Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 134 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 134 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6096-H6109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3134, DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACT
OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3504, BORN-ALIVE ABORTION
SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 421 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 421

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3134) to
provide for a moratorium on Federal funding to Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3504) to amend
title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care
practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of
care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or
attempted abortion. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon passage of H.R. 3134 the House shall be
considered to have: (1) stricken all after the enacting
clause of S. 764 and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions
of H.R. 3134, as passed by the House; and (2) passed the
Senate bill as so amended.
Sec. 4. Upon passage of H.R. 3504 the House shall be
considered to have: (1) stricken all after the enacting
clause of S. 1603 and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions
of H.R. 3504, as passed by the House; and (2) passed the
Senate bill as so amended.
Sec. 5. House Resolution 408 is laid on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H6097]]

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 421 provides closed rules
for consideration of H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, and
H.R. 3504, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Today, Madam Speaker, we provide for consideration of two vital
pieces of legislation addressing one of the most important issues of
our time.
On many previous occasions, my colleagues and I have spoken on the
issue of abortion and the tragedy it is that unborn children are not
safe and protected.
We are not here today, though, debating the policy of abortion on-
demand. We are debating specific legislative reactions to horrific
wrongs that have come to light: the deliberate dismemberment of unborn
children to receive compensation for their organs and other body parts
and the failure of abortion facilities to care for children born alive
during failed abortions. Even some who support elective abortion agree
that those practices are barbaric and must be stopped.
The horrific reality of these practices in the abortion industry have
become clear over the past few months, as undercover videos have been
released of Planned Parenthood's leaders and affiliates discussing
painstakingly dismembering unborn children for compensation.
In these days of 3-D ultrasounds and high-definition screens, it is
impossible to hide the humanity of these child victims. They have
fingers and toes, heartbeats, and organs developed enough that tissue
collectors will pay $60 a specimen for them.
In light of the serious questions raised by these videos, the House
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Oversight and
Government Reform have each launched investigations.
While Planned Parenthood does not receive direct Federal funding for
abortions, these investigations are warranted, as a recent report from
the Government Accountability Office shows that the organization
receives an average of $500 million taxpayer dollars each year for
other lines of business. Money is fungible, and the Federal funds that
Planned Parenthood receives ultimately subsidize their abortion
services.
Given the serious allegations that have been raised about Planned
Parenthood's abortion practices related to the procurement and sale of
tissue and organs from aborted, unborn children, it is appropriate for
Congress to pass H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, placing
a 1-year moratorium on all Federal funds while Congress conducts its
investigation.
No organization that performs divisive practices like abortion,
particularly in such a gruesome, profitable manner, should receive
taxpayer dollars, and this legislation advances that principle.
In addition, the examples of Kermit Gosnell's convictions for
murdering children born alive at his house of horrors and separate
reports of unborn children may have been born alive or ``intact'' prior
to being sold to tissue collectors have exposed the need for
strengthening the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which became law in 2002,
extended critical legal protections to babies who are born alive after
a failed abortion attempt. That bill passed the House Judiciary
Committee with only two dissenting votes and was passed by the Senate
by unanimous consent.
The legislation before us today, H.R. 3504, the Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act, goes one step further to protect these
vulnerable lives by requiring healthcare practitioners present at the
time of birth to administer professional skill, care, and diligence to
preserve the life and health of the child.
This small, but important, step ensures the protection and
preservation of precious, newborn life by providing for criminal
penalties when that life is lost as a result of negligence.
These tiny, precious, vulnerable lives deserve the protection
afforded all other persons under the law, and this bill ensures that
their lives are protected.

{time} 1330

Madam Speaker, I commend this rule and both the underlying bills to
my colleagues for their support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina, my good friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary
30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in very strong opposition
to H.R. 3134 and H.R. 3504 and in very strong opposition to the
underlying closed rule.
Today, the House should be debating a bill to keep the government
open before funding runs out at the end of the month. We have just 6
legislative days before there is a government shutdown--6 legislative
days--and instead of tackling this, we are once again debating another
Republican attack on women's health.
In 6 legislative days, the government might shut down; and I am
worried because, judging from recent events within the Republican
caucus, the right hand doesn't know what the extreme right hand is
doing. They can't seem to get along with each other, and I am afraid
yet there will be another catastrophe and everything will come to a
halt, and the people that will suffer will be the people of this
country whom we are supposed to represent.
Madam Speaker, in fact, the Republicans were in such a hurry to waste
our time with this destructive legislation that one of the bills we are
considering, H.R. 3504, had no hearings--not one, none--no markup, and
this is the first time we are seeing the bill--and no amendments, by
the way. Nobody can offer an amendment. It is totally closed.
Whatever happened to regular order? This process, Madam Speaker,
stinks, and it is indefensible.
Of all the measures that have come before the Rules Committee, more
than 75 percent have completely ignored regular order and were rushed
to the floor without a legislative hearing and markup, denying the
people's elected representatives the opportunity to hear the experts
and speak up for their constituents. Well, when you look at the
politically motivated legislation that regularly comes before this
body, I guess it is easy to see why. This is not how the people's House
is supposed to work.
Late last night, the Republican majority of the Rules Committee took
another shortcut through a process called self-executing that let them
slip an amendment offered by Mrs. Ellmers into today's legislation to
redirect funding away from Planned Parenthood facilities. Under regular
order, this amendment would have required three waivers--three. It
would require three waivers from the committee to be considered on the
House floor.
On top of that, the Ellmers amendment would have also violated
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits the
consideration of legislation that exceeds a committee's allocation of
budget authority. But the Republican-controlled Rules Committee said:
Who cares? We are in charge. We don't care about the rules. We don't
want to be fair. We don't want to be open. We don't want to be
transparent. We are in charge, and we can do whatever we want.
Madam Speaker, this is just another attempt by the House majority to
shut out debate on important issues and ignore the House rules when it
is convenient for them. During this Congress alone, 118 waivers have
been granted; 115 of those waivers, 97 percent, have been for
Republicans. Instead of the House Rules Committee, we should be known
as the House Break-the-Rules Committee, because that is all the Rules
Committee seems to do. It breaks rules, goes around rules, and tries
all kinds of trickery to be able to force legislation to the floor that
limits debate and doesn't allow Members to offer amendments.
This legislative process in this House has become a joke. It is
shameful, and this is not serious legislating.
With one bill after another, Republicans have repeatedly hurt our
country's most vulnerable families, and

[[Page H6098]]

these bills today are just the latest chapter. This is nothing new.
One of the first acts of the Republican House majority in 2011 was to
drive us to the brink of a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood.
In October 2013, Republicans did shut down the government by insisting
on defunding the Affordable Care Act. Now, 2 years later, they are
right back to threatening a Republican government shutdown over Planned
Parenthood.
H.R. 3134, the so-called Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, is a
bad and a backward-thinking bill. In the 114th Congress, the House has
already taken four anti-women's health votes and today sets the stage
for us to take two additional votes to restrict women's access to
women's health care. Incredibly, this is already twice the number of
anti-women's health votes than at this same point in the 113th and
112th Congresses--and this Congress is not even half over.
In this Republican Congress, facts don't matter. We don't talk about
facts. They are inconvenient and they are a nuisance--especially when
they get in the way of their extremist political agenda.
The fact is that Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in
protecting and providing access to critical health services for both
women and men. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood
health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves
2.7 million patients each year. One of the most important statistics
that my Republican friends like to ignore is that more than 90 percent
of what Planned Parenthood does nationally is preventive care,
including cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and
family planning--not abortion services.
I just came from a luncheon a few minutes ago where we were honoring
individuals who were leaders in the cancer prevention field, people who
have advocated that it is important for all of us to be able to get
checkups on a regular basis in order to prevent cancer; and here we are
about to vote on a bill that, if the Republicans get their way, would
limit and would eliminate access to lifesaving cancer screenings for
countless individuals across this country.
What are you thinking? This is not the way we should be proceeding.
Add to this the fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are often one of
the few affordable healthcare options available for many women--nearly
80 percent of women using Planned Parenthood clinics have incomes at or
below 150 percent of poverty--and it is easy to see why a majority of
Americans don't think Federal funding should be eliminated. In one
recent poll, 63 percent of voters, including 72 percent of
Independents, do not agree with my Republican friends that Federal
funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated.
Madam Speaker, we have also heard very little from my friends on the
other side of the aisle about the consequences that defunding for
Planned Parenthood would have for families across the country. One of
the biggest myths perpetrated by Republicans is the idea that our
Nation's community health centers--which I love, adore, respect, and
support--could somehow magically pick up the slack overnight if Planned
Parenthood is defunded.
For the millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood
clinics, this scenario would mean the loss of affordable and accessible
contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and cervical
cancer screenings and testing. The idea that our community health
centers could, overnight, suddenly step up and cover millions of new
patients is simply wrong and shows a fundamental misunderstanding by
Republicans of how our country's healthcare system works.

In fact, the Guttmacher Institute recently found that, in 21 percent
of counties with a Planned Parenthood health center, Planned Parenthood
is the only safety net family planning provider. The report also
states: ``In two-thirds of the 491 counties in which they are located,
Planned Parenthood health centers serve at least half of all women
obtaining contraceptive care from safety net health centers. In one-
fifth of the counties in which they are located, Planned Parenthood
sites are the sole safety net family planning center.''
This makes clear just how devastating it would be for these
communities to recklessly cut funding for these vital health services
for the people who need them most.
Everyone here in this Congress, every single one of us, with the snap
of our fingers, can get health care; but with today's bills,
Republicans seem to be saying that for families who are poor or who
live in rural areas or where this is the only option for preventive
care where they live are simply out of luck. Talk about cruel.
Madam Speaker, I have a recent article from the Health Affairs Blog,
titled, ``Planned Parenthood, Community Health Centers, and Women's
Health: Getting the Facts Right.'' It says: ``a claim that community
health centers readily can absorb the loss of Planned Parenthood
clinics amounts to a gross misrepresentation of what even the best
community health centers in the country would be able to do were
Planned Parenthood to lose over 40 percent of its operating revenues
overnight as the result of a ban on Federal funding.''
I will enter the full article into the Record.

[From Health Affairs Blog, Sept. 8, 2015]

Quantifying Planned Parenthood's Critical Role in Meeting the Need for
Publicly Supported Contraceptive Care

(By Jennifer Frost)

Over the past few months, legislative attempts to defund
Planned Parenthood have flared at both the federal and state
levels; these moves are clearly an attempt to shutter Planned
Parenthood health centers, potentially depriving women of the
contraceptive services and counseling, sexually transmitted
infection (STI) testing and treatment, and breast and
cervical cancer screening that they provide.
Although proponents of closing Planned Parenthood argue
that other providers would be easily able to fill the hole
torn in the safety net, credible evidence suggests this is
unlikely. In some areas, Planned Parenthood is the sole
safety-net provider of contraceptive care. And even where
there are other safety-net providers, they, on average, serve
far fewer contraceptive clients than do sites operated by
Planned Parenthood.
As this debate swirls, the Guttmacher Institute received a
request from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding
the publicly supported contraceptive care provided by Planned
Parenthood health centers across the country. To respond,
Guttmacher staff conducted special tabulations of our
Contraceptive Needs and Services 2010 report (the most recent
year for which these data are available).
Our analysis shows unequivocally that Planned Parenthood
plays a major role in delivering publicly supported
contraceptive services and supplies to women who are in need
of such care nationwide. In two-thirds of the 491 counties in
which they are located, Planned Parenthood health centers
serve at least half of all women obtaining contraceptive care
from safety-net health centers. In one-fifth of the counties
in which they are located, Planned Parenthood sites are the
sole safety-net family planning center.
Further, the average Planned Parenthood health center
serves significantly more contraceptive clients each year
than do safety-net centers run by other types of providers,
such as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) or county
health departments. As a result, Planned Parenthood centers
serve a greater share of safety-net contraceptive clients
than any other type of provider. And, Planned Parenthood
sites are more likely to make contraceptive care quickly and
easily accessible to the women who need it.

contraceptive care by the numbers

Below are the key takeaways of Guttmacher's findings
related to Planned Parenthood's provision of publicly
supported contraceptive care.
Planned Parenthood health centers serve a considerable
proportion of all clients obtaining contraceptive care from
safety-net health centers.
In 2010, 36 percent of the 6.7 million U.S. women receiving
contraceptive care from safety-net family planning health
centers were served at Planned Parenthood centers. And there
are some areas of the country where women rely particularly
heavily on Planned Parenthood: In 18 states, Planned
Parenthood health centers serve more than 40 percent of women
obtaining contraceptive care from a safety-net family
planning health center. In 11 of those 18 states, Planned
Parenthood serves more than half the women obtaining
contraceptive care from a safety-net health center.
Planned Parenthood health centers often serve most or all
of the safety-net contraceptive clients in their county.
In 68 percent of counties with a Planned Parenthood site
(332 counties out of 491), these sites serve at least half
the women obtaining publicly supported contraceptive services
from a safety-net health center. And in 21 percent of
counties with a Planned Parenthood site (103 counties),
Planned Parenthood serves all of the women obtaining publicly
supported contraceptive services from a safety-net health
center.

[[Page H6099]]

The majority of women who need publicly supported
contraceptive care live in counties with a Planned Parenthood
health center.
Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the 19 million women in
need of publicly supported contraceptive services and
supplies live in counties with a Planned Parenthood health
center. Moreover, 30 percent of these women live in counties
where Planned Parenthood serves the majority of those
obtaining publicly supported contraceptive care from the
family planning safety net. (Women are considered to be in
need of publicly supported contraception if they have ever
had sex; are aged 13-44; are able to become pregnant; are not
pregnant, postpartum, nor trying to become pregnant; and
either have a family income below 250 percent of the federal
poverty level or are younger than age 20.)
Planned Parenthood health centers serve a greater share of
safety-net contraceptive clients than do any other types of
providers.
Although Planned Parenthood health centers comprise 10
percent of publicly supported safety-net family planning
centers, they serve 36 percent of clients who obtain publicly
supported contraceptive services from such centers. By
contrast, centers operated by health departments serve 27
percent of safety-net contraceptive clients, FQHCs serve 16
percent, sites operated by hospitals serve 8 percent, and
sites operated by other agencies serve 13 percent.
On average, Planned Parenthood health centers serve many
more contraceptive clients per year than do other types of
safety-net providers. Planned Parenthood health centers serve
an average of 2,950 contraceptive clients per year, many
times more than any other type of publicly supported health
center. By contrast, those operated by hospitals serve an
average of 770 contraceptive clients, health departments
serve an average of 750, FQHCs serve 330, and centers
operated by other types of agencies serve 680 contraceptive
clients each year.
Planned Parenthood health centers are more likely to
facilitate women's timely access to a wide range of
contraceptive services and supplies.
Planned Parenthood sites are considerably more likely to
offer a broad range of contraceptive methods than sites
operated by other types of agencies. Specifically, 91 percent
of Planned Parenthood health centers offer at least 10 of 13
reversible contraceptive methods, compared to between 48
percent and 53 percent of sites operated by other types of
agencies.
Moreover, Planned Parenthood sites are particularly likely
to help women who choose oral contraceptives to get their
pills without having to make an additional trip to a
pharmacy: 92 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers
offer oral contraceptive supplies and refills on-site, as do
86 percent of health department sites. Considerably smaller
proportions of sites operated by FQHCs and other types of
agencies--37 percent and 55 percent, respectively--do so.
Finally, women are often able to get the care they need
more quickly from Planned Parenthood than from other types of
safety-net providers. Sixty-three percent of Planned
Parenthood health centers offer same-day appointments,
compared to between 30 percent and 40 percent of sites
operated by other types of agencies. And the average wait for
an appointment at a Planned Parenthood health center is 1.8
days, whereas wait times at sites operated by other types of
agencies range from 5.3 to 6.8 days.

looking ahead

We cannot predict whether or to what extent health centers
operated by other providers could fill the significant gap in
the family planning safety net that would be created if
Planned Parenthood health centers were defunded--and
therefore lost to the communities they serve. Certainly in
the short term, it is doubtful that other providers could
step up in a timely way to absorb the millions of women
suddenly left without their preferred source of care and
whether those providers could offer the same degree of
accessible, quality contraceptive care offered by Planned
Parenthood. (Indeed, Texas offers a cautionary tale; the
state's family planning program for low-income women served
far fewer women after Planned Parenthood health centers were
cut out of the effort.)
What we do know is that women nationwide rely on Planned
Parenthood health centers for the contraceptive services and
supplies they need--and for women in many areas of the
country, losing Planned Parenthood would mean losing their
chosen provider and the only safety-net provider around.

Mr. McGOVERN. Here are some more facts.
For every patient served by a community health center today, nearly
three residents of low-income communities remain without access to
primary health care. By voting for a sudden cutoff in funding, we would
create an immediate healthcare access crisis for millions of women,
placing an enormous strain on community health centers and other
providers.
Community health centers offer women's health services as part of
comprehensive primary care programs. They simply cannot put their other
responsibilities aside. With so many of our Nation's community health
centers already struggling to meet the needs of our most vulnerable
communities, the last thing we should be doing is trying to make their
jobs harder.
Now, on top of all of this, Senator McConnell has already said that
Senate Republicans do not have the votes to pass this bill and it will
never reach the President's desk. So what are we doing here? This is
not a rhetorical question. We are literally, as I said earlier, 6
legislative days away from another government shutdown; and instead of
talking about how we are going to keep the doors open, how we are going
to do what the people of the country have sent us here to do and keep
government running, we are wasting time with this politically driven
legislation that does nothing to make the country better.
Madam Speaker, the other bill before us, H.R. 3504, is not a simple
restatement of the current born-alive law, by the way, which passed by
a voice vote in 2002, no. Just so my colleagues understand, this bill
fundamentally interferes with the sacred doctor-patient relationship
and undermines doctors' clinical judgment and tells them how to provide
medicine, or else they will face criminal penalties.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. We
already have strong Federal and State laws to protect babies born
alive. The bottom line is that these anti-women's health bills would
limit women's access to safe, legal, reproductive health care.
Congress should be governing responsibly and working to solve the
real issues our country is facing. We should be focused on growing our
economy and creating jobs. I think you may have forgotten that that is
an important priority of the American people because my friends never
like to mention the word ``jobs.''
But we ought to be focused on creating jobs. We ought to be
protecting access to health care, increasing college affordability, and
building a better future. Instead, 30 conservative House Republicans
have decided to take government funding hostage, and that is what we
are here for.
The American people deserve better.
Finally, let's be clear. Let's all kind of clear the air and be
honest about one thing. The debate we are having today really isn't
about the quality of care provided by Planned Parenthood. That is
really not what is at the heart of all this. This is an effort by my
friends on the Republican side to kind of pursue their agenda of
criminalizing and outlawing abortion in every circumstance.
Many of my colleagues on the other side have been very vocal about
the fact that they want to criminalize abortion, even in cases of rape
or incest. They would make a woman who is a victim of rape or incest a
criminal. They would criminalize the doctors. That is what this is all
about, trying to force their narrow agenda down the throats of the
American people.
I would say to my colleagues that we ought to reject this and get
down to the business of governing this country. This is not what we
should be doing here today. This is an insult, I think, to women. This
is an insult to the good people who work at Planned Parenthood who
provide excellent care to millions of people across this country, and,
quite frankly, it is an insult to the American people that, with 6
legislative days left before you shut the government down, this is what
you choose to bring to the floor and not a bill to keep the government
open.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues would like to use
parliamentary terms like ``regular order,'' ``self-execute,'' or
``waivers'' to hide from debate over the gruesome practices of
abortionists, that is their prerogative.
They ignore what one key Planned Parenthood abortionist said: ``We've
been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so
I'm not gonna crush that part. I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm
gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.''

{time} 1345

Republicans will continue to bring the truth to Americans and prevent
taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that dismember children.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne).

[[Page H6100]]

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, by now, we have all seen the appalling
videos which depict Planned Parenthood officials talking about how they
crush babies in certain ways to preserve certain organs and then
bargaining over the price of those organs.
I want to be crystal clear. The loss of any human life is a tragedy,
but the casual nature in which the Planned Parenthood officials talk
about killing a baby is simply heartbreaking and appalling. It is
unconscionable that any American could be that cold and callous.
Let me tell you about the Planned Parenthood clinic in my hometown of
Mobile, Alabama. They were cited by the Alabama Department of Health
for performing two abortions on a 14-year-old girl in a span of 4
months without their complying with State laws that require the
reporting of possible sexual abuse. This is the type of organization we
are talking about.
Congress cannot simply sit on the sidelines and wait for someone else
to respond. These egregious actions require a response.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe the Federal Government should be
spending a single penny on Planned Parenthood, and H.R. 3134 would make
that a reality. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to say to my colleague from North Carolina that I am not
hiding behind procedural rules.
In fact, in the way that my Republican friends have brought this bill
to the floor, you won't allow us to debate amendments. We can't. You
have stifled debate.
So I guess I would ask you: What are you afraid of? Why can't we have
a more open process on legislation that didn't even go through the
committees of jurisdiction? You ought to open this place up. A little
debate is not a bad thing. A little openness is a good thing.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the report by the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Democratic members and
staff, basically that refers to the heavily edited videos that my
colleagues refer to.
I will just read one line here:
To date, the committee has received no evidence--underline ``no
evidence''--to substantiate the allegations that Planned Parenthood is
engaged in the sale of fetal tissue for profit.
Furthermore, the committee has received no evidence to support the
allegation that fetal tissue was procured without consent, that Planned
Parenthood physicians altered the timing, method, or procedure of an
abortion solely for the purposes of obtaining fetal tissue, or that
Planned Parenthood physicians performed intact dilation and evacuation
in order to preserve fetal tissue for research.
Thus far, the investigation has revealed that PPFA requires all
affiliates to ensure compliance with all State and Federal laws and
that specific PPFA guidance requires affiliates to ensure that
reimbursement for fetal tissue is limited to actual cost.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce

Washington, DC, September 9, 2015.

Memorandum

To Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Democratic
Members and Staff
From Committee on Energy and Commerce Democratic Staff
Re Update on the Committee's Ongoing Investigation of Planned
Parenthood Federation of America

I. Introduction

This memorandum serves as an update on the Committee's
ongoing investigation into claims regarding the alleged sale
of fetal tissue by affiliates of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA) to tissue procurement
organizations (TPOs). The review has included bipartisan
briefings by Planned Parenthood officials as well as
representatives from StemExpress, Novogenix Laboratories, and
Advanced Bioscience Resources--three TPOs that partner with
Planned Parenthood affiliates and other healthcare providers
to collect specimens to supply to researchers working with
fetal tissue.
In addition to these briefings, the Committee has received
documents and written responses to a series of questions it
posed in writing to PPFA regarding its ``practices relating
to fetal tissue collection and sale or donation.'' To date,
the Committee has received no evidence to substantiate the
allegations that Planned Parenthood has engaged in the sale
of fetal tissue for profit. Furthermore, the Committee has
received no evidence to support the allegations that fetal
tissue was procured without consent, that Planned Parenthood
physicians altered the timing, method, or procedure of an
abortion solely for the purposes of obtaining fetal tissue,
or that Planned Parenthood physicians performed intact
dilation and evacuation in order to preserve fetal tissue for
research. Thus far, the investigation has revealed that PPFA
requires all affiliates to ensure compliance with all state
and federal laws and that specific PPFA guidance requires
affiliates to ensure that reimbursement for fetal tissue is
limited to actual costs.
The Committee received evidence that the individuals making
these unsubstantiated claims misrepresented themselves in
order to gain access to Planned Parenthood personnel and
facilities, and that the videos released by the Center for
Medical Progress (CMP) are incomplete, selectively edited,
and intentionally misleading.

II. There Is No Evidence That Planned Parenthood or Its Affiliates Have
Violated any Federal or State Laws

A. PPFA Requires All Affiliates to Comply With All State and Federal
Laws, Including Laws Pertaining to the Donation of Fetal Tissue for
Research

i. PPFA Guidance to Affiliates Regarding Human Fetal Tissue Donation
Specifically Advises That It Is Illegal to Receive ``Valuable
Consideration'' for Fetal Tissue, and Requires Affiliates to Ensure
that Reimbursement Represents Actual Costs

The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 established the legal
standards governing fetal tissue donation. The law states,
``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire,
receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for
valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate
commerce.'' The law further provides: ``The term `valuable
consideration' does not include reasonable payments
associated with the transportation, implantation, processing,
preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal
tissue.''
Current PPFA guidance on fetal tissue donation tracks
federal law, and it clearly and explicitly prohibits
affiliates from receiving valuable consideration for fetal
tissue. The guidance also requires affiliates to ensure that
reimbursement represents actual costs incurred by the
affiliate. The current PPFA guidance, revised in May 2015,
provides as follows:

Federal law prohibits the payment or receipt of money or
any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue,
regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is
being provided is federally funded or not.
There are limited exceptions that allow reimbursement for
actual expenses (e.g. storage, processing, transportation,
etc.) of the tissue. If an affiliate chooses to accept
reimbursement for allowable expenses, it must be able to
demonstrate the reimbursement represents its actual costs.
PPFA recommends that an affiliate consult with CAPS
[Consortium of Abortion Providers] about steps to take to
document and demonstrate actual cost. [emphasis in the
original]
The guidance also advises affiliates that ``there are
federal, and frequently, state laws that govern these
activities, as well as ethical considerations. Great care
must be taken to assure that these programs are above
reproach in all respects.''
In a briefing with Committee staff, Dr. Raegan McDonald-
Mosley, the Chief Medical Officer of PPFA, explained that
PPFA accredits its affiliates. Affiliates are autonomous
legal entities, with their own separate boards, executive
personnel, and legal counsel.
Dr. McDonald-Mosley further described how PPFA oversees its
affiliates and verifies their compliance with its fetal
tissue donation guidance. Each affiliate is independently
responsible for ensuring compliance with the guidance, as
well as with all applicable state and federal laws.
PPFA oversees its affiliates through an accreditation
process, whereby each affiliate is reviewed at least once
every three years. Affiliates are evaluated on a range of
hundreds of possible elements of performance, including, as
of 2013, compliance with PPFA's fetal tissue donation
guidance. Accreditation involves both offsite reviews of
affiliate documentation as well as onsite reviews that
include interviews with staff and direct observation of
patient care. Non-compliance with PPFA required standards may
affect an affiliate's accreditation status and result in
actions that jeopardize that affiliate's ability to continue
to use the Planned Parenthood trademark.
Although the precise language of PPFA's fetal tissue
guidance has been revised over the years, affiliates have
always been required to ensure that their tissue donation
programs are in compliance with all state and federal laws,
including the prohibition on receiving valuable
consideration. For example, an earlier version of the
guidance from 2001 provided to the Committee instructs
affiliates that federal laws ``forbid the payment or receipt
of valuable consideration for fetal tissue. However, they
permit `reasonable payments associated with the
transportation, implantation, processing, preservation,
quality control, or storage' of fetal tissue.'' This guidance
was reissued to affiliates in 2011.
Several years ago, PPFA undertook an effort to revise their
Manual of Medical Standards and Guidelines (the Manual) by
removing those sections not directly related to clinical
care. According to Dr. McDonald-

[[Page H6101]]

Mosley, the Manual is a desk reference for clinicians for
directing medical care. It is intended to assist
practitioners in providing regular care for a patient and is
revised on a two-year cycle. As a result of this revision
effort, the fetal tissue guidance was separated from the
Manual and is now a standalone document. It is distributed to
affiliates through the PPFA intranet. Dr. Deborah Nucatola,
who is PPFA's Senior Director for Medical Services and has
had primary responsibility for the Manual since July 2009,
explained to Committee staff that guidance on fetal tissue
donation was removed from the Manual as part of this process
to streamline and remove non-clinical information.
As of November 6, 2013, affiliates are now permitted to
facilitate fetal tissue donation without prior approval from
PPFA. PPFA distinguishes between ``core services,'' which all
affiliates are required to provide, such as well-women visits
and education and prescribing for all FDA-approved methods of
contraception, and services which are voluntary or optional
for affiliates to offer. Earlier versions of the fetal tissue
guidance instructed affiliates to ``submit a written request
to initiate an aborted tissue and/or blood donation program
to PPFA for review and approval.'' According to PPFA, it
``implemented this policy change as part of a broader effort
to reduce the administrative burden on affiliates and support
affiliate service expansion.
This overhaul affected other services besides facilitation
of tissue donation; PPFA no longer requires prior approval
for an affiliate to offer certain other non-core services.''

ii. PPFA Guidance to Affiliates Includes Additional Requirements
Pertaining to Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research, Although This is
Not Required by Law

Federal law imposes additional requirements on providers
and on researchers when the donated tissue is used in
federally funded research involving the transplantation of
human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes. Under the
statute, human fetal tissue may be used in federally funded
research on the transplantation of fetal tissue if the
attending physician declares in writing 1) that the woman's
consent for abortion was obtained prior to requesting or
obtaining consent to donate the fetal tissue for research; 2)
that the timing, method, or procedure used to terminate the
pregnancy were not altered in order to obtain the tissue; 3)
that the abortion was performed in accordance with applicable
state law; and 4) the woman has been fully informed of the
physician's interest, if any, in the research, and of any
medical or privacy risks associated with the tissue donation.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the
federal government has not funded any fetal tissue
transplantation research since 2007. The federal rules
relating to the timing and method of abortion are therefore
not applicable to any recent fetal tissue donations in the
United States. However, PPFA's fetal tissue donation guidance
nonetheless incorporates these requirements as recommended
practices for affiliates. The 2015 PPFA guidance provides:

Federal law establishes additional requirements applicable
whenever the research involving fetal tissue is conducted or
supported by the federal government. PPFA recommends that
these requirements be adhered to without regard to whether
the tissue donation program is federally supported or not.
These requirements are:
1. That the client's consent to donate not be sought until
after she has decided to have an abortion and has signed the
consent form for the abortion.
2. That the client acknowledge that the blood or tissue is
being donated as a gift and that she will not be paid.
3. That the client acknowledge that she has not been told
and that she has no control over who will get the donated
blood and/or tissue or what it will be used for.
4. That there will be no changes to how or when the
abortion is done in order to obtain the blood or tissue.
The guidance further instructs affiliates that ``It must be
documented that no substantive alteration in the timing of
terminating the pregnancy or of the method used was made for
the purpose of obtaining the blood and/or tissue.''
Similarly, earlier versions of the PPFA guidance required
the clinician to make a notation that: ``[a]borted tissue was
donated,'' ``[c]onsent for the abortion was obtained prior to
requesting or obtaining consent for the tissue donation,''
and ``[n]o substantive alteration in the timing of
terminating the pregnancy or of the method used was made for
the purpose of obtaining the tissue.'' Previous versions of
the guidance also required specific language in consent forms
used for tissue donation. These versions were issued under
the previous system, in which affiliates were required to
seek service approval from PPFA for tissue donation programs.
Appended to PPFA's May 2015 guidance is a recommended
sample consent form, which prompts the patient who is
donating tissue to affirm the following statements:

Before I was shown this consent, I had already decided to
have an abortion and signed a consent form for it.
I agree to give my blood and/or the tissue from the
abortion as a gift to be used for education, research, or
treatment.
I understand I have no control over who will get the
donated blood and/or tissue or what it will be used for.
I have not been told the name of any person who might get
my donation.
I understand there will be no changes to how or when my
abortion is done in order to get my blood or the tissue.
I understand I will not be paid.
I understand that I don't have to give my blood or
pregnancy tissue, and this will not affect my current or
future care at (affiliate name).
Earlier versions of the guidance included a substantially
similar consent form, although use of the consent form was
required rather than recommended under the previous system of
service approvals by PPFA, and substantive deviations from
the consent form required approval from PPFA Medical
Services.

B. There Is No Evidence that Planned Parenthood Affiliates Knowingly
Received Valuable Consideration in Exchange for Fetal Tissue

The Committee has received no evidence that any Planned
Parenthood affiliate or employee ever received any ``valuable
consideration'' for donated fetal tissue. The information and
the documentary evidence received by the Committee support
Planned Parenthood's assertions that the few affiliates that
have participated in fetal tissue donation comply with the
requirement to limit reimbursement to reasonable payments
associated with facilitating tissue donation.
In an August 27, 2015, letter to congressional leaders,
PPFA President Cecile Richards listed the reimbursement rates
at affiliates that are currently or were recently
participating in fetal tissue donation. At present, only two
out of PPFA's 59 affiliates are participating in fetal tissue
donation, and only one affiliate is receiving any
reimbursement for costs. An additional four affiliates
facilitated fetal tissue donation for research in the past
five years. The California affiliate that is currently
participating receives a reimbursement of $60 per tissue
specimen from a TPO. The other four affiliates, which had
participated in fetal tissue donation programs in the past
five years, either sought no reimbursement or had
reimbursement rates ranging from $45 to $55 per tissue
specimen. The letter states, ``[i]n every case, the
affiliates report that these amounts were intended to recover
only their costs, as allowed under the federal law and our
guidance.'' The evidence received by the Committee during the
course of this investigation supports this assertion.
The May 2015 tissue donation guidance notes that affiliates
``must be able to demonstrate the reimbursement represents
its actual costs.'' Dr. McDonald-Mosley explained that the
way that each affiliate determines cost is fact-specific to
that affiliate. Dr. Nucatola stated that fetal tissue
donation is not a revenue stream for affiliates, and that
reimbursement should generally be reasonable for the impact
it has on the clinic.
Both the statute governing fetal tissue donation and
Planned Parenthood's May 2015 guidance on pregnancy tissue
donation outline the exceptions for reimbursement. The types
of costs that may arise for clinics facilitating tissue
donation include staff time to identify patients who are
interested in donating fetal tissue, staff time spent
explaining fetal tissue donation and securing consent, staff
time spent drawing maternal blood samples, space in the
pathology lab, storage of supplies, sterilization of
equipment, and other related costs.
In a briefing with the Committee, Cate Dyer, the Chief
Executive Officer of StemExpress, stated that it is her
understanding that the valuable consideration requirement
applies to all fetal tissue her company obtains. The
contracts between StemExpress and two Planned Parenthood
affiliates state, ``The reasonable costs associated with the
services specified in this Agreement shall be fifty-five
dollars ($55.00) per POC [product of conception] determined
in the clinic to be usable.'' According to Dyer, the
reimbursement covers the space and storage at the Planned
Parenthood facility, particularly within the lab and
pathology departments, sterilization of equipment, and staff
participation in consent and facilitating involvement in the
clinic. Additionally, clinic staff is also involved in
obtaining maternal blood samples for StemExpress, so that the
company can screen for infectious diseases. Dyer stated that
she believed Planned Parenthood is losing money on fetal
tissue donation, given the amount of staff time involved and
space StemExpress takes up at the clinics.
In a briefing with Committee staff, Dr. Ben Van Handel, the
Executive Director of Novogenix Laboratories, confirmed that
at the affiliate where Novogenix has a contract, Planned
Parenthood set the price of $45 for services rendered on a
per specimen basis. The contract between Novogenix and the
Planned Parenthood affiliate states, ``Novogenix will
reimburse [the Planned Parenthood affiliate] for reasonable
administrative costs associated with the identification of
potential donors, as well as the obtaining of informed
consent.''
Similarly, in a briefing with Committee staff, Advanced
Bioscience Resources (ABR) confirmed that the reimbursement
rate at the Planned Parenthood affiliate with which they
partner is $60 per patient product of conception. it The
contract between ABR and the Planned Parenthood affiliate
states:

[Affiliate] will provide, and ABR will pay the reasonable
costs for, services and facilities . . . associated with
obtaining consents

[[Page H6102]]

and with the removal of fetal organs and tissues from POCs
[products of conception], and their processing, preservation,
quality control, transportation, and storage; including
appropriate space in which ABR employees can work, disposal
services for non-used portions of cadaveric materials, and
for seeking consent for donation of tissues and organs from
appropriate donors, and maintaining records of such consents
so that verification of consent can be supported.

C. There Is No Evidence That Planned Parenthood Physicians Conducted
Intact Dilation and Evacuation To Preserve Fetal Tissue

To date, the Committee has received no evidence that any
physician employed by Planned Parenthood affiliates has
performed an ``intact'' dilation and evacuation (D&E) to
preserve fetal tissue for research. CMP claims suggesting
that Planned Parenthood physicians are violating the Partial
Birth Abortion Act in order to preserve fetal tissue for
research appear to have no basis in fact.
There are three primary methods of surgical abortion: D&E,
induction of labor, and hysterotomy. D&E is the only method
available at Planned Parenthood facilities. In a briefing
with Committee staff, Dr. McDonald-Mosley stated to the
Committee that the confusion over ``intact'' fetuses is the
result of deceptive video editing by CMP, and that she
believes that the ``intactness'' that Planned Parenthood
staff are referring to is the intactness of the tissue and
specific organs. She noted that during most procedures, such
as a D&E, the fetus is not delivered intact. She stated there
is no evidence that Planned Parenthood staff are removing the
fetus in an intact manner.
Similarly, Dr. Nucatola explained that it would be rare for
a patient to be sufficiently dilated to deliver an intact
fetus. When questioned whether it was possible to do a D&E
resulting in an intact fetus, she stated that while possible,
no Planned Parenthood physician would intentionally perform
such a procedure because to do so would be illegal.
Representatives of all three TPOs also stated to the
Committee that the donated fetal tissue specimens they
receive do not include intact fetuses.

D. There Is No Evidence That Planned Parenthood Physicians Altered the
Timing, Method, Or Procedure Solely for the Purpose of Obtaining Fetal
Tissue for Research

To date, the Committee has not obtained any evidence that
Planned Parenthood physicians altered the timing, method, or
procedure of an abortion solely for the purpose of obtaining
fetal tissue for research. The law requires physicians to
certify that ``no alteration of the timing, method, or
procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely
for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.'' Although this
section of the law applies only to federally funded research
involving transplantation of human fetal tissue for
therapeutic purposes, Planned Parenthood has voluntarily
incorporated the principles of the law into its tissue
donation guidance. The PPFA May 2015 guidance instructs
affiliates that ``[i]t must be documented that no substantive
alteration in the timing of terminating the pregnancy or of
the method used was made for the purpose of obtaining the
blood and/or tissue.''
There are limited methods of abortion. At Planned
Parenthood affiliates, there are two methods of an early
abortion: (1) a medication abortion, and (2) surgical
abortion involving mechanical or manual aspiration. For
abortions after approximately 13 weeks gestation, the only
surgical abortion method available at a Planned Parenthood
facility is D&E. A physician's decision about which method to
use is made in consultation with the patient.
PPFA has not identified any cases in which changes in
methods for abortions were made for the purposes of fetal
tissue donation. It is reasonable for providers to make small
adjustments in technique for clinical reasons, and such small
adjustments would not constitute a change in method or
procedure. As is common across the medical profession,
techniques are different for each physician, and physicians
commonly make clinical judgments to adjust their approach in
the course of a surgery.
Dr. Nucatola confirmed that changing the position of the
fetus is not a change in the method or procedure; instead, it
often needs to be done for patient safety. Although she does
not personally change the position of the fetus in her
practice, she believes that some physicians may need to
convert the fetus to breech position in order to perform the
abortion procedure safely; it is a matter of skill and
experience.
All Planned Parenthood staff emphasized that patient safety
is their top priority. Dr. McDonald-Mosley stated, ``The
ultimate goal is the safety of the patient.'' Dr. Nucatola
said, ``Patient safety comes first.'' PPFA's August 27, 2015,
letter reiterated the same message: ``Our patient's health is
our paramount concern.''

Mr. McGOVERN. These heavily edited videos that my friends keep on
referring to, again, I think is just a cover for what really is behind
all of this, and that is their attempt to criminalize and outlaw
abortion in all circumstances.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in defense of Planned Parenthood, an
organization that for nearly 100 years has been the only accessible and
affordable health care for millions of Americans, men and women.
Yet again, we find ourselves debating a bill that has no chance of
becoming law, that attacks women and their healthcare decisions, and
that distracts from what we should be doing: a budget to keep the
government funded, which the majority shows no interest in moving
forward.
Instead, we are rehashing old bills that we have seen many times
before. These Republican broadsides fly in the face of the millions of
women across the country and undermine the health and well-being of
poor and rural women, who, in most cases, have no place else to turn
except to Planned Parenthood for basic medical treatment.
Need I remind the Chamber that one in five American women has relied
on a Planned Parenthood health center for care in her lifetime, as my
colleague said, more than 90 percent of which is for preventive care:
cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and even HIV
counseling?
There is no other medical procedure so furiously debated. Do we spend
years here debating whether men can get vasectomies during their
reproductive years? Maybe we should do that because, obviously, we have
cloaked ourselves in the medical field so that we can make those
priceless decisions that people should make for themselves. Do we
threaten to shut down the government over access to Viagra? No, we
don't.
This week, I received an email from a local Planned Parenthood
affiliate about a woman who, when she was 19 years old, went to Planned
Parenthood to get a prescription for birth control. During a routine
screening, the doctor found a cluster of abnormal cells that could have
turned into life-threatening cancer.
The woman wrote: ``Early detection and treatment . . . allowed me
later in life to have a healthy baby who is the light of my life.
Planned Parenthood is the provider I know and trust. Why should
politicians tell anyone where they can and cannot go for care? Planned
Parenthood was there for me when I needed affordable, quality health
care, and I don't know what I'd have done without their services.''
That is what is at stake. In spite of these pleas, Republicans
continue their obsession with attacking women's health--I would think,
by now, they would know better--and co-opting the most personal
decisions of a woman's lifetime.
Legislatures across the country, including this one, waste valuable
time in pretending to be doctors instead of doing their jobs.
Legislators do not spontaneously become medical professionals upon
their elections.
These constitutionally protected decisions are for women with the
advice of their doctors, their families, and anyone she wants to
consult, be it her priest or rabbi or pastor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. What terrible decisions there are to be made between
medical personnel and the patient. I don't want anybody to have to say:
I have to wait until Louise Slaughter gets here because Congress has
the last word in whether we live or die.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, this debate is not about any one
organization that receives tax dollars. This isn't about Republicans
versus Democrats. It is not even about pro-life versus pro-choice. The
issue before us today, Madam Speaker, is about defending the most
vulnerable among us.
It is about a fundamental question: Will we allow and, indeed, give
the people's money to an organization that takes a tiny baby outside
the womb--with a beating heart, with lungs that function--and takes a
scalpel and cuts open the head so that the brain can be extracted and
sold for profit?
That is gruesome--I am sorry--but watch the video. Or are we going to

[[Page H6103]]

say: Let's suspend the funding to this organization while we
investigate? That is a reasonable position.
Any organization that receives Federal funds and that is being
investigated for breaking the law ought to have its funds suspended.
My wife, Renee, and I are expecting our first child in just a matter
of days. So this is an issue that is very personal to me.
I would just say to my colleagues: Let's support this legislation and
make sure that no baby is ever again cut into pieces and sold for scrap
parts in this country.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to stand
with millions of American women and men who receive essential health
services from Planned Parenthood.
These attacks against Planned Parenthood threaten access to health
care across this country, particularly for low-income women and men who
already face barriers to access.
For many of our Nation's underserved populations, Planned Parenthood
is the only source for vital services, such as contraceptive services
and counseling and breast and cervical cancer screenings.
If the majority succeeds in its effort to defund Planned Parenthood,
millions of Americans will be stripped of access to health care, in
turn, creating hardships for American families.
More troubling still is the majority's willingness to shut down the
government in order to deny health care to millions of women. Women's
health should not be used as a bargaining chip for political messaging.
I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics driven by
purposefully misleading videos. Attacking Planned Parenthood is a
dangerous distraction to the real issues facing American women and
families.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Utah (Mrs. Love).
Mrs. LOVE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3134, to defund
Planned Parenthood, and H.R. 3504, which requires that babies born
alive during abortions get the same medical treatment as any other
child.
It is crucial that we stand for those who cannot speak for
themselves: the unborn. These bills are critical to curtailing the
horrific practices that include harvesting fetal tissue while babies
are still alive.
We, as Americans, value human life. We are fighting terrorists in
Iran because we value the lives of people. Fighting for the unborn is
no different.
I demand a full investigation into Planned Parenthood's donation of
fetal tissue and the removal of taxpayer funding for the organization.
My colleagues will try to distract, distort, and divide us into
thinking that this is all about women's health issues. This is, in
fact, about saving American lives.
Let me remind my colleagues that Black Americans make up 12 percent
of the population and that the fetuses that are being aborted make up
78 percent of who is being aborted.
We must act to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I
know my job. Please do yours.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, there are two issues that are very contentious:
abortion and fetal research. I support the right of a woman to choose.
I support medical research that is legal under our laws so we can get
cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and diabetes. I also respect those
who disagree with me, but this bill is terrible.
Here is why: It is unfair to women who are not part of this debate
and whose access to Planned Parenthood is about getting preventive
health care, 16,000 women in our State. The second reason is that this
bill, as designed, is destructive to the institution we represent.
Here is how it is designed: One, take the money away and then
investigate. In a fair society, we do it the opposite way.
Second, it eliminates access to care for innocent people, who have
nothing to do with this, as I mentioned, 16,000 in Vermont.
Three, it is a prelude to the shutdown, resorting to the tactic of,
unless you get your way, we are shutting down the entire government.
Four, it is part of the ``dump the Speaker'' campaign, as though, if
the Speaker resists a shutdown, his job should be taken away.
Bad for women. Bad for the institution.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I stand today in support of the
innocent and the unborn. I strongly believe now is the time for
Congress to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
The videos that have been released that expose the appalling acts
committed by Planned Parenthood are horrifying.
These are despicable acts that are on par with the sickest of
criminals who are behind bars, and that is exactly where these people
belong: in prison, behind bars. These videos have given everyone
insight into the inexcusable and horrific culture at Planned
Parenthood.
Taxpayer funds should never be used to fund or to offset the cost of
providing abortions; and it is especially unacceptable when these
illegal and horrific practices, like the selling and trafficking of
unborn fetal tissue, are happening.
As a father and a grandfather, I believe we must seek justice for
these crimes that have been committed.
I urge Federal law enforcement to execute a full criminal
investigation into these alleged actions by Planned Parenthood.
These two bills being debated today, of which I am a cosponsor, are
the necessary next steps. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation and to support life.

{time} 1400

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, let's be clear. This is not a debate about
abortion. There are different points of view on that question, but it
is a settled question by the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who want to make
this about something that it is not need to look at the legislation
that they are supporting.
This is about whether or not families have access through Planned
Parenthood to preventative health care, to lifesaving cancer
screenings, to basic health care that ought to be available in every
possible way. This bill would have an extreme and devastating impact on
access to those fundamental services that Planned Parenthood provides.
Here we are, 7 legislative days before this government shuts down;
and what is preoccupying the floor of the House of Representatives
today? An ideological debate that everyone on both sides of the aisle
acknowledges will not become law.
Everyone acknowledges it will not become law, but we are taking time
to pander to some of the voices that simply oppose women's healthcare
choices instead of taking up the questions that the American people
sent us here to do. Where is the budget? Where are the budget
negotiations? Where is the discussion about roads and bridges?
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, no taxpayer should be forced to fund an
organization that aborts more than 350,000 unborn babies every year.
This is a commonsense truth that even pro-abortion activists have a
hard time arguing.
Guess what--they changed the argument. They pretend that abortion
doesn't exist and that Planned Parenthood is the only place where low-
income women can get health care. Taking away taxpayer funding from
Planned Parenthood means denying women access to health care, they say.
That is untrue, and anybody spreading that should be ashamed. There
are more than 13,000 federally qualified and rural health centers
throughout this country offering low-cost health care

[[Page H6104]]

to women. They outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 20 to 1.
If this was really about making sure women had access to health care,
we could all agree right now that supporting these community health
centers is the right thing to do; but that is not what this is about.
It is because community health centers don't perform abortions;
Planned Parenthood does. That is what this is about. It is about
preserving a pipeline of funding to the Nation's largest abortion
provider. We all get this. Let's drop the phony women's health charade.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the
underlying bill. With this bill, the majority has declared war on the
health and well-being of millions of women.
Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million Americans every year with
lifesaving services, like pap tests, breast exams, screenings for
sexually transmitted infections. For many low-income families, Planned
Parenthood is their only option.
The majority claims that other clinics can take up the slack, but
just listen to Dr. Mark DeFrancesco, the president of the American
Congress of OB/GYNs: ``If Planned Parenthood went away, there are a
good number of patients just in my service area that no longer will
have a doctor. If they start calling my office, it is going to be `we
could take you, but it might be 2, 3 months down the road.' And if they
call other places, it might be `we can't even take you.' ''
This bill creates chaos, and in that chaos, people's lives will be
put at risk. This bill is spiteful; it is mean spirited, and it is
cruel. It tells millions of low-income Americans: Forget your health.
You can just die.
Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, there are many more options for women's
health care than the discredited abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
While Planned Parenthood is only approximately 665 clinics, federally
qualified health centers, FQHCs, and rural health centers, RHCs,
provide over 13,000 publicly supported locations, providing
alternatives for women's health care. This means there are 20 federally
funded comprehensive care clinics for every one Planned Parenthood.
This bill does not change the availability of funds for women's
health. It simply establishes a safeguard so that the Nation's largest
abortion chain is not the one providing such services.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Loudermilk).
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, there comes a time when we must face
the truth, regardless of how disgusting or offensive that truth is. As
much as we dislike where we are and the shame the harvesting of baby
parts has brought on our Nation, we are the ones who must face this
truth and take action.
Some who oppose this bill and other actions this Congress may take
state that defunding this or other organizations will not completely
stop these horrific acts, and that may be true.
Did our involvement in World War II against Hitler end anti-Semitism?
No, it didn't. Did our government's decision to take out Osama bin
laden end terrorism? No, it didn't. How many innocent lives were spared
because we did take action?
The question before us is not whether our actions will stop this
evil, but if this government will continue to fund it, sanction it, and
tolerate it.
For years, William Wilberforce fought against the evil of slavery,
and he challenged his fellow countrymen with these words: ``You may
choose to look the other way, but you can never say that you did not
know.''
If we know the truth, which we do, and decide not to respond, we
will, in part, share the blame, share the responsibility, and share in
the judgment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in
opposition.
These bills today are the direct result of a series of videos that
have been found to be purposefully misleading, alleging misdeeds that
never happened that will result in the punishment of millions of women
who have absolutely nothing to do with it.
In many areas of this country, Planned Parenthood clinics are one of
the few affordable healthcare options for women.
During the Senate debate on defunding, a letter was introduced from
California's community health centers, stating in no uncertain terms
that defunding the Planned Parenthood clinics would place untenable
stress on the community healthcare providers, but our Republican
colleagues are indifferent to the experts.
Truth, as usual, is the first casualty when they wage their cultural
wars; and all that matters is the theater, their bizarre kabuki
theater, of ritualized outrage.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying
bill.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Virginia Foxx, who is
a tremendous leader for life and a great leader in this Congress, for
yielding.
Mr. McGovern said we are wasting our time. Mr. Kildee talked about
pandering, which I think is an insult.
I would just like to ask Mr. McGovern: Yes or no, has the gentleman
watched the videos?
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman has?
Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Okay. It is disappointing then that the
gentleman is not moved to compassion over the terrible inhumanity
displayed on those videos by the Planned Parenthood personnel.
Madam Speaker, human dismemberment is a painful and absolutely
frightening way for anyone to die, but in Planned Parenthood clinics
across the country, such violence against children is commonplace.
Subsidized by half-a-billion dollars annually, Planned Parenthood
kills a baby every 2 minutes, snuffing out the lives of over 57 million
infants since 1973, a staggering loss of life, a staggering loss of
children.
Madam Speaker, now, because of undercover videos by The Center for
Medical Progress, we know Planned Parenthood is also trafficking in
baby parts, turning babies into human guinea pigs while making the
abortion industry even richer than before.
Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned
Parenthood's meticulously crafted facade of care and compassion has
been shredded. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood's top leadership, not
interns or lower-level employees, show callous disregard for children's
lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain.
This begs the question: Do Americans really know what horrors are
done to children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional
colleagues and has President Obama watched the videos yet?
In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of Planned
Parenthood Federation of America's Medical Services and a late-term
abortionist herself says on camera:

We have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver
because we know that, I am not going to crush that part. I am
going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above,
and I am going to see if I can get it all intact. . . . I
would say a lot of people want liver; and for that reason,
most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance,
so they will know where they are putting their forceps.

In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that
preserves organs and body parts for sale.
Planned Parenthood's medical directors council president, Dr. Mary
Gatter, appears on the video nonchalantly talking about utilizing
``less crunchy'' abortion methods, again, to preserve body parts.
Regarding the price tag for baby body parts, she says, ``Let me just
figure out what others are getting and, if this is in the ballpark,
then, it is fine. If it is still low, we can bump it up,'' that is, the
price. ``I want a Lamborghini,'' she says.

[[Page H6105]]

Planned Parenthood's national director for the Consortium of Abortion
Providers, Deborah VanDerhei, says, ``We are just trying to figure out
as an industry''--abortion is an industry--``how we are going to manage
remuneration because the headlines would be a disaster''--concern for
making money and avoiding bad press, no concern whatsoever for the
child victim.
Holly O'Donnell, a tissue procurement technician for StemExpress, a
biotech company that partners with Planned Parenthood, says some women
undergoing abortions did not give consent for these baby body parts to
be trafficked.
She says on the video, ``Pregnancy tests are potential pregnancies,
therefore, potential specimens.'' They think of the pregnancy test as a
way of getting more specimens, so it is just taking advantage of the
opportunity.
O'Donnell also says how her supervisor told her to cut through the
face of a baby in order to get brain tissue. ``She gave me the scissors
and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can't even
describe what that feels like,'' she says on tape.
H.R. 3134, made in order under this rule, authored by an
extraordinarily caring and compassionate Member of Congress, Diane
Black of Tennessee, places a yearlong moratorium on funding for Planned
Parenthood and redirects withheld monies to other facilities that
provide women's health.
Madam Speaker, the videos have also brought into sharp focus the fact
that some babies actually survive abortions.
Dr. Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned
Parenthood Rocky Mountains, confesses:

Sometimes we get--if someone delivers before we get to see
them for a procedure then they, the baby, are intact.

That means born alive. That means born alive.
``The fetus just fell out,'' she says. It just fell out. It, the
baby, fell out. What happens to that baby? Tragically, we know what
happens. They are killed, and some of their organs are stolen.
The second bill made in order by the rule--the Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act, authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks--
simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same
care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. The
new bill builds on the landmark Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002, authored by Steve Chabot, by ending important enforcement
prohibitions.
I would remind my colleagues that it was just 2 years ago that the
infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of
killing children, as well as women in his clinics, but children who
were born alive after an attempted abortion.
The grand jury report describes his practice--and I read the entire
report; you ought to read it--Gosnell had a simple solution for
unwanted babies he delivered. He killed them. He didn't call it that.
He called it ``ensuring fetal demise.'' He called it ``snipping.''
Support these two bills, I say to my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, human dismemberment is a painful and absolutely
frightening way for anyone to die but in Planned Parenthood clinics
across the country, such violence against children is commonplace and
usual.
Subsidized by half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, Planned
Parenthood kills a baby every two minutes, snuffing out the lives of
over seven million infants since 1973--a staggering loss of children.
Now, because of undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress,
we know Planned Parenthood is also trafficking in baby body parts--
turning babies into human guinea pigs while making the abortion
industry even richer than before.
Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned
Parenthood's meticulously crafted facade of care and compassion has
been shredded. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood's top leadership--not
interns or lower level employees--show callous disregard for children's
lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain.
Which begs the question: do Americans really know what horrors are
done to children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional
colleagues--has President Obama--watched the videos yet?
In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Planned
Parenthood Federation of America's Medical Services and a late term
abortionist herself says on camera: ``We have been very good at getting
heart, lung, liver, because we know that, I am not going to crush that
part. I am going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above,
and I am going to see if I can get it all intact . . . I would say a
lot of people want liver; and for that reason, most providers will do
this case under ultrasound guidance, so they will know where they are
putting their forceps.''
In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that
preserves organs and body parts for sale.
Planned Parenthood Medical Directors' Council President Dr. Mary
Gatter appears on a video nonchalantly talking about utilizing a ``less
crunchy'' abortion method--again to preserve baby body parts. Regarding
the pricetag for baby body parts she says: ``let me just figure out
what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then its fine,
if it's still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.''
Planned Parenthood's National Director for the Consortium of Abortion
Providers Deborah VanDerhei says ``we're just trying to figure out as
an industry . . . how we're going to manage remuneration because the
headlines would be a disaster''. Concern for making money and avoiding
bad press--no concern whatsoever for the child victim.
Holly O'Donnell, a tissue procurement technician for StemExpress, a
biotech company that partners with Planned Parenthood says some women
undergoing abortions did not give consent: ``. . .'' there were times
when they would just take (the body parts) what they wanted. And these
mothers didn't know. On the video, Ms. O'Donnell says: ``Pregnancy
tests are potential pregnancies, therefore potential specimens. So it's
just taking advantage of the opportunities.''
O'Donnell also tells how her supervisor told her to cut through the
face of a baby in order to get brain tissue. ``She gave me the scissors
and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can't even
describe what that feels like'' she says.
H.R. 3134 authored by an extraordinarily caring and compassionate
Member of Congress Diane Black of Tennessee places a yearlong
moratorium on funding to Planned Parenthood and redirects withheld
monies to other facilities that provide women's health.
At the instruction of Speaker Boehner, several committees of congress
have launched probes into this baby body parts trafficking scandal.
I suspect that if the President watches at least one of the videos,
he'd at least demand real answers concerning Planned Parenthood's
inhumane behavior. Or at least I hope he would.
Mr. Speaker, the videos have again brought into sharp focus the fact
that some babies actually survive abortion.
Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned
Parenthood Rocky Mountains confesses that ``Sometimes, we get--if
someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure then they
(the baby) are in intact . . .'' A fetal tissue broker describes
watching a ``fetus . . . just fell out.''
It just fell out. It, the baby, fell out, she says. And then what
happened to that baby?
Tragically, we know what happens to these victimized babies--they are
killed and some have their organs stolen.
So the second bill made in order by the rule--The Born Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504)--authored by pro-life champion
Trent Franks, simply says any child who survives an abortion must be
given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same
gestational age. The new bill builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant
Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important
enforcement provisions.
I would remind my colleagues that it was just two years ago the
infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of
murder for killing children who were born alive after an attempted
abortion. The Grand Jury report described his practices, ``Gosnell had
a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them.
He didn't call it that. He called it ``ensuring fetal demise.'' The way
he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the
baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that ``snipping.''
Gosnell's grisly after-birth abortion practices were only exposed
when he was investigated for illegal drug charges and, in the words of
the Grand Jury ``the search team discovered fetal remains haphazardly
stored throughout the clinic--in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons,
and even in cat-food containers. Some fetal remains were in a
refrigerator, others were frozen.''
Last week Gianna Jessen an abortion survivor, told the House
Judiciary Committee:
``My biological mother was seven and a half months pregnant when she
went to Planned Parenthood, who advised her to have a late-term saline
abortion.
``This method of abortion burns the baby inside and out, blinding
and suffocating the child, who is then born dead, usually within 24
hours.
``Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's
womb, I was delivered

[[Page H6106]]

alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April the 6th, 1977. My
medical records state: ``Born alive during saline abortion'' at 6 am.
``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been
there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or
leaving me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I
was rushed to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live.
``I did. I was later diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy, which was caused
by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was
never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And Cerebral Palsy is
a great gift to me.
Gianna asked the committee,
``If abortion is about women's rights, then what were mine? You
continuously use the argument, `If the baby is disabled, we need to
terminate the pregnancy,' as if you can determine the quality of
someone's life. Is my life less valuable due to my Cerebral Palsy?
``You have failed, in your arrogance and greed, to see one thing: it
is often from the weakest among us that we learn wisdom--something
sorely lacking in our nation today. And it is both our folly and our
shame that blinds us to the beauty of adversity.''
Gianna Jesson's reminds us that we have a duty to protect the weakest
and most vulnerable.

{time} 1415

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just state three facts here: We
know that these videos that have been mentioned have been selectively
edited; we know for a fact that 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood
does is preventive care, including screenings for cervical cancer,
nothing to do with abortion; and we know for a fact, because it is the
law, that no taxpayer dollars can be used to pay for abortion.
Having said that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bills. This closed rule makes in order misguided legislation
that would seriously limit access to crucial healthcare services, like
cancer screenings, and limit access to contraception that would prevent
unwanted pregnancies.
We are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood? How
counterproductive. In my home State of Oregon, more than 72,000
patients were served by Planned Parenthood in 2013 alone. We are
talking about real women and men who received compassionate, preventive
care. I have heard from Oregonians like Stacy, who went to Planned
Parenthood and got a lifesaving cancer screening when she had no
insurance.
It is unfortunate that the House is using its limited time to debate
legislation that harms women, but it is downright irresponsible to even
consider shutting down the government over access to these vital
services. There is no evidence that Planned Parenthood has broken any
laws.
We have seen proposals like this before. It is time to end these
attacks on women's constitutional reproductive rights. I urge my
colleagues to reject this rule and other legislation that limits access
to vital healthcare services.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues have asked for an investigation into The Center for
Medical Progress, which released these videos. The Center for Medical
Progress does not receive half a billion in taxpayer dollars every
year; Planned Parenthood does. It is the role of Congress to exercise
oversight on those who receive taxpayer dollars. It is also appropriate
for Congress to cease funding a scandal-ridden organization.
It is extremely interesting to hear my colleagues across the aisle
talk about investigating the creators of these videos. If only there
was such enthusiasm for oversight on other issues, such as ObamaCare
implementation, immigration executive orders, and Hillary Clinton's
refusal to share her actions on Benghazi.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I would not be here on the floor to
lend suspicion to the faithfulness of anyone, but as evidenced by what
we have been hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle,
this is nothing but a politically charged debate and an undermining of
women's health care.
We made it very clear in the Committee on the Judiciary that Roe v.
Wade is the law of the land. We know that because the Texas Supreme
Court, in 2014 and 2015, rolled back the Texas law that was going to
close a number of clinics evidencing and providing for women's health
care. Planned Parenthood provides for 378,000 pap tests and 487,000
breast exams. 87,000 women found out they had cancer through Planned
Parenthood.
As it relates to the fetal tissue, we know that there are laws in
place that do not allow the sale of such, but we also know the fetal
tissue research has generated spinal cord, neurological research and
cures.
Therefore, let me say to my colleagues, the law of the land is Roe v.
Wade. This is a protracted political fight, and I would only say, ask
the person who filmed these particular videos. He stole the identity of
his high school classmate to do this underhanded work. That shows you
that this is a political effort.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the
underlying bills.
I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House
majority to defund Planned Parenthood and undermine women's right to
make their own choices regarding their reproductive healthcare.
Instead of spending time fueling a politically-charged attack on
America's leading provider of reproductive health care services for
women, and attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected
rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our
truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems.
We are brought here today to examine the practices and procedures of
Planned Parenthood. Yet, tellingly, the Majority has failed to reach
out or obtain any direct information or witnesses from Planned
Parenthood.
The bills before us are offered not for the purpose of exposing any
wrongdoing of Planned Parenthood, but simply to sensationalize
opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our
government.
The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v.
Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to
privacy includes her right to abortion.
Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have
substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted
pregnancies.
Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services
only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to
accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of
restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's
health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different.
In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75
percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged
before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.
On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional
a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that
provided the full range of services would be required to have a
hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.
This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to
continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to
women.
Texas has 268,580 square miles, only second in size to the state of
California.
The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to
reproductive services for millions of women in my state.
In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to
reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10
healthcare providers in the state of Texas.
The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women
to block the move to close clinics in my state.
It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access
to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.
And in fact we are here today supposedly to talk about the safety of
medical care provided by Planned Parenthood.
But we know that's not really the case.
If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety,
they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based
proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.
Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed
attempt to ban abortion.
That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about
protecting women's health, it's about politics.

[[Page H6107]]

Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel
(or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of
ethics of abortion from the question of ethics of using fetal tissue
from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the
foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal
views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.
Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or
receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal
tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being
provided is funded or not.
A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality,
lies with the provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses
(e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.
Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their
affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this
requirement.
In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the
country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue
donation services and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington)
offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned
Parenthood service centers.
The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per
tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.
It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.
Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and
treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes,
immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.
One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal
kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now
estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.
The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue
transplantation has been the treatment of Parkinson's disease.
Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken
pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal
tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.
When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in
fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of
illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are
wholly misguided.
Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards
and accreditation processes in the country.
It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of
evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health
care is provided throughout the country.
Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of
nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including
medical experts from Harvard and Columbia.
Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews
that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over
600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half
of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.
Planned Parenthood has strict requirements regarding compliance with
all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A specific area of
compliance is with mandatory reporting laws and regulations regarding
reporting in instances where the welfare of a minor is endangered.
All staff with patient contact are rigorously trained regarding
compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing
service to minors.
Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to
disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme
anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion
procedures in this country.
To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned
Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to
millions of women every year.
They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and
undermine Planned Parenthood.
Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a
group that can be taken credibly.
The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history of
doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions
about Planned Parenthood.
It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on
Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health
care across the board.
At the same time, national media is reporting about a major
coordinated push by anti-choice groups and Members of Congress to
defund Planned Parenthood.
This coordinated effort to defund Planned Parenthood is an assault
on all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who
aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this
country.
The public is standing by Planned Parenthood, which plays a vital
role in defending women's health and rights.
Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading
groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial
generation.
My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to
services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and
STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative
screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their
access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health
services.
I urge all Members to vote against the rule and the underlying
bills.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentlewoman from North Carolina
how many more speakers she has on her side?
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am expecting one more speaker that I am
trying to accommodate. However, if the gentleman is prepared to close,
then I will do my best to do that also.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If
we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation
that would treat wildfires like similar major natural disasters and
eliminate the need to transfer funds from forest management and
conservation programs for fire suppression. It is time to make
commonsense changes to the Federal wildfire budget.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the bills that the rule will make in
order that are before us today, these bills and others are ongoing
attacks that are part of the Republican drumbeat for a government
shutdown over women's healthcare choices. It isn't enough to attack
women's health. Republicans are now willing to take down the entire
Federal Government in their political attacks.
As I mentioned at the outset in my opening statement, the facts are
the facts; and I know for some of my colleagues, they are inconvenient
and they like to avoid talking about them, but the reality is that
these videos that my colleagues are referring to have been selectively
edited.
We also know that 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is
preventive care: cervical cancer screenings, important lifesaving
procedures that benefit women. They do preventive care that benefits
men as well.
It is also important for my colleagues to realize that there are no
Federal funds, no taxpayer dollars that go to fund abortion. That is
illegal. That is the law of the land. That is the Hyde amendment.
To shut down these important preventive healthcare services, to kind
of advance this agenda that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have, which is to criminalize abortion under all circumstances--
including, many of my colleagues advocate no exceptions even for rape
or incest. A young girl who was a victim of rape or incest would be a
criminal if she had an abortion.
This is all about taking away a woman's right to choose. That is what
this is all about. Planned Parenthood happens to be the pawn, the
latest pawn in this debate.
It is interesting. I watched the Republican debate last night. It was
really quite entertaining. I heard Donald Trump and Marco Rubio and Ted
Cruz say that they would be open to putting civil rights activist Rosa
Parks on the $10 bill, but Republicans might be surprised to learn that
Rosa Parks sat on the national board of Planned Parenthood Federation
of America, the organization that my Republican friends, including the
people who invoked her

[[Page H6108]]

name last night, are now trying to defund.
This is about preserving access to good, quality health care, and I
really regret the fact that this has become such a political wedge
issue in this Congress, but I get it. I know where my colleagues are
coming from. That you would take up the time of this House to do this,
which the Senate won't take up and which the President wouldn't sign
even if they did, at a time when we have 6 legislative days left before
the Federal Government shuts down, I don't know what my colleagues are
thinking.
Part of what your job is is to keep this government running; and
instead of doing that, we are doing these rightwing message bills that
don't even go through regular order, that committees of jurisdiction
don't even have a chance to consider, when every Member, Republican or
Democrat, is told you can't even amend any of this stuff no matter what
kind of idea you have.
This whole process is disgraceful. We need to get our priorities in
order here. We ought to protect women's healthcare services; we ought
not to be defunding an organization like Planned Parenthood, which does
good work all across this country; and we ought to be bringing a bill
to the floor to keep this government running.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last evening when I spoke on this legislation in the Committee on
Rules, I mentioned that this is a very emotional issue for those of us
who value life so much. One of my colleagues has already spoken to the
fundamental issue of life, but I think we always should have time to
talk about our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
Particularly as it relates to this issue, it is the Declaration of
Independence which says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments
are instituted among Men.''
Madam Speaker, that is what we are talking about here today. We are
talking about what our government should be doing in the light of
knowing that the most vulnerable among us are being destroyed, and that
without life, there is nothing else.
Our colleagues keep saying there are things that are more important
for us to be debating today. Madam Speaker, I would purport that there
are few things more important than this debate over the trafficking of
hearts and other body parts of unborn children, some of whom may have
been born alive.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this
legislation is part of a war on women, but in reality it is designed to
stop the war on children that is going on in abortion facilities across
this country.
Large majorities of Americans believe their tax dollars should not go
to fund abortions. They felt this way even before learning that, during
those abortions, children are dismembered and sold piece by piece. It
is unfathomable that we have to debate stopping the provision of tax
dollars to organizations participating in such activities. It is also
unbelievable that we do not immediately pass, by unanimous consent,
legislation ensuring that children born alive, breathing and crying,
like each of us was on our first day outside the womb, deserve the same
medical care that any child born in a hospital would receive.
What is heartening, in the face of this contentious debate, is the
principle that the truth always comes out. Abortionists can no longer
hide in the dark back rooms of their facilities and sell unborn
children piece by piece under an illusion that no one will ever know
their crimes.
Our debate today and the videos that have been released have
shattered that darkness and exposed the callousness of the abortion
industry toward life and the consequences of accepting abortion on
demand as acceptable. Both of these bills, the Defund Planned
Parenthood Act of 2015 and the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection
Act, contain commonsense provisions addressing the barbaric actions
that have come to light in the abortion industry, and I commend the
underlying bills in this rule providing for their consideration to all
of my colleagues for their support.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 421 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
167) to provide for adjustments to discretionary spending
under section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 to support wildfire suppression
operations, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget, the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, and
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 167.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

[[Page H6109]]

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________