dr. burgess. in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding system forcaid planned parenthood and that we're only going to pay for the services not associated with an institution that provides abortion services. think thequence, i figures speak volumes about that that they are increased always going for women's health that are not associated with those that provide abortion services. fact isc cation not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement from the texas alliance for life saying that funding is at historically high levels and just increased another $50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note that texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including an additional $50 million. t looking at the statement that texas is at high levels ended up writing this as true. this is not one that is kind to people on the conservative side. i thought that was significant. we did have a hearing a

dr. burgess. >> thank you mr. chairman. of course, mr. chairman, as you know, in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding and said we're only going to pay for services that are not associated with an institution that provides abortion services and, as a consequence, in fact, i think the figures sort of speak volumes about that, that there are now increased dollars going for women's health that are not associated with those that provide abortion services. now, the publication politifact is not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement by joe oman head of the texas alliance for life, who said that texas funding for women health services is at historically high levels and in fact increased another 50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including additional $50 million. so politifact look act the statement that texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels,

dr. burgess. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is unusual when the gentleman from florida and i agree. but i would echo his statement that i hope we allow ample time for debate for this because it is so important. and mr. chairman, i just have to ask you, we have all come home from our districts in august. and the question i got over and over again, why is this -- why is this being handled the way it is and not as would be directed by article 2, section 2, second paragraph, where this would be a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the senate and requiring a 2/3 majority? >> and i would concur that i wish the president would support handling this as a treaty. as you know, though, he is in opposition and will veto a bill that would make it a treaty. which then means the question would be to go to court. and how many years would that take? i don't know. but if you're asking me in my opinion should he have come before congress to present this as a treaty? i would say yes. and clearly he expressed his opposition to it and let us know that if we tried to move in that direction, it wo

dr. burgess, i agree that it is. we have been, as i mentioned earlier. >> we are looking to include part d data to a greater degree and implementing new models on this program as we demonstrated the impact of this fts. >> it calls into question the scale of the problem is likely to be much more massive than any recovery that has been affected to date. i do of the to ask a couple of questions and i realize it's off topic. we've talked about this before. this maxwell and i apologize and you don't remember whether our offices thattic to you directly, but it does affect your sphere also. we had a hospital in texas and dr. tariq mahmoud who took $18 million for the development of electronic records system and basically put his medical records down at the basement and let the mice eat them. not computer mice, real, furry mice. so what can you all do? one of the managers has gone to jail and the doctor will have a trial at some point and likely will face jail time through the department of justice, but what can you all do t

dr. burgess. dr. burgess: in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding to the medicaid system for planned parenthood and that we're only going to pay for the services not associated with an institution that provides abortion services. s a consequence, i think the figures speak volumes about that that there are increased dollars going for women's health that are not associated with those hat provide abortion services. the publication politifact is not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement from the texas alliance for life saying that funding is at historically high levels and just increased another $50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note that texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including an additional $50 million. politifact looking at the tatement that texas is funding this at high levels ended up rating this claim as true. this is not one that is kind to people on the con

dr. burgess gave us a great example. when they did the decoupling in texas we knew it worked and access to care increases when you allow the states that flexibility. the staff that comes from texas are proof of that. we can look at some of the faith-based community clinics that have provided necessary outreach and the way their numbers -- >> there's nothing to stop any of these clinics from doing outreach. this refers to potential loss of funding for clinics that have a series of health services that you disagree with. the exception you have pointed to is only for a life endangering physical condition not for a health endangering physical condition and it would require a very high word and on an eminent danger death unless on abortion is performed. you know often when they doctor is working with the patient one of the reasons this is not a good area for government to get involved with is it's a lot more nuanced than that. the doctor might alert the woman that there are higher risks with a particular pregnancy or that the

dr. burgess. >> thank you mr. chairman. of course, mr. chairman, as you know, in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding and said we're only going to pay for services that are not associated with an institution that provides abortion services and, as a consequence, in fact, i think the figures sort of speak volumes about that, that there are now increased dollars going for women's health that are not associated with those that provide abortion services. now, the publication politifact is not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement by joe oman head of the texas alliance for life, who said that texas funding for women health services is at historically high levels and in fact increased another 50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including additional $50 million. so politifact look act the statement that texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels,

dr. burgess. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is unusual when the gentleman from florida and i agree. but i would echo his statement that i hope we allow ample time for debate for this because it is so important. and mr. chairman, i just have to ask you, we have all come home from our districts in august. and the question i got over and over again, why is this -- why is this being handled the way it is and not as would be directed by article 2, section 2, second paragraph, where this would be a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the senate and requiring a 2/3 majority? >> and i would concur that i wish the president would support handling this as a treaty. as you know, though, he is in opposition and will veto a bill that would make it a treaty. which then means the question would be to go to court. and how many years would that take? i don't know. but if you're asking me in my opinion should he have come before congress to present this as a treaty? i would say yes. and clearly he expressed his opposition to it and let us know that if we tried to move in that direction, it wo