america's companies and workers are suffering. mr. tonko, you mentioned what g.e. has recently done. we see manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas due to the inability of corporations and small businesses to access vital guarantees and financing. every major trading nation in the world, other than the u.s. right now, offers export financing. . without it our manufacturers d workers are at a competitive disadvantage. something we cannot afford. in 2014 alone, the ex-im bank financed over $27 billion of exports, supported 164,000 jobs in the u.s. $675 ile generating a million surplus. a surplus when we're looking for money. the ex-im bank generated a large surplus. the bank is vital to supporting

small businesses. nearly 90% of ex-im bank transactions directly support small businesses. we need small business to succeed in this nation, if this nation is going to succeed. small businesses create the large majority of the jobs in this country, small businesses need the ex-im bank. so it's time to re-authorize the bank and support american jobs in manufacturing. we cannot wait any longer, we need to bring this to the floor, get this done and get more americans back to work. thank you very much, mr. tonko, for your work on this. mr. tonko: i thank you, the gentleman from illinois, for joining us on this very important topic. and finally we'll go to the gentlewoman from ohio who is just a strong voice for american jobs, american workers and hits hard at that agenda and it's not surprising to see on the floor, to join us in this effort, welcome, representative kaptur.

ms. kaptur: thank you for bringing us together. as always, helping to be a van guard for jobs in america. and the importance of re-authorizing the export-import bank. i rise today, three months after my republican colleagues in the majority have failed, failed, failed in their responsibility to guard our economy by not re-authorizing the export-import bank. since 2009 alone, the ex-im bank has supported over a million -- $1,3 -- 1,300,000 jobs in our country and yet today it has been put into idle in limbo, as republicans let it wither on the vine. re-authorizing the bank means jobs. let me repeat, jobs here in america. because when exports increase to other countries, american companies hire more workers to meet the added global demand. anyone serving in congress who doesn't understand how import -- how important, vital the export-import bank is to jobs in america and to financing

those exports to other nations shouldn't be serving here. you can't live in a cave and hope to compete globally. of special note, the export-import bank pays for itself, contributing $675 million alone in 2014 and nearly $7 billion over the last 20 years to the u.s. treasury. it's well managed and has an extremely low default rate. yet today, a time when america needs more jobs to keep growing, the republican majority has shifted the country again into idle. more than 50 countries have an export-import bank. i wouldn't go through them all. china, japan, brazil, canada, many of our biggest trading partners, and in many markets like mexico we can't move our products in there without the export-import bank. ask superior products in cleveland, ohio, or a.j. rose manufacturing -- manufacturing in cleveland, or how about first solar in ohio. 98% of its exports are tied to

export-import bank financing. republicans have really put us on the brink of losing thousands more jobs in our country. look at general electric and what it just did. it decided, because they didn't have ex-im bank financing, they're going to move their operations to britain and hire 1,000 people. now, how backwards is that kind of thinking? it could not be any clearer that the shutdown of the export-import bank will cost us so many jobs in this country. and how demoralizing to people who fight for american jobs and american workers every day. what we know here and we've seen it operate last week, this week, an a extreme wing of the republican party -- an extreme wing of the republican party has ignored warpings from their colleagues, leading economists -- warnings from their colleagues, leading economists, the u.s. chamber of commerce, and countless other organizations as they hold hostage the import -- export-import bank for reason noes rational person can understand. they're even ignoring its

charter and the immeasurable good it does for this country and the ability of our companies to compete in foreign markets, which are so difficult, so difficult for them to leap over and to get over the walls, barriers, that prevent our products from going abroad. it is our desire that american companies will be able to compete and win. we try for it every day. that's why many of us ran for office. to have this kind of wrench thrown in the wheel of progress, of economic progress, for our country, is something that any rational american simply can't understand. i thank the gentleman so very much for his time. it doesn't have to be this way. mr. tonko: i thank the gentlelady from ohio for her insights and her powerful statement. it's very clear, it's very straightforward. support american workers, support small business, support exporting of american manufactured goods, support industry. let's grow our economy. we're going to close with a very forceful voice, one with

great passion, the gentlelady from wisconsin who also has been impacted by this failure to re-authorize the export-import bank, representative moore, thank you so much, it's an honor to serve with you. thank you for being here. ms. moore: thank you, representative tonko. i want to associate myself with all the comments from my great colleague, ms. kaptur. i can tell you, when i was elected to congress, no one could have paid me to believe that we would be on this floor fighting the republican party prevent them from basically neutering the economic progress of business here. and this is what has happened. as the gentlelady from -- and this is what has happened. as the gentlelady from ohio just mentioned, g.e., very close to my district, has announced plans to leave our 400 n, 350 jobs, and

suppliers, that they have notified that they're moving their facility plants to canada. they say that the suppliers generate almost $47 million in revenue in wisconsin alone. $47 million in wisconsin alone. but they are leaving, they say, because they desperately cannot make the deals work without financing from the export-import bank. and many people have said, oh, they wanted to do this anyway and they're using it as an excuse, but g.e. says that this is the main reason, that they continue to urge congress to re-authorize the ex-im bank, because it's a very, very competitive world and in a slow

growth and volatile world, they have to go where the markets are. they have to compete in 170 countries. so i just wanted to express my grief, my condolences to the 350 employees, to the entire supply chain, and to recognize that once again, once again policies of this misguided republican majority are going to increase the misery index among people who live in my region. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. tonko: i thank the gentlelady from wisconsin. we have exhausted our time here. but i will state clearly, we cannot afford to dull the competitive edge of american business, american industry, we cannot afford to impact negatively the american worker, we should not suffocate the american dream, simply by this determination to shut down an

export-import bank that has helped as a tool in the tool kit allow us to be strong, allows you -- allow us to be competitive, robustly competitive. re-authorize the export-import bank. the damage is already beginning to hit home across this great nation, we deserve -- we must do better, the american worker deserves our support. american business and industry deserves our support and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman from new york, yields back. does the gentleman from new york have a motion? mr. tonko: i move that the house stand adjourned. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning for morning hour debate.

or keeping the government open, we're 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, and there are about $43 billion of judgment against iran for u.s. citizens who have been slaughtered by the iranian as, i'm sure mr. meehan will tell you about his bill. mr. meehan: there's a lot of excitement, chatter, about this week. we've got our work to do. today we'll have duffy's bill on the floor. mr. mccarthy: duffy's bill, women's public health and safety act, gives flexibility to states, especially when it comes to medicaid funding and

others, on their choices whereof to spend it. -- of where to spend it. also, meehan has his bill and i don't want to bring it up because i want him to get -- to be able to talk about it. but 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 can change the direction of where we go. and when we'll have the c.r. on the floor this week as well. mr. scalise: states like my state would like the opportunity to cancel contracts with abortion providers like medicaid and shift shows dollars to health care providing facilities that do not perform abortion. every state that wants to have that opportunity should be able to cancel those contracts and redirect the money. and 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 victims 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've had a few days now to process speaker boehner's resignation. and for me, i just want to say 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 and when you look at his tenure as the speaker of this house, he's led us to have the largest

majority in over 80 years, we've 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've all had the time just to search our hearts and i am confident that we're going to come out even more united and more effective in this cause that has caused us to want to serve in congress and 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're going to proceed. america's future depends on us offering positive solutions, working together so that

america's future will be trong. >> 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, the justice for victims of iranian terror act. this has its dervation in a background i have 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 judgment which have been rendered under american law for victims of acts of iranian terror. mr. meehan: 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 matter, more than $100 billion will be turned to iran and that will be the very corpus that could be able to be used by those victims to see some resolution. i must also say that there's 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. and 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 that 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. speaker boehner: i just want kate -- i just can't way. reporter: mr. speaker, -- inaudible] speaker boehner: we'll have to see. there's a number of issues that we're going to try to deal with ver the coming months, but i'm not going to change my decision making process in any way. just matter if there's a way to get some things done, so i don't burden my successor, i'm

going to get them finished. your er: on that point, -- [inaudible] -- however conservative groups outside are now saying if you stand with boehner we're going to come after you. are you going to put mr. scalise, mr. mccarthy in a tough spot if you try to move these item notice last month? mr. boehner: 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 and i'm not going to be any different tomorrow than i am today. i'm not worried at all. reporter: 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 deal to also breaks those caps? mr. boehner: not at all. there's been a bipartisan agreement and we'll take care of it today. reporter: any thoughts, mr. speaker, on the timing of the leadership election and if not, any broad considerations within the conference about when that

would be held? mr. boehner:. 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 wo about that. reporter: would you like it to be sooner? you don't care? mr. boehner: it's up to the members, it's not up to me. like any decision i make, i listen to my colleagues and i'm listening to them and i would hope to make a decision soon. reporter: mr. mccarthy, some of the conservative skeptics are concerned that your speaker would be much different than mr. boehnerer's speakership. how would you be different? [laughter] mr. mccarthy: i won't be as tan. [laughter] john is a very good and decent man.

this is a man that came into this office and if you looked t those that maybe want to fight, how did the house get shut down? john boehner is the last one standing who shut it down. he then fought to get his majority. 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's a generational a difference about us as well. i'm a little younger. [laughter] no, no, no. but look. i know what's going on across the country. and i'm concerned about what we hear. a lot of people in washington are concerned about power and institutions. i'm concerned about making a difference in everybody's lives. we want to make sure that we're closer to the people. that they feel this is their government, they're in charge and we serve them. that's not easy and it won't

change overnight. ut that's our mission. mr. boehner: thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> house democrats also held a briefing with reporters earlier today. they focused their remarks on federal spending and the upcoming republican leadership elections. this is about 15 minutes. mr. becerra: ok. javier becerra. joined by our vice chairman, joe crowley, chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee, congressman from new mexico, mr. lujan, and our colleague from california who has been a champion on issues relating to health care and women's rights, jackie speier. glad that she's with us as well. we had a caucus meeting where the principle 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 services that we pay for with our taxes can keep on moving forward. two years ago we saw that as a result of the republican government shutdown, that 120,000 jobs were lost. we saw as well that the economy lost some $24 billion and while a billion dollars may not seem like a lot to 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 or just making sure they're getting ready for retirement. so it adds up. certainly i don't believe most americans would like to see our republican colleagues take the same tack 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. and so we're hoping that we're going to watch our republican colleagues move forward. we're 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 stop gap measures are becoming the rule rather than the exception when it comes to our budgets. just as no small business on main street would operate on stop gap budgets and wait until the very end of the cliff to decide what to do, neither should the largest economy in the world operate that way. so we're hoping that our republican colleagues will decide not to go that same

course of shutting down the government and that we'll have a long term budget that really does meet the needs of the american people. so, we're 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're 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 shutdown by our republican colleagues with that let me turn it over to joe crowelly. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. chairman. what a week last week was. to be in the presence of the holy father, pope francis, and more importantly the message he had for america. and leaving, i believe, an indelible mark on all americans, whether catholic or non-catholic, or wleesker -- believer or not. it was really an incredible week. i'm wearing green today and i think i have to switch to pink,

but i'm 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 all 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, on a myriad of issues that he had mentioned, what 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 from -- for my republican colleagues to stop governing by crisis. there's enough crises in the world. i think you've 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 manmade crises and manmade fiscal cliff to fiscal cliff creates more and more anxiety. it hurts the markets, we've 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. the notion or idea, we may have gone pat past a shutdown for this week, that remains to be scene, we're hopeful again that we will get through this week, but we know that in december we're going to be facing the same manmade crises again. and right now the issue they've chosen is women's health. they decided that 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 it. the american people don't get it. they know that it will cost us billions and billions of dollars and that it will mean job loss for americans. job loss for americans. 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 dccc, mr. lujan. mr. lujan: good morning, everyone. i think what we're 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 in fighting 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 dess function and chaos -- dysfunction and chaos. it's disturbing that speaker boehner was somehow not conservative enough for many of our republican colleagues. but 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, and 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's no doubt that voters are paying attention to the broken republican controlled congress and, no, that is not functioning at all, let alone functioning to make their lives better. it's clear, republicans will be held account forble this dysfunction -- accountable for this dysfunction. with that, i 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 exams given every year. breast cancer exams,

contraception, and s.t.d. testing. what does that mean? 800,000 is the size of the state of wyoming. or the state of vermont. or south dakota or north dakota. we're talking about a lot of people. i want to draw your attention to coleen, 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 brinksmanship, stop their

absolute focus on trying to shut down planned parenthood must stop. because by doing that they're 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 from the press. yes. reporter: you mentioned the turmoil on the g.o.p. side several times. it sounds like you're 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 the mccarthy being the favorite right now? mr. becerra: i'll simply say that 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 and 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 will he get run over by them? our hope is that not only can he work with them, but he'll 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 that kevin mccarthy is an amiable man. he's 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. and if they don't get their pound of flesh, they will shut down this government. 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. reporter: following up on that. how do you counter that to prevent a shutdown from the minority? do you focus on senate, hoping mcconnell does something that will pressure mccarthy, who is going to be pressured from the right? or can you -- [inaudible] -- with house republicans and convince them not to listen to their red flank? mr. crowley: 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 -- i can't see a mondayymoon because there's no time for a honeymoon. but the hope that maybe it's mitch mcconnell. maybe it's some other adults within government from their side of the aisle who will be able to temper some of the head

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

national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2015] >> and another meeting going on with house members at this hour. live on capitol hill here on c-span. tweeting house republicans are now meeting for a special conference on setting up leadership elections. members only. no staff allowed inside at this time. "politico" tweeting, daniel webster, who is running for speaker, just entered g.o.p. conference meeting it. started around 5:00. that's 5:00 eastern. no tweeting rights, no tweeting rule. texas republican louie gohmert saying members were told no phones allowed in the 5:00 p.m. meeting on leadership elections. and a tweet that mulvaney finished meeting with mccarthy about 15 minutes ago about the effort to draft gowdy to serve in leadership. gowdy wants to stay chair of benghazi committee. that's what politico a's d write being too. saying that gowdy said today he will remain on the benghazi

committee. not running for republican leadership. he also said, they also write that he said he would reject a movement to draft him into the race. meanwhile, other republicans are looking in another direction. the headline in national journal, moderates like -- look to flex their muscle in majority leader race. without a candidate of their own, in the race for majority leader, house republican moderates and defense hawks are looking to influence the contest. as a counterbalance to conservatives with some even pushing extreme punishment for rebelious members. we'll get reaction on capitol hill if there is any. take you there live here on c-span. in the meantime, we can tell but our programming tonight. at a 8:00 eastern, a hearing today in the oversight committee in the house, nearly four-hour hearing with the president of planned parenthood. we will show that to you tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern. also hear some of your comments and calls as well. the house itself earlier today passed a bill that allows states to exclude planned

parenthood and other groups that provide abortion services from participating in their medicaid programs. here's a look at that floor debate from earlier this afternoon. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3495, the women's public health and safety act. this bill, at its core, is about choice as well as protecting the lives of millions of unborn babies across america. .r. 34695 would empower states with flexibility to include or -- h.r. 3495 would empower states with flex ict to include or not include providers who assist in elected abortions. the hyde amendment already makes sure that federal medicaid dollars do not pay for

elective abortions. this bill would amend current law so that states would have the flexibility and discretion to work with qualified providers of their choice. this bill also means states would be able to remove the largest abortion chain from being the recipient of millions of dollars of state and federal funds, which are allocated within their states. planned parenthood has received through billion medicaid over a three-year period, and states who wish to eliminate planned parenthood from this funding stream are being blocked from doing so. all medicaid providers ought to be held responsible for their actions. however, the current administration is interpreting current law to protect the interest of political elites over the health care of those

truly in need. states should be able to work with providers who prioritize and respect life and exclude organizations whose business model is built around the destruction of life. planned parenthood is the nation's largest abortion chain -- 327,653 300 abortions in the last reported year. that comes out to an average of 898 abortions per day every day. 37 abortions every hour. three abortions every five minutes. more than one abortion every two minutes. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette. ms. degette: thank you, madam

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. degette: thank you. madam speaker, the new fiscal year starts in less than 36 hours and congress has still not passed the annual appropriations bills. if we don't do it, the government will shut down. during the last shutdown, we lost $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs. i'm sure we could expect just the same now. the debt ceiling will need to be raised within the next couple of months, madam speaker, and many republicans are already threatening to refuse to perform even that basic task. this will throw the international economy into chaos. it would cause the loss of tens of thousands more jobs in the united states. and of course, the ex-im bank expired in june, and our business communities are clamoring for re-authorization. why? last year the ex-im bank financed deals that supported

164,000 american jobs. i would suggest, madam speaker, that the u.s. house should spend this week figuring out how to avoid a political and financial catastrophe rather than once again passing a blatantly political bill, stripping women of their basic health care rights. this latest attack targets both the women who need to see a doctor or health care provider as well as the providers themselves. the bill on the floor today, i wonder if the people on the other side of the aisle actually read this bill because it is so broadly written that it would target any medical provider -- doctor, hospital, clinic, you name it -- that has the even most ten with us connection to the full range of women health care services. the majority claims that this bill targets plained, a health care provider that -- planned parenthood, a health care provider that 2.7 million

americans rely on every year. well, first of all, over 90% of the services provided by that agency are routine wellness exams like breast exams, cervical cancer screening and birth control and family planning services, and as we all know, because we discussed it ad nauseam last week, planned parenthood has received no federal funding for abortions. in fact, no agency receives federal funding for abortions with a very few exceptions. this bill would therefore not stop any government funding of abortions. it would instead allow federal and state funding to be cut off for any entity, not just planned parenthood, which performs abortions with private dollars. that means that poor women would be blocked from the full range of health care services that they need, not just at planned parenthood, but at their local hospital or their local clinic or the offices of

another women's health group. let's call this bill what it is. it's an attempt to eliminate health care services for women across the board using planned parenthood -- the planned parenthood witch-hunt as an excuse. and let's be very clear. the investigation of the last few months has demonstrated that the videotapes the majority so heavily relies on are heavily edited, manipulated and at times downright misleading. we are the u.s. congress, madam speaker, and we are better than that. the american public will not stand for this diversion and neither should we. let's defeat this ill-conceived bill, let's direct all of our collective attention to bipartisan solutions resolving the looming fiscal disaster that we are all facing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, in response briefly, money is

fungible. everybody knows it, in one pocket, out the other, one pair of pants. $1.3 billion the last three years in medicaid. the videos, nobody's putting words in their mouths. their words, their pictures. i yield three minutes to the vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, marsha blackburn, distinguished leader on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his diligence and his skints through the year -- consistency through the years on the energy and commerce committee, and i do rise in strong support today of the women's public health and safety act. there will be a lot said about this bill during the course of the day, but let's be certain in what the bill actually says. you've got two pages, and what

this does is grant to the states flexibility. now, madam chairman, what they have asked us for is flexibility. why are they asking us for this flexibility? because we have four states currently in litigation over wanting to be able to determine who is and is not a medicaid provider in their state. so there is a premise and a basis and a reason for bringing this forward and allowing the states to have the final say in who participates in that medicaid delivery. that's what you call good government. and sending the power and the money back to the state and local level. this bill is necessary because the obama administration has blocked attempts of states to remove certain providers from the program. now, we have four states that

have, as i said, had to go into court because they have tried c.m.s. providers and has blocked that action, so therefore, they are not able to move these providers out of the program and the states know best the needs of their residents and they know best which providers are providing affordable access to quality medical care and which ones are trying to skirt the law. there are no mandates in this bill. the final decision is up to the state. the left, in their endless efforts to protect planned parenthood and to prevent them from being held accountable, have once again resorted to scare tactics. i also want to touch on the issue of the community health centers. 9,000 here in our country, and they meet the needs of over 24 million americans. you take a district like mine in tennessee, there are zero

planned parenthood affiliates in my district. zero. there are 16 community health centers. contrast that with the ninth congressional district of illinois, ms. schakowsky's district, she has one planned parenthood affiliate and there are 44 community health centers. ms. degette has eight -- no, three planned parenthood sites and 46 of the community health centers. so what we are doing is encouraging the states to take the responsibility, make the determination of where this ought to be. you know, madam speaker, it's amazing to me. people always say, let's make certain we are being good stewards of the money. planned parenthood is now outsourcing their women's health issues. they cut them in half over the

past seven years, and it is important for us to redirect the funds and give the states the opportunity to determine who provides the service and the access. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. pitts: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. pallone, 1.5 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3495, the yet another radical g.o.p. assault on women's health care. unfortunately, my republican colleagues are at it again, attempting to use any excuse to pursue their extreme agenda. they're attacking planned parenthood in order to limit women's constitutionally protected right to choose what is best for them and their families. the legislation is particularly offensive and egregious, and let me tell you what this legislation is. in the words of more than 120,000 family physicians

nationwide, it represents an unprecedented level of legislative interference in the patient-physician relationship. it's not only ill-advised, it's dangerous. this legislation would in the words of the national women's law center, the national law program, wreak havoc on nation's health safety net programs. and represents a direct attack by members of congress on women's ability to control their own reproductive health. this legislation undermines patient choice of providers and provides states unchecked authority to terminate providers from medicaid without a direct cause. this is the attack on low-income women to choose their own trusted medical provider. i stand with all planned parenthood. i stand with all health professionals who provide life-saving preventative health services to men and women every single day and i stand with the hundreds of millions of americans that will say i will not stand by silent and allow those who are committed to

ending abortion access in this country use fraud and deception to cut millions of people off from their health care. we cannot allow republicans to win the war on women. i urge my colleagues to oppose the extreme republican agenda and vote no on h.r. 3495. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, unfortunately, the obama administration puts its own abortion-centered ideological ahead of women's health care. i'd like to recognize -- yield two minutes to the gentlelady -- another the gentlelady from tennessee, diane black, who's been an outstanding leader on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3495, the women's public health and safety act, legislation empowering states to terminate medicaid contracts with providers that disrespect innocent human life by

performing abortions. . as we debate this bill today, the big abortion industry is in a crisis mode. they have seen the same videos i have implicating planned parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, in the trafficking of fetal tissue and organs. and they have seen the same nonpartisan government report i have indicating that planned parenthood received $1.2 billion in medicaid funding over a three-year period. so, knowing that they are losing the public opinion battle, they are taking their fight to the courts. suing states that dare to protect taxpayer dollars by exercising their right to terminate contracts with this abortion giant. tennessee saw this tactic before when planned parenthood took our state to court over an abortion law back in 2000. and we defeated them, but it took 14 years to do it. madam speaker, let's not let

that happen again. if president obama and the congressional democrats are so intent on blocking this legislation to combat taxpayer funding of abortion providers at the federal level, then they should at least let states use their 10th amendment rights to take action within their own borders without the threat of costly politically motivated lawsuits. the women's public health and safety act will do just that. i urge a yes vote on this compassionate, pro-life, pro-woman legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: i'm pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. miss caps: i thank my colleague -- mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to

this bill and political gamesmanship that continues to put our nation at risk. today we witness yet another attack by some of our colleagues who are obsessed with ending access to planned parenthood. a trusted health care provider in my community. but today's bill takes a slightly different approach, one that cynically tells a woman that the government knows better than she does when it comes to telling who she should trust with her health and well-being. as a woman, as a mother, as a nurse this is insulting. these attacks have to stop. republicans are willfully putting their heads in the sand. they think it's no big deal to shut down hundreds of clinics offering essential services not available anywhere else. they think that the rest of the safety net can easily pick up the slack, ignoring the fact that those providers themselves have said they cannot. and they think it's worth shutting down the government to achieve this goal. moreover, i would just like to emphasize that these women have chosen to go to planned

parenthood for their care. suggesting that they can just get their care from some other providers is both callous and -- callus and condesending. with all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which provider a man chooses to go to for her reproductive health care is not your decision to make. it shouldn't be. i urge my colleagues to trust women to make their own decisions. vote no on this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm very pleased at this time to yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, the prime sponsor of this legislation, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. duffy: thank you -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. duffy: thank you. i have been watching my democratic friends across the aisle doing somersaults trying

self and sh their rename their dinners. there is a big conversation about the confederate flag and what it means. i would agree with my friends across the aisle. what they don't want to talk about is the roots of where planned parenthood started. it started with margaret sanger. a known racist. a speaker in front of the kkk. she believed in eugenics. she is the founder of planned parenthood. we should talk about the racist roots of planned parenthood just like with the confederate flag and just like the jefferson-jackson dinners that the democrats celebrate every year. if you watched the videos that have come out of planned parenthood, harvesting little baby body parts and selling those body parts for a profit. that's disgusting. this is not a debate about abortion or even nonabortion.

pro-life or pro-abortion. those who are even pro-abortion agree that these tactics are unacceptable. they have no place in our society. and if federal tax dollars should go to fund an institution that harvests baby body parts for sale? is absolutely as nine. -- asinine. you want to talk about health care? health care doesn't mean planned parent hoo. planned parenthood doesn't mean woman's health care. you talk about defunding women's health care? there is no less money. there is the same amount of money that goes to women's health care. that's a false argument. we spend the same amount of money. you say you know what? if we have an organization that supports the harvest and sale of body parts, our tax dollars probably shouldn't go to it. or better yet, why don't we let the states make the decision for themselves? they go, you know what, that's an affront to our morals and

values in one state, we should say we are not going to send federal medicaid money to that organization. and if another state says, you know what, we are ok with it, let them spend their money that way. giving stailingts back the power to -- states back the power to choose how they use their money. i oftentimes sit back and am amazed my friend across the aisle who talk about being compassionate and caring and loving and supporting the downtrodden, can't join us in saying we probably should at least ban abortions after 20 weeks when little babies feel pain. when little babies can survive outside the womb. we are so radical in our position we want to support abortion up to the point of birth. we won't even support you if there is a botched abortion and a baby is born alive we should try to save it. you can't join us in that. you know what? it's a sellout to the radical abortion industry. i see the rally outside. the rally is a rally of planned

parenthood that provides the largest funds to the democratic covers -- coffers. to their campaigns. this is not about life, this is not about health care, this is no about abortion, this is about campaign money that flows from planned parenthood into my democrat friends' campaigns and sadly i wish they would put aside their campaign concerns and start standing for state rights and women's health and little babies' lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. i remind all members to make their comments and address the chair. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: madam speaker, i didn't agree with much the previous speaker said, but i do agree that from our perspective it is about campaign money on that side. and i would now recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. ee, for 1.5 minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding but also for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3495, the so-called women's public health and safety act. first of all, this bill does not keep women safe, and it certainly won't keep them healthy. it would prevent individuals and organizations that provide abortion services from treating women enrolled in medicaid. and it would simply strip women of their fundamental right to choose their own health provider. congress already denies federal medicaid coverage of abortions, which is wrong, and that needs to be repealed, that's the hyde amendment. we have to repeal that. now excluding doctors from serving medicaid patients is yet another attack on the rights of low-income women. hen in the world are you going to stop? h.r. 3495 would deny more than seven million women access to

critical health care services, including contraceptive care, s.t.i. test, lifesaving cancer screenings, and other primary care services, and hurt our most vulnerable communities including low-income women and women of color. madam speaker, this bill is simply wrong. it is nothing more than a shameful attempt to restrict women's constitutional rights. politicians should never interfere with women's personal health care decisions, period. stay out of our lives. this women's public health and safety act, or public safety and health act, it does just the opposite of what this bogus title says. it erodes the health and safety of women. it continues their war on women. i stand l you, today with planned to stop? parenthood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, we

should be aware that not a single penny will be cut for women's health care under this bill. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pittenger: madam speaker, i stand before you in full support of h.r. 3495, the women's public health and safety act. this legislation amends medicaid law to give states the freedom and flexibility to remove abortion providers from medicaid. taxpayer dollars should not be used for abortion, period. this important policy is widely supported by the american people. that's why the hyde amendment first established in 1976 protects taxpayers from preventing the use of federal funds for abortion. however, through the years we have seen these groups attempt to circumvent this federal mandate in order to further their own destructive agenda of death. in north carolina, madam speaker, there are 294 community health clinics. only nine planned parenthood abortion centers. providing states like north

carolina with flexibility and funding will result in better, more accessible health care for all women instead of funneling money to abortion providers like planned parenthood and their army of political lobbyists. thank you to congressman sean duffy for his leadership on this issue. as a nation, we must restore the value and sanctity of life each and every one against the selfish culture of death. i will continue to be a voice for the voiceless and speak out against these egregious acts as long as it takes to restore the god-given promise of life. life is precious. as pope francis stated in this chamber, we must cherish each and every one at every stage of life. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from

wisconsin, ms. moore, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. moore: i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, i am in opposition to this ill-conceived legislation brought forward from my good friend and colleague from wisconsin. i realize that good people can differ on topics. and i have been stung by some of the discussion that has occurred on this floor today. with regard to the racist roots of planned parenthood. with regard to so-called states' rights. and i can tell you that as a african-american and as a woman have heard the terms state rights used in ways that were not very he healthy and safe for me as a african-american woman.

there's nothing healthy and safe about a bill that would deny women their constitutional and human rights to control their own reproduction. either to get birth control, to be protected against s.t.d.s, or to have an abortion the -- abortion. the reality s. i know many people in this body are fond of reality shows, but in reality a woman is fertile for 30 to 40 years of her life, and there's nothing healthy about becoming pregnant every year for 30 to 40 years. i know i'm one of nine kids and that is not a healthy scenario for many women. the reality is is that this would have an adverse impact on some of the poorest women and many of them african-american in this country. planned parenthood serves that 78% of planned parenthood

patients live at 150% or lower of the poverty level. the reality is is that 60% of all americans do not want to see planned parenthood defunded. it is not in the interest of public health and safety for these women to be denied this basic health care. madam speaker, we have heard about these films that are not real at all. they havedown been doctored, edited, and they are revisionist pes, all in pursuit of defunding the premiere organization that protects women's health. and with regard to the other community health centers, i'm glad to know that my colleagues interested in funding those centers, but this bill even puts them at risk. because any ancillary service

related to abortion qub deemed as -- can be deemed as unfitting for reimbursement under the medicaid program. . madam speaker, we have seen the flexibility that states have used. we saw in indiana where they defunded planned parenthood, and as a result we saw a pandemic of h.i.v. infestations in that state. so i would say before i yield back, madam speaker, that i urge my colleagues to not go for the appeasement of the anti-choice caucus that doesn't -- so we don't shut the government down, to use women as a game bit in this political battle. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam chair, may i inquire as to how much time

remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 18 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from colorado has 19 minutes remaining. mr. pitts: madam chair -- speaker, i'm pleased at this time to yield five minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, the chair of the pro-life caucus, chris smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, my good friend, for yielding. and madam speaker, last week pope francis admonished a joint session of congress to follow the golden rule. to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. the golden rule compels us to protect and defend human life at every stage of development. and, of course, that includes the unborn. and that it's wrong to remain silent, he said, or to look the other way when individuals are put at risk. at the white house welcoming ceremony earlier in the day, president obama spoke of protecting the least of these, taken from matthew's gospel,

the 25th chapter. when president obama says protect the least of these, he excludes millions of children, unborn children. every day planned parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons to death approximately 900 unborn babies, the least of these and hurts many women in the process. subsidized by half a billion dollars annually, planned parenthood kills a baby every two minutes, and has terminated the lives of over seven million infants since 1973. a staggering loss of children's lives that equates to the twice the number of every man, woman and child living in the state of connecticut. so i rise in strong support of h.r. 3495, the women's health and public safety act, authored by our distinguished colleague, sean duffy, to give states the authority to defund planned parenthood.

states, indeed, madam speaker, should have the freedom to choose who they subsidize and why. but the president has denied that option to at least six states so far, including texas, arizona, indiana, louisiana, alabama and arkansas. the latter three states have moved to defund in the wake of the recent undercover videos by the center for medical progress. now because of the c.m.p. videos, we know planned parenthood is also trafficking in baby body parties. i would note paraphernalia theyically, madam speaker, i wrote the trafficking of ictims protection act to end cruelty, sex trafficking. this is exploiting the defense of unborn children -- defenseless unborn children and taking body parts they have no right to take. turns out planned parenthood has turned these babies into human guinea pigs and it makes the abortion industry even richer. although much of the media

continues to ignore this scandal, planned parenthood's me particularally classic -- me particular yussly classic callous they show disregard for precious children's lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain which begs the question -- do americans understand the violence to children done every day in planned parenthood clinics? have my congressional colleagues, has the president actually watched the videos? have you watched them? in one clip, dr. deborah nuke tal -- nucatula, says we have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because i know i'm not going to crush that part so they crush all the way around the part that's desired, dismember that baby

piece by piece but they leaf intact certain parts, including livers that will then be sold. planned parenthood's medical director's council president, uses the less crunchy, her words, again, to preserve body parts. regarding the price tag for baby body parts, she says, and i quote her, let me just figure out what others are getting and if this is in the ballpark, then it's fine. if it's still low then we can bump it up, she says. another planned parenthood director says we're just trying to figure out as an industry -- and it is the abortion industry -- we're trying to figure out how we're going to manage renew mexico ration because the headlines -- renumeration because the headlines -- no concern whatsoever for the child victim who suffers when they're dismembered, arms,

legs, torso, decapitated head. it is gruesome dismemberment abortions, that's what planned parenthood does. one woman, holly o'donnell, says, and i quote her, she gave me the scissors and told me i had to cut down the middle of the face. i can't even describe what that feels like, she says. i suspect that if the president watches at least one of the videos and my colleagues on the other side, it would at least demand real answers concerns kerning planned parenthood's inhumane behavior and violence that's directed at the least of these. of course, sir come standings and because of immature and dependent -- mr. pitts: madam chair, i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. mr. smith: thank you. mention about margaret sanger. i read one of her books. she talks about the cruelty of

charity of caring for innocent women who carry babies to term that you should not give them help, that charity is cruel. she was a racist. read her books. read her birth control review. i went to the library of congress, got many copies of it and read through it. she had many programs that talked about focusing on blacks and others for extermination. just read her books. and, again, "the pivot of civilization" is one of the worst. let me also say to my friends, they talk about how they -- videos had been doctored. there is a new report called analysis" e forensic falling say they are into five categories. restroom breaks, recording. at each interview four devices recorded conversations. two video recorders and microphones and two audio-only

devices. i ask my friends and colleagues on the other side to take a look at that analysis. again, you just attack the whistleblower. you attack the organization, but you don't look at the evidence. i've watched those tapes several times and was sickened, sickened by just how inhumane these individuals are in cutting people, little babies to pieces in order to procure their body parts. seven million babies since 1973 killed in planned parenthood clinics. they ought to be called child abuse, incorporated. it is the most unsafe place in america for a child to be in a planned parenthood clinic. i yield back to my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the health committee, any reminder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. and the chair recognizes the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1.5 minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank my good friend for her leadership and for yielding. madam speaker, i stand in strong opposition to this ironically titled bill, women's public health and safety act. let's be honest. we are -- we all know that this bill in no way protects the health and safety of women. in fact, it does quite the opposite. this bill is aimed squarely at restricting a woman's constitutionally protected freedom, to make her own reproductive hate choices. this bill is not base -- health choices. this bill is not based on facts. it's not based on the health needs of women. it's based on pure politics and ideologically driven. it's shameful that congress is considering a bill that would leave vulnerable women's access to comprehensive health care at the mercy of the extreme fringe of the far right. this is another attempt to put politics between a woman and

her doctor, and a thinly veiled attempt to destroy a woman's right to choose. this bill is so vaguely worded and so broadly written that it will have devastating and far-reaching effects on women's health. states would be allowed to exclude any provider, any entity that has ever provided an abortion or has ever had any sort of association or involvement with an abortion. this bill puts women's lives in danger and it is a chilling and a most dangerous precedent. mr. speaker, i urge a strong no vote. instead, stand for a woman's right to make her own personal health care choices. planned parenthood should be celebrated, not demonized. it is the largest health care provider for vulnerable women in this great country of ours. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentlelady from colorado reserves. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i would just remind the gentlelady that abortion is not health care, and i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from missouri, vicky hartzler, a great leader in the pro-life movement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you, and thank you, mr. chairman. protecting unborn lives is paramount to defining who we are as a people and as a nation. killing innocent babies before they even have a chance at life is unconscionable, let alone turning around and selling the fetal tissue for profit. planned parenthood is the nation's largest provider of abortions. this abortion chain receives $1.2 billion of taxpayer money through medicaid over a

three-year period. planned parenthood reported over $500 million of their annual revenue comes from government funding. this is reprehensible. no federal dollars should go to any institution in the business of harvesting and selling baby parts of aborted children. can you imagine what people would say in this country if this practice occurred with our beloved pets? most of us have cats and dogs. would we stand for them to be killed and their body parts harvested and sold for profit? where is the outrage that this is happening to our country's babies, our unborn children? i continue to fight to defund planned parenthood at the federal level, and i encourage allstate and local governments -- all is it state and local governments to stop funding planned parenthood. three states have undereneded their contracts with planned parenthood, and the obama administration said disqualifying planned parenthood because of their abortion business violated federal medicaid law.

well, today's bill amends the medicaid law to empower states with the ability to exclude abortion providers from medicaid. given the horrific nature of the videos showing the shameful lengths that planned parenthood will go to in order to harvest and sell fetal organs, i am hopeful that each and every state would exercise this option. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, which is critical to the fight to protect innocent lives. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves, and the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank you very much, madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 1.5 minutes. ms. chu: another day, another attack by republicans on women's health care in the house of representatives. but this one is different. it goes beyond the typical attacks on women and endangers their health and the health of

entire communities by holding medicaid hostage, this bill seeks to intimidate doctors and hospitals into not providing a safe and constitutionally protected service. i'm appalled by how far republicans are willing to go. the language in the bill is so vague that it would allow states to exclude entire providers from the medicaid program. minority and low-income women would be disproportionately impacted and would stand to lose access to critical health services like birth control and family planning. it's time to stop the attacks. women must be free to make their own health care choices in consultation with their doctors and without threats from republican politicians in washington. and we must have as one of those choices planned parenthood. for many it's the only place they can turn to for even the most basic care. women, especially low-income women, turn to planned

parenthood for affordable and dependable primary care services. they fill a vital gap that community health centers can't fill by themselves, and we're all better off because of their cancer screenings, s.t.d. testings and wellness plans. republicans are trying to hold other health care hostage by using baseless attacks to shut down planned parenthood, using heavily doctored videos. . it's time to stop using health care as a weapon to bully women. we must vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the in just a moment-- the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm pleased at this time to yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, dr. andy harris, another leader on this issuement the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. harris: thank you. madam speaker, look, this bill is very simple. this bill just says that states actually can be partners with

the federal government and medicaid. the federal government, the secretary of h.h.s., doesn't get to tell a state which providers they think are inadequate. yes, inadequate. planned parenthood is not a comprehensive health provider in my district. in the lower eastern shore of maryland, they closed the planned parenthood in april and said on the website, i quote, that the easton center will be opened -- you can get services monday through friday at the center in easton, 45 minutes up the road. madam speaker, if you go up the road today, they are closed. in fact, the center in easton funded with federal dollars is opened two days a week. that clinic is empty the rest of the time. federal dollars paying for an empty clinic that doesn't deliver comprehensive care. madam speaker, you may have heard somewhere that planned parenthood provides mammograms. nonsense, even planned

parenthood executives say they don't have a mammogram machine in the entire system. the only method of breast cancer screening that actually results in decreased deaths from breast cancer, the only method, mammograms, they don't provide at planned parenthood. but you can be referred. actually, madam speaker, the law is you don't need a referral for a mammogram screening. that's the law. you don't need a referral. any woman can go and get a mammogram screening as long as she's within the screening guidelines without a referral. what is this magic that planned parenthood provides? the gentlelady from new york said, it fills a gap, the community health centers can't fill. nonsense, community health centers can provide mammograms, breast screening, cervical cancer screening, birth control, do is y thing they don't they don't provide abortions outside the limits of the hyde amendment, and they don't sell baby body parts. that's right. i guess selling baby body parts is what's important about women's health care, then you're right. you got to go to a planned

parenthood. you can't get it at a community health center. there are 13,000 community health centers providing the broad range, truly broad range of health care. not health care that you have to leave. maybe you approach some age or younger than some age you don't go to planned parenthood because it's not comprehensive care. community health centers are. they were designed that wafmente the affordable care act, i'm no particular fan of. the fact of the matter is it set these up to be truly comprehensive primary care centers. my community health certainty in my district, if you call today, they are actually opened. if you call tomorrow, they are opened. but planned parenthood isn't. if you call thursday, planned parenthood is opened 7 1/2 hours. my community health center 8 1/2. if you call friday you're out of luck at planned parenthood. madam speaker, we are paying planned parenthood to keep an empty office open that doesn't provide comprehensive care in my clinic. the gentlelady from new york you hat end of this bill

couldn't provide an abortion. that's nonsense. read the bill. as long as you provide abortions consistent with the hyde amendment that. is a rape or incest exclusion or life the mother. the gentlelady was wrong. she said lives are threatened. no, madam speaker. if lives are threatened specifically this bill says that provider, that state can choose to fund that provider and can do that. madam speaker, the bottom line is, planned parenthood there's only one thing is it does that you don't get -- i'll reiterate. in the on't get community health center. you can get an abortion, usually any stavenlg pregnancy for any reason. get your baby's body parts sold in the trafficking of body parts that we saw in those films. those films doctored? they are not doctored. anyone can look on the website. they are raw footage. a le get your talking about

lamborghini from the profits of baby body parts. if we aren't -- if that isn't repulsive to us, what is? all this bill does allow states to defund that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. and the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the gentleman is absolutely correct. planned parenthood does not provide mammograms. they do provide breast cancer screenings, but under this bill if there is a hospital or a clinic that does provide mammograms, and they also provide a lamborghini abortions, well, th the states could prehe vent funding. so ironically under the terms of this bill up for discussion today, mammograms could be prehaven'ted. i don't think that's the intention of the writer of this bill. with that i'm pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to a senior member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. green from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15st minutes. mr. green: thank youers madam

speaker. i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding to me. i rise in opposition to h.r. 3495, the so-called women's public health act. women's health care is more than bram mam grams. i know that planned parenthood in my district provides over 80% of their care is women's health and not abortion. this bill would give states the right to exclude a health care provider who performs abortion care from their medicaid program. medicaid provides premium care to millions of low-income women and families alike. excluding providers from medicaid without cause is another ill masked attempt to impede reproductive rights. this bill as named is plame claiming to provide safe public health care for women, but excluding quality health care providers such as planned parenthood, the quality of services will drop and as a result women's health will be detrimentally harmed. that was proofed in a study by a texas agency after 2011. this is yet one more attempt to defund planned parenthood which

if successful will hurt millions of women and communities across the country. h.r. 3495 is contradictory to the views of the majority of americans. three out of four american women support publicly funded family planning centers and believe they have a positive impact on public health. by passing this bill we are harming millions of women who rely on publicly funded planning care. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield 1.5 minutes to the gentleman from new york -- sorry, two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. madam speaker, despite its puffed up name this bill has nothing to do with protecting women's health or safety. the bill the republicans pass today would cut off access to

health care for millions of american families who rely on medicaid. this bill would cut off from medicaid reimbursement for any service, planned parenthood or any doctor or hospital or clinic or local health center that performs or is in involved in any way with abortions. if this bill passes, a woman seeking prenatal care for a planned pregnancy could suddenly be cut off from her doctor if that doctor also provides abortion certificate visions or even referral to abortion services. a child with a lifesaving illness could be turned away from the hospital because the hospital chair expressed views upportive of abortion. a senior citizen with a chronic illness could suddenly find his or her prescription lapse with no way to refill it because his or her doctor is somehow involved with abortion. my colleagues continue to insist this bill won't interrupt care. that these families, children, and seniors will see different doctors or go to different hospitals.

how many of my colleagues have ever been on medicaid? how many of them have ever been turned away by a doctor or told they have to wait months for an appointment because the doctor simply cannot afford to accept any more medicaid patients? this bill would dramatically shorten medicaid doctors and lengthen wait time for patients. putting more people at risk. if their overarching goal is to dismantle medicaid as we know bill is a strong first step. if we want to talk about a culture of life, we should bring bills to the floor to encourage more doctors to serve in high need areas to give every child access to the highest health care. we should talk about increasing funding for wick and snap to make sure parents, babies, and children are going to bed hungry. we should talk about providing public housing programs. talk about lowering student debt loan to ensure parents can give their kids every opportunity. while what we should not be doing is cutting doctors and hospitals and clinics and community health care centers out of medicaid and putting more lives at risk. this bill is just another blatant attempt to intimidate

doctors and hospitals into ending abortion services. under the guise of promoting life, this bill puts more lives at risk. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. ms. degette: madam speaker, i believe my colleague has no more speakers. mr. pitts: we are prepared to close. i reserve. bill is a strong ms. degette: i have more speakers. i'd now like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from california, dr. bera, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dera: thank you to my colleague from colorado. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to another bill restricting women's access to health care. the so-called women's public health and safety act is not about public health and certainly not about safety. this is a bill that takes away individual rights. it's a bill that would significantly restrict a women's access to health care. where they want to go.

this is fundamentally about individual rights and individuals' aability to choose where they want to get health care. it's another example of politicians coming in to the examine room and making decisions. now, my colleagues on the right, madam speaker, often will say they want to stand for individual rights. well, planned parenthood has not broken any laws to my knowledge. if an individual patient wants to get their care at planned parenthood, that's their right. planned parenthood's providing access to care. they are doing exactly what their name says, planning and helping families decide when they are ready to start a family. planning parenthood. we should protect that fundamental individual right. now, as a doctor i find it offensive when the government comes into my exam room and tells patients what they can and can't do. fundamentally to the practice of medicine i have to answer my

patients' questions, empower them to make the choice that is they want to, and let them make those choices. again, patients should be able to choose their provider. congress should not be picking and choosing who people can go see. this is about individual rights and preserving that right. i am proud to stand with planned parenthood. i am proud to fight to preserve those individual rights. as a doctor, we have got to protect access to care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. degette: may i inquire to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. degette: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has five minutes. the gentlelady from colorado reserve. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from rhode island mr. cicilline for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, today we are debating h.r. 3495, which should be called the yet another

radical republican assault on women's health care act. this bill undermines the long-standing freedom of choice providers provision of the medicaid statute that protects the rights of medicare patients to seek care from any willing qualified provider. this bill contains language that is so broad that it gives states unchecked authority to deny access to any providers it defines as participating in the performance of abortion. this bill is the latest in a long line of radical republican efforts to defund planned parenthood and deny women access to the high quality health care service it is provides. madam speaker, here are the facts. each year planned parenthood provides essential care to 2.7 million men and women. one in five american women have visited planned parenthood at least once. 1.5 million young people and adults participate in planned parenthood's educational programs or reproductive health. each year 700 planned parenthood clinics across the united states

provide 900 cancer screenings to help detect cervical and breast cancer, 400,000 pap tests, and 500,000 breast exams. the cruel irony of this bill is that if it becomes law, these services, not abortion services, will be put at risk because planned parenthood is already prohibited from using federal funds to provide abortion services intercept limited circumstances. in providing the critical services i just described, planned pirntehood saves lives. -- parenthood saves lives. i want to close by articulating the testimony that richards offered in the house oversight committee today. it was disturbing that so many members of this chamber treated her with such condescension and disrespect. at some point, madam speaker, the republican party will need to end this war on women and recognize that the question of whether women have a right to make their own health care decisions is a matter of settled law. and threatening to shut down the

government unless we agree to deny millions of women access to high quality health care is reckless and irresponsible. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished ntlelady from the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: this is not a debate on people's conscience and what you believe in. it is a debate and question of the law. first of all, the legislation -- the underlying legislation we have before us is likely to be ruled unconstitutional and it's likely to do so because it meets the very four corners of what the supreme court ruled the texas law to be unconstitutional and i'd venture to say that this bill was a copy of the texas law.

in 2014 and 2015, the texas legislators tried to stop reproductive health care clinics by requiring them to have a hospital style surgery center building and staffing requirements, leaving only seven clinics to provide health care. the same thing where they threatened the same kind of thing which would only leave 10 health care providers. guess what, madam speaker? in 2014 and 2015, the supreme court of the united states ruled it unconstitutional and stopped the legislature in their tracks. that's what's going to happen to this legislation as well. let me be very clear planned parenthood does not engage in selling body parts. yes, as under the lay, they do deal with fetal issue research which has saved millions of lives. under the 1993 n.i.h. revitally sargse act, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly receive any human fetal transfer if the

transfer affects interstate commerce. they do not do this. the reason i know that, there's been no department of justice investigation no, health and human services investigation, and in actuality, mr. delayeden, who is not the f.b.i., has engaged in a deleterious, dastardly, deceitful investigation, stealing the inch d. of one of his fellow high school students. so i'm against this bill and i'm against it for the good things that planned parenthood does. for example, in my state, there are 38 clinics, 150,000 young women are being served. 108,000 are contraceptive, others are s.t.i. let me fin herb by saying mammograms are not done in your doctor's office you get a referral and go to a place where you can get a mammogram with a radiologist. if we would only discuss from that, we would know the underlying bill should be opposed. i oppose it and ask my colleagues to oppose it. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady's time has expire thsmed echair recognizes the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. farr, for 1.5 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1.5 minutes. mr. farr: thank you very much for yielding. there's been a lot of talk here about a bill that's only two pages long. and you've heard a lot of talk about -- and a lot of misstatements of fact about plan parenthood. but guess what? this bill is really about giving the state's ability to hurt women and never even mentioned planned parenthood. it never mentioned any of the procedures you've heard about here on the floor. it gives the states the ability to wipe out clinics that serve women. so it isn't about abortion procedures. it isn't about planned parenthood. it's about taking away access to

health care. this bill gives the authority to states to cut off all those services if they specialize in health care for women. when is this war on women going to stop? your party ought to be ashamed of its reputation in this country now that is taking on women on all issues. so on behalf of my wife, my daughter, and my granddaughter, who will need access to women's services, hopefully not abortion, but if necessary, maybe, i would hope that this war on women would stop and that all of us would vote against it. oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: we're prepared to close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. deget: thank you, madam speaker. we have heard a lot of emotion today, madam speaker and a lot of ideas and ugly things being thrown around but as a lawyer with legal training, i did something radical. ms. degette: i actually read this bill because as mr. farr pointed out, it's only two pages long. i want to talk about what this bill would do. this bill would do far, far more than its proponents claim it would do. let me say first of all, there is no federal money that is spent on abortion in most cases in the united states. this has been the law of the land for a long time. i disagree with that law because i think it limits full reproductive health for women who can least afford it. but that's the law of the land. so what are we talking about here? what we're talking about is states being able to deny money

to anybody who is directly or indirectly involved with abortion services with nongovernmental money. with private money from women and their family with insurance money, with nongovernmental money. so here's how this bill would work. a state could decide that if a hospital provided abortions with nongovernment money, it simply wasn't going to authorize state money or medicaid money to that state. it could -- to that hospital. and i don't mean just medicaid services for women's services. i mean all medicaid money or state money. all money for services. this bill could say that an ob/gyn who has co-privileges at a hospital that provides abortion could now not serve any medicaid patients. this bill would say that a doctor who provides services at

a neighborhood health care clinic who has privileges at a hospital that provides abortions could now be banned from taking medicaid patients. that's how broad this bill is written. what this would do is it would allow states to terminate all government funds to any entity that directly or indirectly provides abortions with nongovernment dollars. so what would this do? well, 72 million people in this country are on medicaid right now. these people are men, these people are women, these people are children. these people are people who take women's medical services and those who don't need them. these 2 million americans risk the loss of all of their health care services under medicaid because of this radical bill. now, ok, let's say that won't really happen. let's say that's just an overbroad interpretation of the bill. so then our colleagues on the

other side say, well, let's just limit ourselves to community health centers. if we use this bill to deny funding for planned parenthood, everyone will go to community health centers. let's see how that would work. right now, we have 24 million patients in this country in community health centers. the community health centers themselves tell us for every one of those 24 million patients they're taking, right now, they're turning away seven people. so we have 4.2 million planned parenthood patients. let's say those 7.2 million planned parenthood -- i'm sorry, those 4.2 million planned parenthood patients decide to go to the community health clinics, that's not going to work. they tried this in louisiana. in louisiana, a federal judge found there would be 29 providers for 5,000 women to do health care services. that's untenable. that's unacceptable.

and it puts the jeopardy of our nation's women's health at risk. since we've been debating this bill today, we're one hour closer to a government shutdown. and we have done nothing to make sure we're not going to do that. i would suggest that we refocus our efforts, that we stop beating up planned parenthood that we stop beating up women's health, that we get together collectively and we say, how are we going to keep this government open? how are we going to work together to make sure every man and woman in this country has a good job, a good health insurance, and that they can provide for their families. that's what we're elected to do and that's what i commit myself to do on behalf of this body. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> madam speaker, we've heard lots of arguments here on the floor. mr. pitts: we've heard about abortion being a health care issue.

abortion is not a health care issue. abortion is the most violent form of death known to mankind. death by dismemberment. decapitation. it's horrific. and these video clips that we've seen show the graphic nature of what they're doing to these little unborn -- unborn babies in planned parenthood clinics and harvesting their body parts, and you call that humane? it's horrific. it's barbaric. why is this bill necessary? currently, c.m.s. is bullying states, telling them they must include providers of elective abortions in their medicaid programs. with ll empowers states the needed flexibility to design their medicaid programs in a manner that's consistent with

pro-life values in a state. the gentleman talked about patients. well, a lot of unborn babies are treated as patients in their mother's womb. one lady talked about, what about individual rights? what about the rights of these little patients in the womb? this bill merely gives states the flexibility to choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its medicaid program of entities or persons who perform or participate in the performance of elective abortions. under this bill, low income women and men will still have access to more than 13,000 federally qualified health centers and rural health center sites. in addition at least 1,200 private and free charitable

clinics. in contrast, planned parenthood has some 665 clinics. they can find health care near them. because these federally qualified and rural health centers are 20 over the one planned parenthood clinic. we have the list of the member here's. some of the members who have spoken. they have one planned parenthood clinic. they may have 56, 44, the list varies, community health centers who would get that redistributed money and provide real health care as doctor harris said. this bill gives states the flexibility to design their medicaid programs in a manner they choose. to serve their medicaid patients. so i strongly urge support for h.r. 3495, the women's public

and madam safety act, chair, in conclusion, i ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on h.r. 3495 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? ms. degette: i object -- i withdraw. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. does host: they provide abortion services. the white house has threatened to veto the measure. and morning speeches. members plan to vote on a

temporary spending bill. the senate needs to agget to avoid a government shutdown and see the house live on c-span. and house oversight held a hearing and we will show you that on 8:00 p.m. on capitol hill. house republicans and john boehner not at that meeting. but politico, the speaker has not set a date but hopes to in the next few days, i told members have not decided when it will occur. i asked for advice and i hope to and house speaker john

ehner mitch mcconnell, the story says, he will have to maneuver and possibly spending that infuriate. coming up next. we will show you comments from he senate. >> we invoke cloture on the claimed c.r. two members absent. would have been 79-19. either very late tonight or first thing in the morning, we will be sending it over to the

house. this is a good time to talk about where we are. the senate passed a budget and hasn't happened in last of the 4 -five years. and hasn't happened in six years. and our democratic friends, because they objected, prevented from going to the bills forcing a negotiation in effect that will occur other the next couple of months. it's the way we ought to run things around here. and i hope we can get an agreement on a topline for next ar so we can get back to acting on each appropriation bill. it's not the way to do business.

and the minority to put us in this is regretful, it's not the way we ought to be doing business. so, the way forward, question will give our democratic friends to vote again on the appropriation bills that many of them. they bragged about the appropriations bills and we'll give them the opportunity to have a second thought about that v.a. bill. -con and the authorization bill, it is closed to time, if not final,. the nt to turn that to president. let me to turn to senator cornyn. >> you are aware of the videos

hat provoked such a terrific emotional and moral revullings on capitol little and across the country. the house has dealt with thisish passed the pain-capable bill, which we took up in the senate. but there are some that would have you believe that what we are doing is the end of the pro-life agenda and that's not the case. we will continue to take up and challenge our colleagues to reck nies that the united states has to join the nations to eliminate late-term abortions. many states have done that, including my state of texas and have taken money that have gone

to planned parenthood to community health centers. ere will be budget reconciliation. and this debate over the life issues isn't going to end with the clean of the continuing resolution. it will continue. >> there has been a lot about president putin's activities in the middle east. e said he isn't a gangster but he is a energy who held energy and president obama has an opportunity to do something about that by eliminating the ban on the united states exporting crude oil and the president hurts our own economy.

this past week, general prays prays was in congress and he said he is going to run out of money and we can help that process along. selling it to our friends around the world and not be held hostage. there are many weapons. be just as effective with a barrel of oil with the barrel of a gun. energy is called the master resource for a reason. united states has abuvendance amount of energy and president bama should shell our energy overseas. and he lifts sanctions as a result of the iran nuclear deal.

>> we are keeping the government open. -- or wicker: as lead are leader mcconnell said, it set caps for all 12 of our skess. e aren't bringing those to the floor and consider those. but please understand, and americans should understand in all of those 12 appropriation bills that have been appropriated out, we meet the budget caps? every single instance. we don't exceed the caps. also also, americans should know, in terms of fighting what

we believe is the egregious executive overagee reef of this administration, the 12 appropriation bills contain rider after rider after rider and in a strong statement to rein to address the overreach of the administration. unfortunately, we won't get to those until the october, and those riders in the negotiation process. but please realize in terms of under get caps, we are the cap in every one of those instances. reporter: when are you going to negotiate those numbers? >> next year, we could have a

egular appropriations process. the president and speaker boehner and i spoke about getting started acknowledge i h and i would expect them to get started very soon. >> that program is to expire at the end of the month. you expect to extend the program. are you going to lit utfer let it laps? >> i'll get back to you. > a lot of energy and -- [indiscernible] > i think i'll continuity.

>> how would you kirkize your relationship wm kevin mccarthy? >> i'm not going to give any advice to the house about how to settle leadership questions. do know keffen and we have a good relationship. reporter: give than bainer is leaving in a month, are there particular things you really hope congress finishes before halloween? and if the debt ceiling -- and is the debt ceiling increase one of them? mr. connolly: we'll have to deal with all of these issues -- mr. mcconnell: we'll have to deal with all of these issues. we h