is left with 1,400% drop in services. is it too much to ask that we follow regular order and allow the house to work its will on a measure of such importance? mr. chairman, i move the committee grant h.r. 3495, an open rule, so that all members, both sides of the house, have an opportunity to offer amendments to this bill on the floor as we were elected to do. mr. sessions: you heard amendment and discussion of the further discussion by any member of the committee? seeing none, vote on slaughter amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentlewoman from ask for a roll call vote. ms. foxx: no. mr. cole, mr. cole, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. woodall, no.

mr. burgess, no. mr. stivers, no. mr. collins, mr. collins, no. mr. byrne. no. mr. newhouse, mr. newhouse, no. ms. slaughter, yes. ms. slaughter aye. mr. mcgotsche, mr. mcgovern aye. mr. hastings, yes. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis, mr. polis, aye. mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, no. mr. sessions: clerk will report the total. >> four yeas nine yeas. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman does not seek time. i apologize s there further -- the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i wanted to acknowledge i have a very special guest tonight. my sister is here. wanted to welcome her to the rules committee. mr. sessions: that's allsome. great. we have had your dad. we have had your son. mr. polis: big month for family. mr. majority leader -- i mean, mr. chairman. mr. sessions: this is awesome.

we are delighted to have her. ms. slaughter: currying favor over there. mr. sessions: where is she from? mr. polis: boulder, colorado. mr. sessions: thank you very much. no further amendments or discussions. the vote will be on the motion of the the gentlewoman from north carolina, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the gentlewoman from asks for a roll call vote. >> physical foxx, aye. mr. cole, mr. cole, aye. mr. woodall, mr. woodall, aye. mr. burgess, mr. burr guest, eye. mr. stivers, mr. stivers, eye. mr. collins, mr. collins eye. mr. byrnes, mr. byrnes eye. mr. newhouse, mr. newhouse, aye. ms. slaughter, ms. slaughter, no. mr. mcgovern, mr. mcgovern, no. mr. hastings, mr. hastings, no. mr. polis, mr. polis, no. mr. chairman, aye. mr. chairman aye. mr. sessions: clerk will report the total. >> nine yeas, four nays.

the gentlewoman from north carolina, vice chairman of the committee, ms. foxx, will be handling this for republicans. ms. slaughter: mr. hastings for the democrats. mr. sessions: judge hastings for democrats. i'd like to if i can be as clear as i can be not knowing when the senate will perform their duties. knowing that rather quickly, as soon as we receive it, we would want members to know, put us on notice, but our next scheduled meeting is for wednesday at 3:00. knowing that if the senate gets their work done, we would come in as quickly as possible. i will deal with hopefully this -- ms. slaughter: we'll deal with the c.r. mr. sessions: because of the timing, i would anticipate that. i would -- i know miles and he will be in contact. and i'll do my very best to get with you. ms. slaughter: can't wait to see what's in it. mr. sessions: i know you will. me, too. thank you very much.

this now finishes the committee work for the day. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> that planned parenthood bill is due to come up on the house floor today. the house is due in 25 minutes or so on that bill. along with a temporary government funding bill. the government funds run out tomorrow. later today the house also expected to take up funding for the veterans administration. live coverage of the house when they gavel back in at noon eastern here on c-span. the house oversight committee is holding a hearing today on the activities of planned parenthood. the head of that organization on your screen is among those testifying. and you can see that live on c-span3. we are also asking for your twitter and facebook comments on whether the government should fund planned parenthood. hearing also will air tonight on c-span after the house finishes its work for the day. the process of selecting a new house republican leader starting to move forward today.

the hill has this article on that. house oversight committee chair, jason chaffetz, chairing today's hearing on planned parenthood, we just showed you, he is urging congressman tray gowdy to run for majority leader. that's a move that would complicate an already tough contest between two red state conservatives. tray gowdy, quote, is the best person to unite our conference and articulate the republican message. chaffetz wrote in an email to the hill this morning. he's widely trusted and beloved in our conference. majority leader steve scalise and budget committee chair tom price of georgia already in the race to succeed incumbent majority leader kevin mccarthy. if he is elected, the neck speaker of the house. read more about that at "the hill" dot-com. both republicans and democrats held party meetings this morning. several members spoke with reporters afterwards. up first comments from epublican members.

the speaker: good morning, everybody. the house continues to focus its attention on the american people's priorities. whether it's protecting life, whether it's dealing with the problems of obamacare, or keeping the government open we are here to do the people's work. there's a lot on our plate this week. in addition to that, the idea that we should -- the president should lift sanctions on iran and provide iran with about $100 billion of their assets locked up in western banks without first paying the victims of iranian terrorism, there are about $43 billion of judgments against iran for u.s. citizens who have been slaughtered by the iranians. i'm sure mr. meehan will tell you about his bill.

mr. meehan: there is a lot of excitement, chatter about this week. mr. mccarthy: today we have have duffy's bill on the floor. duffy's bill, women's public health and safety act, gives flexibility to states, especially when it comes to medicaid funding and others. and their choice where to spend it. also meehan has his bill. i don't want to bring it up because i want him to talk about it. this is a fundamentally changing bill. when you want to talk about the funding going around to fund terrorism, and the justice of those who have been murdered, this could change direction of where we go. and we'll have the c.r. on the floor this week as well. >> i want to first talk about sean duffy's bill. mr. scalise: states like my state, louisiana, would like the opportunity to cancel contracts with abortion providers under

medicaid and shift those dollars to health care providing facilities and do not perform abortion. every state that wants to have that opportunity should be able to cancel those contracts and redirect the money. the duffy bill allows that to happen. i think it's a very important bill when you talk about health care and also stopping taxpayer funding of abortion. and then as far as pat meehan's bill, i think it's critically important that we put american ictims of iranian terror first when it comes to the dollars that the president's considering turning over to iran. over $100 billion of money that's frozen. shouldn't the american victims of iranian terror have the first opportunity to get that money that they rightfully have won in court settlements before the president turns that money over to the largest state sponsor of error?

mrs. mcmorris rodgers: we have a few days to process speaker boehner's resignation. for me it's been a privilege to work alongside him and he's been the right man at the right time to be leading this conference. when you look at his tenure as the speaker of this house, he's d us to have the largest majority in over 80 years. we have cut spending by over $2 trillion. enacted the first major entitlement reform in nearly 20 years. and protected 99% of americans from a permanent tax increase. now, since this difficult announcement on friday, we have all had the time just to search our hearts and i am confident we are going to come out even more united and more effective in this cause that has caused us to want to serve in congress. it's an honor to do so. certainly people all across this country want to see congress getting things done. they want to see us focused on issues that are going to make

their lives better. we met this morning and we will be meeting again this afternoon. as republicans, to discuss our priorities and how we are going to proceed. america's future depends on us offering positive solutions working together so that america's future will be strong. mr. meehan: good morning. i want to express my deep appreciation to my colleagues in the conference who have joined together so strongly to support the justice for the iranian victims -- just tims for victims of iranian terror act. this has its a background i had as a prosecutor when i saw how important it was for victims to have a moment in which they see some measure of justice for the sufferings that they have experienced. there are some $43.5 billion of judgments which have been

rendered under american law for victims of acts of iranian terror. there's more than 80 lawsuits that have been successfully prosecuted through the courts. despite this, not one cent has been paid by iran towards these victims. this is an opportunity to change that dynamic. what will happen if we continue on the course that's currently under the matter, more than $100 billion will be returned to iran and that will be the very money that could be used by the victims to see some resolution. i must also say that there is a matter of precedent here that ought not be underestimated. when libya was resolved -- was in a situation in which sanctions were released, more than a decade ago, at that time as well the victims of lockerbie and others were compensated before those dollars that were under sanctions were returned to libya.

in this particular case that opportunity was never pursued. so very simply what this legislation will do would require that the judgments that have been legally rendered be paid to iran before any sanctions relief money is returned to iran which they can use for a number of purposes, including in the minds of many of us fomenting further terror around the world. there's at least 80 sponsors of this bill and almost unanimous consent among my colleagues on this side of the aisle. i suspect it will be introduced in the next day or two on the senate side as well. and i hope that we will receive strong support for the bill. thank you. he speaker: i just can't wait. >> mr. speaker, dealing with the debt limit, one of the things you'd like to clear away so as not to burden your successor? the speaker: we'll have see.

there's a number of issues we are going to try to deal with over the coming months. but i'm not going to change my decisionmaking process in any way. just a matter of if there is a way to get some things done. so i don't burden my successor, i'll get it finished. >> on that point you said you didn't want to leave. conservative groups outside now are saying if you stand with boehner we are going to come after you. are you going to put mr. scalise, mr. mccarthy in a tough spot if you try to move these items in the last month? the speaker: take this one day at a time and do what we can on behalf of the american people. i'm not going to change my process at all. i spend every day trying to do the right things for the right reasons. i'm not going to be any different tomorrow than i am today. i'm not worried at all. >> on the c.r. that's coming up today, that breaks the domestic side of the spending caps by about $3 billion. are you concerned that doing

that sets a precedent for a final bill to also break those caps? the speaker: not at all. this is a bipartisan agreement. we'll take care of it today. >> any thoughts, mr. speaker, on the timing of the leadership election? if not, any broad considerations within the conference about when that would be held? the speaker: no. i told the members this morning i have not decided when the leadership elections will occur. i asked for their input. and i got a few pieces of advice, but i would hope to make an announcement in the next day or two about that. to be you like it sooner? you don't care? it's up to the members not up to me. like any decision i make, i listen to my colleagues and i'm listening to them. i would hope to make a decision, oon.

>> mr. mccarthy, some of the conservative, skeptics, are concerned if you're speaker would be much different than mr. boehner's speakership. how would you be different compared to mr. boehner? mr. mccarthy: i won't won't be as tanned. john is a very good and decent man. this is a man that came >> mr. into this office, and if you looked at those that may be -- maybe want to fight, how did the house bank get shut down? john boehner is the last one standing to shut it down. he went into leadership, left, became a committee chairman. then came back and fought for another majority. he's one of the few standing that's won two majorities. but everybody is different. there is a generational difference about us as well. i'm a little younger. i in what's going on across the con-- i know what's going on across the country, and i'm concerned about what we hear.

a lot of people in washington concerned about power and institutions. i'm concerned about making a difference in everybody's lives. we want to make sure we are closer to the people. it that they feel this is their government, they are in charge, and we serve them. now, that's not easy and it won't change overnight. but that's our mission. the speaker: thanks, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> javier becerra, chairman of the house democratic caucus, joined by our vice chairman, joe crowley, chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee, congressman from new mexico, ben ray lujan, and our colleague from california, who has been a champion on so many issues, but certainly issues relating to health care and women's rights, jackie speier. glad she's with us as well. we had a caucus meating where

the principal focus of discussion was making sure we don't experience what we saw two years ago in 2013 when republicans decided to shut the government down for reasons unrelated to the government itself and the budget that needs to be in place for the government service that is we pay for with our taxes can keep on moving forward. two years ago we saw that as a result of the republican government shut down that some 120,000 jobs were lost. we saw as well that the economy lost some $24 billion. and while $1 billion may not seem like a lot to some politicians in washington, d.c., a fraction of that would help a lot of people help pay for their college education, for their kids, the mortgage on their homes home, or just making sure they get ready for retirement. so it adds up. certainly i don't believe most americans would like to see our republican colleagues take the same tact they used two years

ago in trying to force issues on their social agenda through a halt to our government operations, whether it's social security, veteran services, food safety inspections, or the research that's being done right now at the national institutes of health to help us solve the problems of cancer and alzheimer's disease and so forth. so we are hoping that we are going to watch our republican colleagues move forward. we are prepared to do what it takes to keep our government operating, operating efficiently, smartly. the one thing that is becoming very troubling is that the stopgap measures are becoming the rule rather than the exception when it comes to our budgets. and just as no small business on main street would operate on stopgap budgets and wait till the very end of the cliff to decide what to do, neither should the largest economy in the world operate that way. and so we are hoping that our republican colleagues will

decide not to go that same course of shutting down the government and that will have a long-term budget that really does meet the needs of the american people. so we are hoping that having expressed that very clearly that the message goes out that democrats are ready to work with our republican colleagues, whoever becomes the republican leadership in the house of representatives, we are ready to work with them because we think that with the economy churning, moving forward, jobs being created, this is the last time we need to have a government shut down by our republican colleagues. with that let me turn it over to our vice chairman, joe crowley. you, mr. y: thank chairman. what a week last week was, to be in the presence of the holy father, pope francis, and more importantly, the message that he had for america and leaving an indecibel mark on all americans, whether catholic or non-catholic or believer or not. it was an incredible week. i'm wearing green today and i

have to switch late you, mr. hairman.r today to pink. but aim wearing green this morning because the pope said that green is the color of hope. he told that to speaker boehner. i want to thank the speaker for inviting the pope, the pontiff here. i want to thank leader pelosi, as well as my colleagues i thought acted remarkably, responsibly in the chamber. but listening to the pope's message to congress, whether it's on climate change, death penalty, a myriad of issues that he mentioned, that i think was really clear is that he emphasized the need for us to do as representatives what's in the best interest of our country and to govern. and that includes, i think, a message to my republican colleagues to stop governing by crisis. there's enough crises in the world, you have heard me say this over and over again, there are natural disasters happening around the world and here in the united states. we have drought, we have forest

fires. we have -- we know we'll have tornadoes at some point. we'll have hurricanes, hopefully not in new york. we'll have them somewhere. hopefully not anywhere. there's enough of that going on. the american public does not need additional crises. going from man-made crisis, man-made fiscal cliff to fiscal cliff. creates more and more anxiety. it hurts the markets. we have seen what's been going on. quite frankly my republican colleagues are contributing to that in the mere suggestion that once again we will not pay our nation's debts. that does not send the right message that we espouse as america. not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world. and the notion or idea we may have gotten past the shut down for this week. remains to be seen. we were hopeful. we are hopeful again that we

will get pink. but aim through this week. we know that in december we are going to be naysing the same man-made crises again. right now the issue they have chosen is women's health. they decided this is a good issue to go after. go after women's health. the war on women continues. i have news for you, whether it's planned parenthood or some other entity, there would have been another issue that they would have chosen to shut down government. they did it two years ago. they almost did it a year ago. and they want to do it again. it's in their blood. republicans for some reason just need to do this. i don't get t the american people don't get it. -- get it. the american people don't get it. they know it will cost us millions and millions of dollars americans. for that is not a way to grow our economy. that is not a way to govern. stop governing from crises to crises. with that i want to turn it over to my colleague from new mexico, the chairman of the triple c, mr. ben ray lujan. mr. lujan: good morning, everyone. i think what we are seeing yet

again as our chairman and vice chairman remind us about the responsibility of governing is how house republicans have demonstrated all year that they cannot govern responsibly on behalf of hardworking, everyday americans, putting infighting over governing and reckless positions over progress. the republican party is broken and speaker boehner's resignation is the starkest and most high profile example of that dysfunction and chaos it's disturbing that speaker boehner was somehow not conservative ough for many of our republican colleagues. let's be clear, this is not a speaker boehner problem, it's a republican problem. this is a republican conference problem. and the next speaker will face the same stark choice as boehner. go along with the extreme base or get run over by them. the right wing is emboldened right now and that will only continue to grow as we approach big upcoming deadlines. raising the debt ceiling, extenders, the highway trust

fund, extending the export-import bank. but the american people are watching and they know that this fight within the republican conference that is on full display with all this dysfunction, it matters to them. it impacts their lives. there is no doubt that voters are paying attention to the broken republican-controlled congress and know that it is not functioning at all. let alone functioning to make their lives better. it's clear, republicans will be held accountable for this dysfunction in moderate and swing districts across america. with that recognize our colleague from california, the very honorable jackie speier. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. the republican game of brinksmanship must end. because it's a game that is being played out by stepping on the lives of women. there are at planned parenthood some 800,000 examines exams

given every year. breast cancer exams, contraception, and s.t.d. test testing. what does that mean? 800,000 is the size of the state of wyoming or vermont or south dakota or north dakota. we are talking about a lot of people. i want to draw your attention to colleen, 27 years old from albany, new york. was in between jobs. and as such she went to planned parenthood. for health care. there it was discovered that she had stage two breast cancer. stage two breast cancer. and it was because she went to planned parenthood and got the health care she needed that she is alive today. it's not just women that get health care at planned parenthood. some 300,000 men seek services at planned parenthood as well. so the time for the republican majority in this house to stop

the bringsmanship, stop their absolute focus on trying to shut down planned parenthood must stop. because by doing that they are shutting down health care for women. and it's time for all of that to end. thank you. mr. becerra: with that we'll take any questions. >> you mentioned the turmoil on the g.o.p. side several times. sound like you are not optimistic the next speaker will be able to get things in line. a couple of you are from california. what do you make of leader mccarthy seems to be the favorite? mr. becerra: i'm simply say i think kevin mccarthy is someone who has been in leadership not just in the house but before he served in the state legislature, and he was in the republican leadership there as well. and so he understands legislators. he understands the legislative process. my sense and our hope would be if he becomes the speaker that he would use that knowledge to

help us move legislation forward, to try to get things done. perhaps he'll have more success in corraling his own team so that we can get things done. but at the same time the concern is that as the vice chairman just said that will he work with them? the chairman of the dccc said this, will he be able to work with his colleagues on the republican side or get run over by them? our hope is that not only can he work with them but reach across the aisle to work with us so we can get things done rather than doing things at the last moment through these fiscal cliff kind of deals. jackie, i know that california -- ms. speier: i would say kevin mccarthy is an amiable man. he has served here in congress and has developed great leadership skills. but you have a rump caucus in the republican party right now that is turning into a cancer. and they want their pound of flesh. if they don't get their pound of flesh they will shut down this

government. and kevin mccarthy will be faced with the same challenges that speaker boehner has been faced with. trying to assuage them and never assuaging them enough. >> following up on that, how do you counter that to prevent a shut down from minorities? he focus in on the senate? or can you do it with house republicans and convince them not to listen? mr. crowley: in thinking about whoever the republican leadership will be in the house, it may not be as important how they get along with us as how they get along with themselves. quite frankly. i do think that there may be a learning curve. a time in which -- honeymoon, because there is no time for honeymoon, but the hope that maybe it's mitch mcconnell, maybe some other adult within government from this side of the aisle who will be able to temper

some of the head strong folks they have within their caucus. they may also get alleviated by election of the some of the far right wing to their leadership. don't know what that lfpblet that will be their decision to make. what i know we are concerned about is ending governing by crisis. and getting them to focus on ending government by crisis and doing more long-term visionary things for the country. hat they have consistently lacked is a vision for growth in the united states. it hasn't happened in the john boehner. we hope it happens under the next speaker that they empower. the bottom line is they have done nothing -- when they have been in control, to grow the contry. if anything it's stymied the growth of this country and government. mr. becerra: jackie, ben? other questions, comments? with that then thank you-all

very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> those remarks from house democrats and republicans as leaders of both parties met this morning discussing a way forward on a number of issues. house leadership changes related to last week's announcement by speaker boehner that he's stepping down at the end of next month. live picture of the floor of the house legislative business about to get under way. members will be working today on that planned parenthood bill, along with preliminary consideration on temporary government funding. that will be formly debated tomorrow. last day of the -- formally debated tomorrow. last day of the fiscal year. later today house expected to take up funding for the veterans administration. live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. members about to gavel in.