Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 141 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6324-H6335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1400
WOMEN'S PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 444, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3495) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
allow for greater State flexibility with respect to excluding providers
who are involved in abortions, and ask for its immediate consideration
in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). Pursuant to House Resolution
444, the amendment printed in House Report 114-269, is adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3495

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Public Health and
Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING STATE FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING
PARTICIPATION OF PROVIDERS WHO PERFORM, OR
PARTICIPATE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF, ABORTIONS.

Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a.)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(23), by striking ``subsection (g)''
and inserting ``subsection (g), subsection (11),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(ll) Rules With Respect to Determination of Participation
of Providers Who Perform, or Participate in the Performance
of, Abortions.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning October 1, 2015, subject to
paragraph (2), for purposes of this title, a State, at its
option, may establish criteria with respect to the
participation under the State plan (or under a waiver of the
plan) of an institution, agency, entity, or person who
performs, or participates in the performance of, abortions.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an
abortion--
``(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
``(B) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as
certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death
unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself.
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
terms `institution', `agency', or `entity' mean the entire
legal institution, agency, or entity, or any part thereof,
including any institution, agency, or entity that controls,
is controlled by, or is under conunon control with such
institution, agency, or entity.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts)
and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

General Leave

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 3495.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3495, the Women's
Public Health and Safety Act. This bill, at its core, is about choice
as well as protecting the lives of millions of unborn babies across
America.
H.R. 3495 would empower States with flexibility to include or not
include in their Medicaid program providers who perform or assist in
the performance of elective abortions.
The Hyde amendment already makes sure that Federal Medicaid dollars
do not pay for elective abortions. This bill would amend current law so
that States would have the flexibility and discretion to work with
qualified providers of their choice.
This bill also means States would be able to remove the largest
abortion chain from being the recipient of millions of dollars of State
and Federal funds, which are allocated within their States.
Planned Parenthood has received about $1.2 billion through Medicaid
over a 3-year period, and States who wish to eliminate Planned
Parenthood from this funding stream are being blocked from doing so.
All Medicaid providers ought to be held responsible for their
actions. However, the current administration is interpreting current
law to protect the interests of political elites over the health care
of those truly in need. States should be able to work with providers
who prioritize and respect life and exclude organizations whose
business model is built around the destruction of life.
Planned Parenthood is the Nation's largest abortion chain, doing over
327,653 abortions in the last reported year. That comes out to an
average of 898 abortions per day every day, 37 abortions every hour, 3
abortions every 5 minutes, more than 1 abortion every 2 minutes.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the new fiscal year starts in less than 36 hours, and
Congress has still not passed the annual appropriations bills. If we
don't do it, the government will shut down. During the last shutdown,
we lost $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs. I am sure we could
expect just the same now.
The debt ceiling will need to be raised within the next couple
months, Madam Speaker, and many Republicans are already threatening to
refuse to perform even that basic task. This would throw the
international economy into chaos. It would cause the loss of tens of
thousands more jobs in the United States.
Of course, the Ex-Im Bank expired in June, and our business
communities are clamoring for reauthorization. Why? Well, last year the
Ex-Im Bank financed deals that supported 164,000 American jobs.
I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the U.S. House should spend this
week figuring out how to avoid a political and financial catastrophe
rather than once again passing a blatantly political bill stripping
women of their basic healthcare rights. This latest attack targets both
the women who need to see a doctor or healthcare provider as well as
the providers themselves.
I wonder if the people on the other side of the aisle actually read
this bill on the floor today because it is so broadly written that it
would target any medical provider--doctor, hospital, clinic, you name
it--that has even the most tenuous connection to the provision of a
full range of women's healthcare services.

[[Page H6325]]

The majority claims that this bill targets Planned Parenthood, a
healthcare provider that 2.7 million Americans rely on every year.
First of all, over 90 percent of the services provided by that agency
are routine wellness exams, like breast exams, cervical cancer
screening, and birth control and family planning services.
As we all know, because we discussed it ad nauseam last week, Planned
Parenthood has received no Federal funding for abortions. In fact, no
agency receives Federal funding for abortions with a very few
exceptions.
This bill would, therefore, not stop any government funding of
abortions. It would instead allow Federal and State funding to be cut
off for any entity, not just Planned Parenthood, which performs
abortions with private dollars.
That means that poor women would be blocked from the full range of
healthcare services that they need not just at Planned Parenthood, but
at their local hospital or their local clinic or the offices of another
women's health group.
Let's call this bill what it is. It is an attempt to eliminate
healthcare services for women across the board, using the Planned
Parenthood witch hunt as an excuse. Let's be very clear. The
investigation of the last few months has demonstrated that the
videotapes the majority so heavily relies on are heavily edited,
manipulated, and at times downright misleading.
We are the U.S. Congress, Madam Speaker, and we are better than that.
The American public will not stand for this diversion, and neither
should we. Let's defeat this ill-conceived bill. Let's direct all of
our collective attention to bipartisan solutions resolving the looming
fiscal disaster that we are all facing.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, in response briefly, money is fungible.
Everybody knows it. In one pocket, out the other, same pair of pants.
$1.2 billion over the last 3 years in Medicaid. The videos, nobody is
putting words in their mouth. It is their words, their pictures.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn),
vice chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a distinguished
leader on this issue.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for his diligence and his consistency through the years as
we have worked on this issue at the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I
do rise in strong support today of the Women's Public Health and Safety
Act.
There will be a lot said about this bill during the course of the
day, but let's be certain in what the bill actually says. You have got
two pages, and what this does is grant to the States flexibility.
Madam Speaker, what they have asked us for is flexibility. Why are
they asking us for this flexibility? Because we have four States
currently in litigation over wanting to be able to determine who is and
is not a Medicaid provider in their State.
So there is a premise and a basis and a reason for bringing this
forward and allowing the States to have the final say in who
participates in that Medicaid delivery--that is what you call good
government--and sending the power and the money back to the State and
local level.

This bill is necessary because the Obama administration has blocked
attempts of States to remove certain providers from the program. Now,
we have four States, as I said, that have had to go into court because
they have tried to remove providers and CMS has blocked that action.
So, therefore, they are not able to move these providers out of the
program.
The States know best the needs of their residents, and they know best
which providers are providing affordable access to quality medical care
and which ones are trying to skirt the law. There are no mandates in
this bill. The final decision is up to the States.
The left, in their endless efforts to protect Planned Parenthood and
to prevent them from being held accountable, have once again resorted
to scare tactics.
I also want to touch on the issue of the community health centers,
9,000 here in our country. They meet the needs of over 24 million
Americans. You take a district like mine in Tennessee, there are zero
Planned Parenthood affiliates in my district--zero. There are 16
community health centers.
Contrast that with the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, Ms.
Schakowsky's district. She has 1 Planned Parenthood affiliate, and
there are 44 community health centers. Ms. DeGette has 3 Planned
Parenthood sites and 46 of the community health centers.
So what we are doing is encouraging the States to take the
responsibility and make the determination of where this ought to be.
Madam Speaker, it is amazing to me. People always say: Let's make
certain that we are being good stewards of the money. Planned
Parenthood is now outsourcing their women's health issues. They have
cut them in half over the past 7 years. It is important for us to
redirect the funds and give the States the opportunity to determine who
provides the service and the access.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3495,
yet another radical GOP assault on women's health care. Unfortunately,
my Republican colleagues are at it again, attempting to use any excuse
to pursue their extreme agenda. They are attacking Planned Parenthood
in order to limit women's constitutionally protected right to choose
what is best for them and their families.
The legislation is particularly offensive and egregious. Let me tell
you what this legislation is. In the words of more than 120,000 family
physicians nationwide, it represents an unprecedented level of
legislative interference in the patient-physician relationship. It is
not only ill-advised, it is dangerous.
This legislation would, in the words of the National Women's Law
Center or the National Health Law Program, ``wreak havoc on our
Nation's safety net programs and millions' access to health care across
the country.'' It represents a direct attack by Members of Congress on
women's ability to control their own reproductive health.
This legislation undermines patient choice of providers and provides
States unchecked authority to terminate providers from Medicaid without
cause. This is a direct attack on the freedom of low-income women to
choose their own trusted and qualified medical provider.
I stand, Madam Speaker, with Planned Parenthood. I stand with all the
physicians and health professionals out there who provide lifesaving,
preventative health services to millions of women and men every day. I
stand with the hundreds of millions of Americans to say that I will not
stand by silent and allow those who are committed to ending abortion
access in this country use fraud and deception to cut millions of
people off from their health care.
We cannot allow Republicans to win their war on women. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the extreme Republican agenda and vote ``no'' on
H.R. 3495.
I include in the Record two letters on this legislation, one from the
American Academy of Family Physicians, and an analysis of this
legislation by the National Health Law Program and the National Women's
Law Center.

September 28, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner & Minority Leader Pelosi: I am
writing on behalf of the 120,900 members of the American
Academy of Family Physicians to express our strong opposition
to the ``Women's Public Health and Safety Act'' (H.R. 3495),
which will be considered by the House of Representatives this
week. This legislation would, if enacted, expand the ability
of states to selectively prohibit identified physicians and
health care facilities from participating in the Medicaid
program. Furthermore, this legislation represents an
unprecedented level of legislative interference in the
patient-physician relationship.
We are deeply concerned with the overall intent of this
legislation and, more specifically, its attempts to interfere
with the patient-physician relationship. Our most pointed
criticism is directed at the phrase ``or by

[[Page H6326]]

any individual or entity based on the individual's or
entity's involvement in abortions.'' This language is not
only ill-advised, it is dangerous. Health care decisions
should be made by a patient in consultation with her
physician(s). Patients deserve an environment that encourages
open communication with their physicians on health care
options appropriate for their health status. This legislation
would potentially discourage and prohibit physicians from
discussing a safe and legal health care service with their
patients. As previously stated, this represents an
unprecedented level of legislative interference in the
patient-physician relationship.
Again, we urge the House to reject this legislation. The
proposal represents an inappropriate and misguided intrusion
into the patient-physician relationship and actually seeks to
criminalize a physician for discussing a legal, safe, and
appropriate health care service with their patients. This is
a dangerous bill and it should not pass.
Sincerely,
Reid Blackwelder, MD, FAAFP,
Board Chair.
____

September 17, 2015.
Dear Representative: The National Health Law Program and
the National Women's Law Center strongly oppose H.R. 3134, a
bill that would wreak havoc on our nation's safety net
programs and millions' access to health care across the
country. It is no overstatement to say that, if H.R. 3134
were to become law, our country would face a significant
public health crisis. Excluding a highly trusted and
qualified provider from a network that provides critical
preventative health care would do nothing more than harm
those who are in need of this health care the most.
H.R. 3134 would mean that millions of low-income
individuals in the Medicaid program could lose their ability
to access the provider they trust and choose for high quality
health care. This conflicts with, and threatens to
jeopardize, a longstanding protection for Medicaid enrollees,
the ``freedom of choice'' provision. This provision gives
Medicaid recipients the right to choose to receive covered
services from any qualified provider. Historically, Congress
has singled out family planning for unique protection when it
comes to freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is especially
critical for receiving family planning services--it
guarantees that women, men, and young people have ready
access to family planning services they need when they need
them, and from a provider they trust. H.R. 3134 attempts to
eliminate Medicaid enrollees' ability to visit Planned
Parenthood, whether for family planning services or the other
critical services Planned Parenthood provides, such as well
woman visits, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted
infections, and life-saving cancer screenings. The end result
could mean that Medicaid beneficiaries lose access to what
may be the only source of primary and preventive care they
have.
H.R. 3134 would also inflict serious harm on the
chronically underfunded Title X program. Planned Parenthood
is a critical component of this safety net program, as the
health centers serve a disproportionate share of clients in
the Title X system. While only comprising 13% of Title X
clinics, Planned Parenthood clinics serve 37% of clients.
Each Planned Parenthood health care center serves nearly
3,000 patients for birth control services, far more than
other clinic types. Taking away Title X funding from Planned
Parenthood would leave those who rely on the Title X program
without a key provider that they trust and that provides the
health care services they need.
Eliminating funding from Planned Parenthood would have a
disproportionate impact on women of color. Hispanic and Black
women more commonly access family planning or medical
services from a Title X-funded clinic. And women of color
make up a disproportionate share of Medicaid recipients
relative to their population. Given that Planned Parenthood
serves 36% of all clients who obtain care from the family
planning health network, and that women of color often turn
to this network for their health care, taking away such a
trusted, high-quality health care provider would have inflict
particular harm on women of color.
Proponents of H.R. 3134 boldly suggest that individuals
would not lose services because other providers will fill in
the drastic void that would be left if Planned Parenthood
clinics were shut down. Historical evidence and existing gaps
in our country's public safety net suggest otherwise. For
example, after Texas turned its preventative care and family
planning program into a state-funded program in order to
exclude Planned Parenthood from its network, 30,000 fewer
low-income women received health care. When Indiana defunding
forced a Planned Parenthood clinic to shut its doors, it led
to an HIV outbreak in the county because there was no other
clinic providing HIV education and testing. The suggestion
that other providers can and will step up to fill this need
defies common sense.
On a closing note, while we focus on the dramatic negative
impact that H.R. 3134 would have on millions of lives across
our country, it is imperative to place this attack in the
context of the many other attacks on women's health. For
example, some members of Congress are pushing to completely
eliminate or further cripple the Title X program, as
reflected in the current appropriations proposals.
Not only would H.R. 3134 mean that millions of women, men,
and young people would lose access to birth control, cancer
screenings, breast exams, and STI and HIV testing, but it
also represents a direct attack by Members of Congress on
women's ability to control their own reproductive health.
We strongly urge you to vote no on H.R. 3134, and stand
strong in support of the millions who receive high quality
health care through the Planned Parenthood health care
centers.
Sincerely,
National Health Law Program,
National Women's Law Center.

{time} 1415

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the Obama administration
puts its own abortion-centered ideology ahead of women's health care.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), an
outstanding leader on this issue.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, legislation empowering
States to terminate Medicaid contracts with providers that disrespect
innocent human life by performing abortions.
As we debate this bill today, the big abortion industry is in crisis
mode. They have seen the same videos I have implicating Planned
Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion provider, in the trafficking
of fetal tissue and organs, and they have seen the same nonpartisan
government report I have indicating that Planned Parenthood received
$1.2 billion in Medicaid funding over a 3-year period.
So, knowing that they are losing the public opinion battle, they are
taking their fight to the courts, suing States that dare to protect
taxpayer dollars by exercising their right to terminate contracts with
this abortion giant. Tennessee saw this tactic before when Planned
Parenthood took our State to court over an abortion law back in 2000.
We defeated them, but it took 14 years to do it.
Madam Speaker, let's not let that happen again. If President Obama
and the congressional Democrats are so intent on blocking this
legislation to combat taxpayer funding of abortion providers at the
Federal level, then they should at least let States use their 10th
Amendment rights to take action within their own borders without the
threat of costly, politically motivated lawsuits. The Women's Public
Health and Safety Act will do just that.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this compassionate, pro-life, pro-woman
legislation.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and to the
political gamesmanship that continues to put our Nation at risk.
Today we witness yet another attack by some of our colleagues who are
obsessed with ending access to Planned Parenthood, a trusted healthcare
provider in my community. But today's bill takes a slightly different
approach, one that cynically tells a woman that the government knows
better than she does when it comes to telling her who she should trust
with her health and well-being. As a woman, a mother, and a nurse, this
is insulting. These attacks have to stop.
Republicans are willfully putting their heads in the sand. They think
it is no big deal to shut down hundreds of clinics offering essential
services not available anywhere else; they think that the rest of the
safety net can easily pick up the slack, ignoring the fact that those
providers themselves have said they cannot; and they think it is worth
shutting down the government to achieve this goal.
Moreover, I would just like to emphasize that these women have chosen
to go to Planned Parenthood for their care. Suggesting that they can
just get their care from some other provider is both callous and
condescending.
With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
which provider a woman chooses to go to for her own reproductive health
care is not your decision to make--at least, it shouldn't be.
I urge my colleagues to trust women to make their own decisions. Vote
``no'' on this bill.

[[Page H6327]]

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the prime sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I have to tell you, I have been watching my
Democrat friends across the aisle do somersaults trying to whitewash
their past and rename their dinners that they have every year, their
Jefferson-Jackson dinner. There is a big conversation about the
Confederate flag and what it means, which I would agree with my friends
across the aisle. But what they don't want to talk about is the roots
of where Planned Parenthood started.
It started with Margaret Sanger, a known racist and a speaker in
front of the KKK. She believed in eugenics, and she is the founder of
Planned Parenthood. We should talk about the racist roots of Planned
Parenthood just like with the Confederate flag and just like the
Jefferson-Jackson dinner that the Democrats celebrate every year.
If you watch the videos that have come out about Planned Parenthood
harvesting little baby body parts and selling those body parts for a
profit, it is disgusting. This is not a debate about abortion or even
non-abortion, pro-life or pro-abortion. Those who are even pro-abortion
agree that these tactics are unacceptable. They have no place in our
society. That Federal tax dollars should actually go to fund an
institution that harvests baby body parts for sale is absolutely
asinine.
You want to talk about health care? Health care doesn't mean Planned
Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood doesn't mean women's health care.
You talk about defunding women's health care. There is no less money.
There is the same amount of money that goes to women's health care.
That is a false argument. We spend the same amount of money, but we
say: You know what? When we have an organization that supports the
harvest and sale of body parts, our tax dollars probably shouldn't go
to it.
Or, better yet, why don't we let the States make that decision for
themselves? If they say that it is an affront to our morals and our
values in one State, we should say we are not going to send Federal
Medicaid money to that organization. And if another State says, ``You
know what? We are okay with it,'' then let them spend their money that
way, giving States back the power to choose how they use their money.
I have got to tell you that I oftentimes sit back and am amazed that
my friends across the aisle who talk about being very compassionate and
caring and loving and supporting the downtrodden can't join us in
saying: We probably should at least ban abortions after 20 weeks when
little babies feel pain, when little babies can survive outside the
womb. We are so radical in our position that we want to support
abortion up to the point of birth. We won't even support you if there
is a botched abortion and the baby is born alive and we should probably
try to save it.
You can't even join us in that. It is a sellout to the radical
abortion industry.
I see the rally outside. It is a rally for Planned Parenthood, which
provides the largest funds to the Democratic coffers, to their
campaigns.
This is not about life. This not about health care. This is not about
abortion. This is about campaign money that flows from Planned
Parenthood into my friends' campaigns. Sadly, I wish they would put
aside their campaign concerns instead of standing for states' rights
and women's health and little babies' lives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I didn't agree with much the previous
speaker said, but I do agree that, from our perspective, it is about
campaign money on that side.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, but also for
her tremendous leadership on this and so many issues.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3495, the so-
called Women's Public Health and Safety Act.
First of all, this bill does not keep women safe, and it certainly
won't keep them healthy. Instead, it would prevent individuals or
organizations that provide abortion services from treating women
enrolled in Medicaid, and it would simply strip women of their
fundamental right to choose their own healthcare provider.
Congress already denies Federal Medicaid coverage of abortion, which
is wrong, and that needs to be repealed. That is the Hyde amendment. We
have got to repeal that. Now, excluding doctors from serving Medicaid
patients is yet another attack on the rights of low-income women.
When in the world are you going to stop?
H.R. 3495 would deny more than 7 million women access to critical
healthcare services, including contraceptive care, STI tests,
lifesaving cancer screenings, and other primary care services; and it
would hurt our most vulnerable communities, including low-income women
and women of color.
Madam Speaker, this bill is simply wrong. It is nothing more than a
shameful attempt to restrict women's constitutional rights. Politicians
should never interfere with women's personal healthcare decisions,
period. Stay out of our lives.
The Women's Public Health and Safety Act does just the opposite of
what this bogus title says. It erodes the health and safety of women
and continues the war on women.
Today I am proud to stand with Planned Parenthood and the men, women,
and children in our country. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill that
will severely hurt the health and safety of women.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, we should be aware that not a single penny
will be cut for women's health care under this bill.
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Pittenger).
Mr. PITTENGER. Madam Speaker, I stand before you in full support of
H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act.
This legislation amends Medicaid law to give States the freedom and
flexibility to remove abortion providers from Medicaid. Taxpayer
dollars should not be used for abortion, period.
This important policy is widely supported by the American people.
That is why the Hyde amendment, first established in 1976, protects
taxpayers from preventing the use of Federal funds for abortion.
However, through the years, we have seen these groups attempt to
circumvent this Federal mandate in order to further their own
destructive agenda of death.
In North Carolina, Madam Speaker, there are 294 community health
clinics, but only 9 Planned Parenthood abortion centers. Providing
States like North Carolina with flexibility and funding will result in
better, more accessible health care for all women, instead of funneling
money to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and their army of
political lobbyists.
Thank you to Congressman Sean Duffy for his leadership on this issue.
As a nation, we must restore the value and sanctity of each and every
life against this selfish culture of death. I will continue to be a
voice for the voiceless and speak out against these egregious acts as
long as it takes to restore the God-given promise of life.
Life is precious. As Pope Francis stated in this Chamber, we must
cherish each and every one at every stage of life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I am in opposition to this ill-conceived legislation
brought forward from my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin.
I realize that good people can differ on topics, and I have been
stunned by some of the discussion that has occurred on the floor today
with regard to the racist roots of Planned Parenthood, with regard to
so-called states' rights.
I can tell you that, as an African American and as a woman, I have
heard the term ``states' rights'' used in ways that were not very
healthy and safe for me as an African American woman. There is nothing
healthy and safe about a bill that would deny

[[Page H6328]]

women their constitutional and human rights to control their own
reproduction--to get birth control, to be protected against STDs, or to
have an abortion.
I know many people in this body are fond of reality shows, but in
reality, a woman is fertile for 30 to 40 years of her life, and there
is nothing healthy about becoming pregnant every year for 30 to 40
years. I am one of nine kids, and that is not a healthy scenario for
many women.
The reality is that this would have an adverse impact on some of the
poorest women, and many of them African American, in this country.
Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood patients live at 150
percent or lower of the poverty level.
The reality is that 60 percent of all Americans do not want to see
Planned Parenthood defunded. It is not in the interest of public health
and safety for these women to be denied this basic health care.

{time} 1430

Madam Speaker, we have heard about these films that are not real at
all. They have been doctored, edited, and they are revisionist tapes,
all in pursuit of defunding the premier organization that protects
women's health.
With regard to the other community health centers, I am glad to know
that my colleagues are interested in funding those centers. But this
bill even puts them at risk because any ancillary service related to
abortion can be deemed as unfitting for reimbursement under the
Medicaid program.
My last point, Madam Speaker, is that we have seen the flexibility
that States have used. We saw in Indiana where they defunded Planned
Parenthood and, as a result, we saw a pandemic of HIV infestations in
that State.
So I would say before I yield back, Madam Speaker, that I urge my
colleagues to not go for the appeasement of the Anti-Choice Caucus so
that we don't shut the government down, to use women as a gambit in
this political battle.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 18
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 19 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chair of the Pro-Life
Caucus.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, last week Pope Francis admonished a joint session of
Congress to follow the Golden Rule--to do unto others as you would have
them do unto you. The Pope also said the Golden Rule compels us to
protect and defend human life at every stage of development--and, of
course, that includes the unborn. It is wrong to remain silent, he
said, or to look the other way when individuals are put at risk.
At the White House welcoming ceremony earlier in the day, President
Obama spoke of protecting the least of these, taken from Matthew's
Gospel, the 25th chapter. When President Obama says protect the least
of these, he excludes millions of unborn children.
Every day Planned Parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons to
death approximately 900 unborn babies, the least of these, and hurts
many women in the process.
Subsidized by half a billion dollars annually, Planned Parenthood
kills a baby every 2 minutes and has terminated the lives of over 7
million infants since 1973, a staggering loss of children's lives that
equates to twice the number of every man, woman and child living in the
State of Connecticut.
So I rise in strong support of H.R. 3495, the Women's Health and
Public Safety Act, authored by our distinguished colleague, Sean Duffy,
to give States the authority to defund Planned Parenthood.
States, indeed, Madam Speaker, should have the freedom to choose who
they subsidize and why. But the President has denied that option to at
least six States so far, including Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana,
Alabama, and Arkansas. The latter three States had moved to defund in
the wake of the recent undercover videos by the Center for Medical
Progress.
Now, because of the CMP videos, we know Planned Parenthood is also
trafficking in baby body parts.
I would note parenthetically, Madam Speaker, I wrote the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act to try to end the cruelty of modern-day slavery,
sex trafficking, and labor trafficking. Planned Parenthood's activities
are a manifestation of human trafficking, exploiting defenseless unborn
children and taking body parts that they have no right to take.
It turns out Planned Parenthood has turned these babies into human
guinea pigs, and it makes the abortion industry even richer.
Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned
Parenthood's meticulously crafted facade of care and compassion has
been shattered. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood's top leadership,
not interns or lower level employees, show callous disregard for
precious children's lives while gleefully calculating the financial
gain, which begs the question: Do Americans understand the violence to
children done every day in Planned Parenthood clinics?
Have my Congressional colleagues, has the President, actually watched
the videos? To care for the least of these, have they watched them?
In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Planned
Parenthood Federation of America's Medical Services, says: ``We have
been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that I am
not going to crush that part.''
So they crush all around that part that is desired, dismember that
baby piece by piece, but they leave intact certain parts, including
livers, that will then be sold.
Planned Parenthood Medical Directors' Council President Dr. Mary
Gatter appears on the video nonchalantly talking about utilizing a
``less crunchy''--her words--abortion method, 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 in the ballpark, then
it is fine.'' ``If it is still low, then we can bump it up,'' she says.
Another Planned Parenthood Director, Deborah VanDerhei, says: ``We
are just trying to figure out as an industry''--and it is the abortion
industry--``we are just trying to figure out how we are going to manage
remuneration because the headlines would be a disaster.''
Concern for making money, finding another revenue stream, but no
concern whatsoever for that child victim who suffers when they are
dismembered: arms, legs, torso, decapitated head. It is gruesome
dismemberment abortions. That is what Planned Parenthood does.
One woman, Holly O'Donnell, from StemExpress, says: ``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.
I suspect that, if the President watches at least one of the videos
and my colleagues on the other side, they would at least demand real
answers concerning Planned Parenthood's inhumane behavior and violence
that is directed at the least of these.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend.
You know, mention has been made about Margaret Sanger. I have read
three of Margaret Sanger's books. In one of them, called The Pivot of
Civilization, she talks about the cruelty of charity of caring for
indigent women who carry babies to term, that you should not give them
help, that charity is cruel.
She was a racist. Read her books. Read her birth control review. I
went to the Library of Congress, got many copies of it and read through
it. She had many programs that talked about focusing on Blacks and
others for extermination. Just read her books. And, again, The Pivot of
Civilization is one of the worst.
Let me also say to my friends that they talk about how these videos
have been doctored. Well, there is a new report that just came out
called the Coalfire Forensics Analysis. It finds that the videos are
authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing.

[[Page H6329]]

The events depicted in the missing footage fall into five common
categories: commuting, waiting, adjusting recording equipment, meals,
and restroom breaks.
At each interview, four devices recorded conversations, two video
recorders with microphones and two audio-only devices. I ask my friends
and colleagues on the other side to take a look at that analysis.
Again, you just attack the whistleblower. You attack the
organization. But you don't look at the evidence.
I have watched those tapes several times and was sickened by just how
inhumane these individuals are in cutting little babies into pieces in
order to procure their body parts.
Seven million babies since 1973 killed in Planned Parenthood clinics.
They ought to be called Child Abuse, Incorporated. It is the most
unsafe place in America, for a child to be in a Planned Parenthood
clinic.
I submit the Coalfire Forensics Analysis Report for the Record.

[Prepared by Coalfire Systems, Inc., Sept. 28, 2015]

Digital Forensics Analysis Report

(Delivered to Alliance Defending Freedom)

Executive Summary

In September, 2015, CGS, the prime contractor on behalf of
Alliance Defending Freedom, engaged Coalfire Systems, Inc.,
the sub-contractor (hereinafter ``Coalfire'') to conduct a
computer forensics analysis of certain raw video and audio
data files. Coalfire's objectives for this project are to:
Forensically evaluate video and audio files provided by The
Center for Medical Progress (``the Organization'') through
CGS (``raw'' video and audio), and determine whether the raw
video or audio content of the files have been edited or
otherwise altered;
Compare the raw video and audio to certain files posted to
YouTube (``Full Footage'' videos and a ``Supplemental''
video) for the purpose of determining inconsistencies between
the files.
The scope of Coalfire's analysis did not cover or include:
Validation of those individuals depicted in the video or
audio, who recorded the video and audio files, the location
where they were recorded, when they were recorded, or the
purpose of the recordings;
Providing an opinion on the chain of custody prior to
receipt of source materials by Coalfire;
Coalfire's analysis was limited to only the source
materials received from the Organization and did not include
interviews of participants in the videos or audio.
A flash drive containing recorded media was received via
FedEx by Coalfire on September 17th, 2015, where it was
examined using industry-standard forensic tools and
techniques. The flash drive contained (i) a total of ten (10)
videos with audio recorded on two (2) separate devices, and
(ii) a total of eight (8) audio recordings made with two (2)
audio-only devices.
Coalfire's analysis of the recorded media files contained
on the flash drive indicates that the video recordings are
authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing.
This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video
file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the
folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the
footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also
support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the ``Full Footage'' YouTube videos released
by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied
to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including ``commuting,''
``waiting,'' ``adjusting recording equipment,'' ``meals,'' or
``restroom breaks,'' lacking pertinent conversation. Any
discrepancies in the chronology of the timecodes are
consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent
footage as described in this report.
Furthermore, four of the five raw video recordings, which
also contained audio captured from the video recording
device, are accompanied by a raw audio recording captured
from a separate audio-only recording device. The raw audio-
only recordings last for the duration of their associated raw
videos. These raw audio recordings support the completeness
and authenticity of the raw video recordings since they
depict the same events within the same duration as captured
from the two separate video recorders.
____

Digital Forensics Analysis Report of Video Recordings by The Center for
Medical Progress (CMP)

The Coalfire forensic analysis removes any doubt that the
full length undercover videos released by Center for Medical
Progress are authentic and have not been manipulated.
Analysts scrutinized every second of video recorded during
the investigation and released by CMP to date and found only
bathroom breaks and other non-pertinent footage had been
removed. Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a
smokescreen of false accusations and should now answer for
what appear to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP
investigation.--Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel, Alliance
Defending Freedom
American taxpayer money should be redirected to fund local
community health centers and not subsidize a scandal-ridden,
billion-dollar abortion business. Planned Parenthood is an
organization that cares about one thing: making a profit at
the expense of women's health. The investigative videos,
whose authenticity was confirmed by the report, show that
Planned Parenthood is an abortion-machine whose top
executives and doctors haggle and joke about the harvesting
and selling of baby body parts. Women deserve far better.--
Kerri Kupec, Legal Communications Director, Alliance
Defending Freedom

Facts and Findings

Forensic analysis of CMP's recorded media files indicates
that the video recordings are authentic and show no evidence
of manipulation or editing.
The events depicted in the missing footage fell into five
common categories: commuting, waiting, adjusting recording
equipment, meals, and restroom breaks.
At each interview, four devices recorded conversations (two
video recorders with microphones and two audio only devices).
The recordings were cross-referenced and found to be
consistent.

Coalfire v. Fusion Report

The Coalfire report had access to every second of released
audio and video investigative footage recorded by CMP and
analyzed that footage to verify and authenticate all of the
videos on the CMP YouTube page.
The Fusion report had access only to four full length
videos released on YouTube between July 14 and August 4, and
none of the source material.
The Coalfire report also confirmed that one segment of
missing video highlighted by the Fusion Report was later
uploaded in full to CMP's YouTube page.
Coalfire is an internationally recognized third-party
digital security and forensics firm with experience providing
evidence for civil and criminal investigations.
Fusion is a small company formed to develop material for
Democratic party campaigns.
Both reports verify there is no evidence of fabrication or
misrepresentative editing, nothing was dubbed or altered.
Fusion's ``analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of
substantive video manipulation.'' Coalfire found the videos
to be ``authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or
editing.''

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank my good friend for her
leadership and for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this ironically titled
bill, Women's Public Health and Safety Act. Let's be honest. We all
know that this bill in no way protects the health and safety of women.
In fact, it does quite the opposite.
This bill is aimed squarely at restricting a woman's constitutionally
protected freedom to make her own reproductive health choices. This
bill is not based on facts. This bill is not based on the health needs
of women. This bill is pure politics and ideologically driven.
It is shameful that Congress is considering a bill that would leave
vulnerable women's access to comprehensive health care at the mercy of
the extreme fringe of the far right.
This is another attempt to put politics between a woman and her
doctor and a thinly veiled attempt to destroy a woman's right to
choose. This bill is so vaguely worded and so broadly written that it
will have devastating and far-reaching effects on women's health.
States would be allowed to exclude any provider, any entity, that has
ever provided an abortion or has ever had any sort of association or
involvement with an abortion. This bill puts women's lives in danger,
and it is a chilling and a most dangerous precedent.
Madam Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote. Instead, stand for a
women's right to make her own personal health care choices.
Planned Parenthood should be celebrated, not demonized. It is the
largest healthcare provider for vulnerable women in this great country
of ours.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentlewoman that
abortion is not health care.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a
great leader in the Pro-Life movement.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, protecting innocent unborn lives is
paramount to defining who we are as a people and as a nation. Killing
innocent babies before they even have a chance at life is
unconscionable, let alone turning around and selling the fetal tissue
for profit.
Planned Parenthood is the Nation's largest provider of abortion. This
abortion chain received $1.2 billion of taxpayer money through Medicaid
over a

[[Page H6330]]

3-year period. Planned Parenthood last reported that over $500 million
of their annual revenue comes from government funding. This is
reprehensible.
No Federal dollars should go to any institution in the business of
harvesting and selling baby parts of aborted children.
Can you imagine what people would say in this country if this
practice occurred with our beloved pets? Most of us have cats and dogs.
Would we stand for them to be killed and their body parts harvested and
sold for profit?
Where is the outrage that this is happening to our country's babies,
our unborn children?
I continue to fight to defund Planned Parenthood at the Federal
level, and I encourage all State and local governments to also stop
funding Planned Parenthood.
In light of the recent undercover videos, three States have attempted
to end their Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood and the Obama
administration said disqualifying Planned Parenthood because of its
abortion business violated Federal Medicaid law.
Well, today's bill amends the Medicaid law to empower States with the
ability to exclude abortion providers from Medicaid.
Given the horrific nature of the videos showing the shameful lengths
that Planned Parenthood will go to in order to harvest and sell fetal
organs, I am hopeful that each and every State would exercise this
option.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, which is critical to the
fight to protect innocent lives.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, another day, another
attack by Republicans on women's health care in the House of
Representatives. But this one is different. It goes beyond the typical
attacks on women and endangers their health and the health of entire
communities.
By holding Medicaid hostage, this bill seeks to intimidate doctors
and hospitals into not providing a safe and constitutionally protected
service.

{time} 1445

I am appalled by how far Republicans are willing to go. The language
in the bill is so vague that it would allow States to exclude entire
providers from the Medicaid program. Minority and low-income women
would be disproportionately impacted and would stand to lose access to
critical health services like birth control and family planning.
It is time to stop the attacks. Women must be free to make their own
healthcare choices in consultation with their doctors and without
threats from Republican politicians in Washington, and we must have as
one of those choices Planned Parenthood.
For many, it is the only place they can turn to for even the most
basic care. Women--especially low-income women--turn to Planned
Parenthood for affordable and dependable primary care services. They
fill a vital gap that community health centers can't fill by
themselves. We are all better off because of their cancer screenings,
STI testing, and wellness exams.
Republicans are trying to hold our health care hostage by using
baseless attacks to shut down Planned Parenthood, using heavily
doctored videos. It is time to stop using health care as a weapon to
bully women.
We must vote against this bill.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Harris), another leader on this issue.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, look, this bill is very simple. This bill
just says that States actually can be partners with the Federal
Government and Medicaid. The Federal Government, the Secretary of HHS,
doesn't get to tell a State which providers they think are inadequate--
yes, inadequate.
Planned Parenthood is not a comprehensive health provider in my
district. In the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, they closed the
Planned Parenthood in April and said on the Web site: ``You can get
services Monday through Friday at the center in Easton, 45 minutes up
the road.''
Madam Speaker, if you go up the road today, they are closed. In fact,
the center in Easton, funded with Federal dollars, is open 2 days a
week. That clinic is empty the rest of the time. Federal dollars are
paying for an empty clinic that doesn't deliver comprehensive care.
Madam Speaker, you may have heard somewhere that Planned Parenthood
provides mammograms. Nonsense. Even Planned Parenthood executives say
they don't have a mammogram machine in the entire system. They don't
provide mammograms.
The only method for breast cancer screening that actually results in
decreased deaths from breast cancer, the only method--mammograms--they
don't even provide at Planned Parenthood. They say: Oh, but you can be
referred.
Actually, Madam Speaker, the law is you don't need a referral for a
mammogram screening. That is the law. You don't need a referral. Any
woman can go get a mammogram screening as long as she is within the
screening guidelines without a referral.
So exactly what is this magic that Planned Parenthood provides?
The gentlewoman from New York said it fills a gap that community
health centers can't fill. Nonsense. Community health centers can
provide mammograms. They can provide breast cancer screenings, cervical
cancer screenings, contraceptives, birth control.
The only thing they don't do is they don't provide abortions outside
the limits of the Hyde amendment, and they don't sell baby body parts.
Oh, that is right. I guess if selling baby body parts is what is
important about women's health care, then you are right. You have got
to go to a Planned Parenthood to get it. You can't get it at a
community health center.
Remember, there are 13,000 community health centers providing the
broad range, the truly broad range, of health care, not health care
that you have to leave, by the way. Maybe you approach some age, you
are younger than some age, and you don't go to Planned Parenthood
because it is not comprehensive care. Community health centers are.
They were designed that way.
The Affordable Care Act I am no particular fan of. But the fact of
the matter is it set these up to be truly comprehensive primary care
centers. And there are 20 times as many as there are Planned
Parenthoods.
And you know what? My community health center in my district, if you
call today, they are actually open. If you call tomorrow, they are
open. But Planned Parenthood isn't. If you call Thursday, Planned
Parenthood is open for 7\1/2\ hours. My community health center is open
8\1/2\ hours. If you call Friday, you are out of luck with Planned
Parenthood. Madam Speaker, we are paying Planned Parenthood to keep an
empty office open that doesn't even provide comprehensive care in my
clinic.
Now, the gentlewoman from New York said that, in this bill, you could
not provide an abortion. That is nonsense. Read the bill. It says, as
long as you provide abortions consistent with the Hyde amendment--that
is a rape or incest exclusion or the life of the mother. In fact, the
gentlewoman was wrong.
She said lives are threatened. No, Madam Speaker. If lives are
threatened, specifically, this bill says the State can choose to fund
that provider and can do that.
Madam Speaker, the bottom line is Planned Parenthood--there is only
one thing that it does that you don't get--again, I will reiterate--
that you don't get--in a community health center.
You can get an abortion usually at any stage of pregnancy for any
reason, and you can get your baby's body parts sold in the trafficking
of body parts that we saw in those films.
Are those films doctored? They are not doctored. Anyone can go look
on the Web site. They are raw footage. People are talking about a
Lamborghini from the profits of baby body parts. If that isn't
repulsive to us, what is? All this bill does is it allows States to
defund that.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out
that the gentleman is absolutely correct. Planned Parenthood does not
provide mammograms. They do provide breast cancer screenings.
But under this bill, if there is a hospital or a clinic that does
provide mammograms and they also provide

[[Page H6331]]

abortions, well, then, the States could prevent funding.
So, ironically, under the terms of this bill up for discussion today,
mammograms could be prevented. I don't think that is the intention of
the rider of this bill.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green),
a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from Colorado for
yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3495, the so-called
Women's Public Health and Safety Act.
Women's health care is more than mammograms. I know at the Planned
Parenthood in my district over 80 percent of the care they provide is
for women's health and not abortion.
This bill would give States the right to exclude a healthcare
provider who performs abortion care from their Medicaid program.
Medicaid provides premium care to millions of low-income women and
families alike. Excluding providers from Medicaid without cause is
another ill-masked attempt to impede reproductive rights.

This bill, as it is named, is claiming to provide safe public health
care for women. By excluding quality healthcare providers, such as
Planned Parenthood, the quality of available services will drop. As a
result, women's health will be detrimentally harmed.
That was proved in a study by a Texas agency after 2011. This is yet
one more attempt to defund Planned Parenthood which, if successful,
would hurt millions of women in communities across the country.
H.R. 3495 is contradictory to the views of the majority of Americans.
Three out of four American women support publicly funded family
planning centers and believe these centers have a positive impact on
public health.
By passing this bill, we are harming the millions of women who rely
on publicly funded family planning care. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this damaging bill.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, despite its puffed-up name, this bill has
nothing to do with protecting women's health or safety. The bill the
Republicans pass today would cut off access to health care for millions
of American families who rely on Medicaid.
This bill would cut off Medicaid reimbursement for any service,
Planned Parenthood or any doctor or hospital or clinic or local health
center that performs or is involved in any way with abortions.
If this bill passes, a woman seeking prenatal care for a planned
pregnancy could suddenly be cut off from her doctor if that doctor also
provides abortion services or even referral to abortion services.
A child with a life-threatening illness could be turned away from his
hospital because the hospital chair expressed views supportive of
abortion.
A senior citizen with a chronic illness could suddenly find his or
her prescription lapsed with no way to refill it because his or her
doctor is somehow involved with abortion.
My colleagues continue to insist that this bill won't interrupt care,
that these families, children, and seniors will just see different
doctors, will go to different hospitals.
How many of my colleagues have ever been on Medicaid? How many of
them have ever been turned away by a doctor or told they have to wait
months for an appointment because the doctor simply cannot afford to
accept any more Medicaid patients?
This bill would dramatically worsen the shortage of Medicaid doctors
and lengthen wait times for patients, putting more people at risk and
increasing healthcare costs in the long term. If their overarching goal
is dismantling Medicaid as we know it, this bill is a strong first
step.
If we really want to talk about a culture of life, we should be
bringing bills to the floor to encourage more doctors to serve in high-
need areas to give every child access to the highest quality health
care.
We should be talking about increasing funding for WIC and SNAP to
make sure parents, babies, and children aren't going to bed hungry at
night.
We should be talking about expanding education programs that target
low-income students. We should be talking about funding public housing
programs to provide stability to families.
We should be talking about lowering student loan debt to ensure
parents can give their kids every opportunity without a crushing burden
of debt.
What we should not be doing is cutting doctors and hospitals and
clinics and community healthcare centers out of Medicaid and putting
more lives at risk.
This bill is just another blatant attempt to intimidate doctors and
hospitals into ending abortion services. Under the guise of promoting
life, this bill puts more lives at risk.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).
Mr. BERA. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to another bill restricting
women's access to health care. The so-called Women's Public Health and
Safety Act is not about public health, and it is certainly not about
safety.
This is a bill that takes away individual rights. It is a bill that
would significantly restrict a woman's access to health care, where
they want to go.
This is fundamentally about individual rights and an individual's
ability to choose where they want to get health care. It is another
example of politicians coming into the exam room and making decisions.
Now, my colleagues on the right, Madam Speaker, often will say they
want to stand for individual rights. Well, Planned Parenthood has not
broken any laws, to my knowledge.
If an individual patient wants to go get their care at Planned
Parenthood, that is their right. Planned Parenthood is providing access
to care. They are doing exactly what their name says: planning and
helping families decide when they are ready to start a family, planning
parenthood. We should be protecting that fundamental individual right.
As a doctor, I find it offensive when the government comes into my
exam room and tells patients what they can and cannot do. Fundamentally
to the practice of medicine, I have to answer my patients' questions,
empower them to make the choices that they want to, and let them make
those choices.
Again, patients should be able to choose their provider. Congress
should not be picking and choosing who people can go see. This is about
individual rights and preserving that right.
I am proud to stand with Planned Parenthood. I am proud to fight to
preserve those individual rights. As a doctor, we have got to protect
access to care.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 5 minutes remaining.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, today we are debating H.R. 3495, which should be
called the Yet Another Radical Republican Assault on Women's Health
Care Act.
This bill undermines the longstanding Freedom of Choice providers
provision of the Medicaid statute that protects the rights of Medicare
patients to seek care from any willing, qualified provider.
This bill contains language that is so broad that it gives States
unchecked authority to deny access to any providers it defines as
participating in the performance of abortion.
This bill is the latest in a long line of radical Republican efforts
to defund Planned Parenthood and deny women access to the high-quality
health care services it provides.
Madam Speaker, here are the facts:
Each year Planned Parenthood provides essential care to 2.7 million
men and women. One in five American women have visited Planned
Parenthood at least once.

[[Page H6332]]

There are 1.5 million young people and adults who participate in
Planned Parenthood's educational programs on reproductive health.
Each year 700 Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States
provide 900,000 cancer screenings to help detect cervical and breast
cancer, 400,000 Pap tests, and 500,000 breast exams.

{time} 1500

Madam Speaker, the cruel irony of this bill is that if it becomes
law, these services, not abortion services, will be put at risk because
Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using Federal funds to
provide abortion services except in very limited circumstances. In
providing the critical services I just described, Planned Parenthood
saves lives.
Madam Speaker, I want to close by noting the very articulate and
powerful testimony that Cecile Richards offered in the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee today. It was disturbing that so many
Members of this Chamber treated her with such condescension and
disrespect.
At some point, Madam Speaker, the Republican Party will need to end
this war on women and recognize that the question of whether women have
a right to make their own healthcare decisions is a matter of settled
law, and threatening to shut down the government unless we agree to
deny millions of women access to high-quality health care is reckless
and irresponsible.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her
leadership, and I thank the gentleman, Mr. Pitts, because in actuality
this is not a debate on people's conscience and what you believe in. It
is a debate and a question of the law.
First of all, the underlying legislation that we have before us is
likely to be ruled unconstitutional, and it is likely to be so because
it meets the very four corners of why the Supreme Court ruled the Texas
law to be unconstitutional, and I venture to say that this bill was a
copy of the Texas law.
In 2014 and 2015, the Texas legislators tried to stop reproductive
healthcare clinics by requiring them to have a hospital-style surgery
center building and staffing requirements, leaving only seven clinics
to provide health care, the same thing where they threatened the same
kind of thing which would only leave 10 healthcare providers. Guess
what, Madam Speaker; in 2014 and 2015, the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled it unconstitutional and stopped the legislature in their
tracks. That is what is going to happen to this legislation as well.
Let me be very clear: Planned Parenthood does not engage in selling
body parts. Yes, as under the law, they do deal with fetal tissue
research, which has saved millions of lives.
Under the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, it is unlawful for any person
to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal
tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate
commerce. They do not do this. The reason I know that is there has been
no Department of Justice investigation, no Health and Human Services
investigation, and, in actuality, Mr. Daleiden, who is not the FBI and
not the Department of Justice, has, in fact, engaged in a deleterious,
dastardly, and deceitful investigation, even stealing--stealing--the ID
of one of his fellow high school students.
So I am against this bill, and I am against it for the good things
that Planned Parenthood does. For example, in my State, there are 38
clinics; 150,000 young women are being served, 108,000 on
contraceptives, and others are STI.
Let me finish, Madam Speaker, by saying mammograms are not done in
your doctor's office. You get a referral, and you go to a place where
you can get a mammogram with a radiologist.
If we would only discuss facts, we would know that the underlying
bill should be opposed. I oppose it, and I ask my colleagues to oppose
it.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the
underlying bill.
I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House
majority to undermine women's rights.
Despite its title, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act,'' H.R.
3495 is nothing more than the latest string of attacks on women's
health.
Instead of wasting time fueling politically-charged attacks on 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 broken immigration and criminal
justice systems.
And as we approach yet another deadline for piecemeal fiscal fixes,
we should be focused on passing a comprehensive and cost-savings
budget.
Yet, we are here today debating a bill that threatens millions of
American's access to preventative care and could end up costing
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars if enacted.
However, we know this bill will not become law given the President's
clear Statement of Administrative Policy issued yesterday to veto this
measure.
As such, HR 3495 is simply being offered here today as a shameless
political decoy to attack the legal rights of women.
If enacted, H.R. 3495 would give states unchecked power to exclude
women's health care providers from participating in Medicaid.
Hampering women's health and safety, this bill would enable states
that are hostile to women's right to abortion, and to Planned
Parenthood, to freely target women's health care providers for
exclusion from Medicaid.
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.
However, politicians continue to try to sneak around the Constitution
and four decades of Supreme Court precedent with sham laws that do
nothing to improve women's health care and only make it more difficult,
if not impossible, to obtain safe and legal abortion.
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.
Any woman facing an unintended pregnancy needs to be able to make her
own decisions and weigh all her options--and these laws take those
options away.
Texas has 268,580 square miles, only second in size to the state of
Alaska.
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 deceptive terms and
concern for women's health and safety.
And in fact we are here today supposedly to talk about the safety of
women--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 proposing yet another attempt to ban abortion.
That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about
protecting women's health, it's about politics.
We must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues
and fundamental constitutional rights.
Undisputable, every woman has the constitutional right to make
personal health care decisions so basic that it must be equally
protected for all.
Yet, this bill provides an outright pathway to discriminate against
poor and minority women.
H.R. 3495 would give states broad discretion to exclude any person,
institution, agency

[[Page H6333]]

or entity that ``performs or participates in the performance of
abortions'' from participating in Medicaid.
According to policy experts and advocates, such as the ACLU and
National Partnership for Women and Families, this extreme measure would
mean that not only would all such women's health care providers be cut
out of Medicaid, but states could also attempt to use it to eliminate a
wide range of other health care providers, with serious and devastating
consequences for low-income patients.
Restricting access to women's reproductive health care providers
makes it increasingly difficult--and sometimes impossible--for women
who have decided to end a pregnancy to get the safe, legal, high-
quality care they need.
The result is not the elimination of abortions, but higher costs,
longer delays, and extra steps for women seeking abortion care, and in
the process punish women for their decision to exercise their
constitutional right to end a pregnancy.
History tells us that unsafe and late-term abortions did not cease to
exist without adequate access to clinical service. Rather, the exact
opposite--as we know limited and restricted access only leads to unsafe
and dangerous practices.
Today, countless women in states like Texas and Mississippi,
Wisconsin, Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana--where state laws are
already gravely impacting women's access to health care providers--
women are being forced to travel upwards of hundreds of miles or cross
state lines to access their constitutional right to an abortion.
These restrictions create sharp disparities in access to care that
are troublingly reminiscent of the time before Roe v. Wade, when access
depended on a woman's social status, where she lived or her ability to
travel to another state.
In an effort to undermine what they could not otherwise overturn,
politicians are attempting to ``turn back the clock'' to the pre-Roe
era by shuttering reproductive health care clinics and cutting off
women's access to safe and legal abortion care.
Yet, far too many women who cannot afford to travel elsewhere will
face an impossible choice between carrying an unintended pregnancy to
term or seeking drastic options outside the law.
A right that only exists on paper is no right at all.
Simply, restricting a women's right and access to legal abortion
services discriminately endangers the lives of women.
Congress should be doing everything it can to ensure that women have
access to preventive care, not eliminating it.
This is a legislative 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.
Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading
groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial
generation.
For instance, the nearly 60,000 OB-GYN physicians and partners in
women's health warn that this bill would scare providers away from
providing comprehensive, compassionate care to women, in a time where
America desperately needs more ob-gyns participating in Medicaid
programs.
Physicians and experts in the field have long argued that these
damaging measures serve no medical purpose, interfere in the doctor/
patient relationship, and do nothing to promote women's health.
My colleagues should not be closing the door to health care services.
Rather, 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, and not restricting
their access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health
services.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk here about a bill that is
only two pages long. You have heard a lot of talk about and a lot of
misstatements of fact about Planned Parenthood. But guess what; this
bill is really about giving the States the ability to hurt women, and
it never even mentions Planned Parenthood. It never mentions any of the
procedures that you have heard about here on the floor. It merely gives
the States the ability to wipe out clinics that serve women.
So it isn't about abortion procedures. It isn't about Planned
Parenthood. It is about taking away access to health care. This bill
gives the authority to States to cut off all of those services if they
specialize in health care for women.
When is this war on women going to stop? Your party ought to be
ashamed of its reputation in this country now that it is really taking
on women on all issues. So on behalf of my wife, my daughter, and my
granddaughter, who will need access to women's services--hopefully not
abortion, but if necessary, maybe--I would hope that this war on women
would stop and that all of us would vote against it.
Oppose this legislation.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have heard a lot of emotion today, Madam Speaker, and a lot of
ideas and ugly things being thrown around, but as a lawyer with legal
training, I did something radical. I actually read this bill. It didn't
take me very long, because, as Mr. Farr pointed out, it is only two
pages long.
I want to talk about what this bill would really do because this bill
would do far, far more than its proponents claim that it would do.
Let me say, first of all, there is no Federal money that is spent on
abortion in most cases in the United States. This has been the law of
the land for a long time. I disagree with that law because I think it
limits full reproductive health for women who can least afford it, but
that is the law of the land.
So what are we talking about here? What we are talking about is
States being able to deny money to anybody who is directly or
indirectly involved with abortion services with nongovernmental money,
with private money from women and their family, with insurance money,
with nongovernmental money.
So here is how this bill would work. A State could decide that, if a
hospital provided abortions with nongovernment money, it simply wasn't
going to authorize State money or Medicaid money to that hospital. I
don't mean just Medicaid money for women's services; I mean all
Medicaid money or State money, all money for services.
This bill could say that an OB-GYN who has co-privileges at a
hospital that provides abortion could now not serve any--any--Medicaid
patients. This bill would say that a doctor who provides services at a
neighborhood healthcare clinic who has privileges at a hospital that
provides abortion could now be banned from taking Medicaid patients.
That is how broad this bill is written.
Madam Speaker, what this would do is it would allow States to
terminate all government funds to any entity that directly or
indirectly provides abortions with nongovernment dollars.
So what would this do? Well, 72 million people in this country are on
Medicaid right now. These people are men, these people are women, and
these people are children. These people are people who take women's
medical services and those who don't need them. These 72 million
Americans risk the loss of all of their healthcare services under
Medicaid because of this radical bill.
Now, okay, let's say that won't really happen. Let's say that is just
an overbroad interpretation of the bill. So then our colleagues on the
other side say, well, let's just limit ourselves to community health
centers. If we use this bill to deny funding for Planned Parenthood,
everyone will go to community health centers. Let's see how that would
work.
Right now, we have 24 million patients in this country in community
health centers. The community health centers themselves tell us, for
every one of those 24 million patients they are taking, right now they
are turning away seven people. So we have 4.2 million Planned
Parenthood patients. Let's say those 4.2 Planned Parenthood patients
decide to go to the community health clinics. That is not going to
work.
They tried this in Louisiana. In Louisiana, a Federal judge found
there would be 29 providers for 5,000 women to get healthcare services.
That is untenable, that is unacceptable, and it puts our Nation's
women's health at risk.
Listen, since we have been debating this bill today, we are 1 hour
closer to a government shutdown, and we have done nothing to make sure
we are not going to do that. I would suggest that we refocus our
efforts, that we stop beating up Planned Parenthood, that we stop
beating up women's health,

[[Page H6334]]

that we get together collectively and we say: How are we going to keep
this government open? How are we going to work together to make sure
every man and woman in this country has a good job, good health
insurance, and that they can provide for their families? That is what
we are elected to do, and that is what I commit myself to do on behalf
of this body.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we have heard lots of arguments here on the floor. We
have heard about abortion being a healthcare issue. Abortion is not a
healthcare issue. Abortion is the most violent form of death known to
mankind: death by dismemberment and decapitation. It is horrific.
These video clips that we have seen show the graphic nature of what
they are doing to these little unborn babies in Planned Parenthood
clinics and the harvesting of their body parts.
You call that humane? It is horrific. It is barbaric.
Why is this bill necessary? Currently, CMS is bullying States,
telling them they must include providers of elective abortions in their
Medicaid programs. This bill empowers States with the needed
flexibility to design their Medicaid programs in a manner that is
consistent with pro-life values in a State.
The gentleman talked about patients. Well, a lot of unborn babies are
treated as patients in their mother's womb. One lady talked about, what
about individual rights? Well, what about the rights of these little
patients in the womb?
Madam Speaker, this bill merely gives States the flexibility to
choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its
Medicaid program of entities or persons who perform or participate in
the performance of elective abortions.
Under this bill, low-income women and men will still have access to
more than 13,000 federally qualified health centers in rural health
center sites, in addition to at least 1,200 private and free charitable
clinics. In contrast, Planned Parenthood has some 665 clinics. They can
find health care near them because these federally qualified and rural
health centers are 20 to every 1 Planned Parenthood clinic.
We have the list of the Members here. Some of the Members who have
spoken may have one Planned Parenthood clinic. They may have 56, 44--
the list varies--community health centers who would get that
redistributed money and provide real health care, as Dr. Harris said.
This bill gives States the flexibility to design their Medicaid
programs in a manner they choose to serve their Medicaid patients. So I
strongly urge support for H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and
Safety Act.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting
a motion to recommit on H.R. 3495 may be subject to postponement as
though under clause 8 of rule XX.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, as Congress works to defund the
nation's largest abortion provider--Planned Parenthood,
Following a number of undercover videos revealing potential baby part
sales,
It is only right that we allow states to defund abortion providers as
well.
If the governor of a state believes that funding these organizations
goes against the will of the people, they should be permitted to do so.
That includes funding through Medicaid.
H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act bill simply gives
states the flexibility to do just that.
Women should receive the best healthcare,
But they should not be put at risk, along with their unborn children,
by organizations who are driven by profit.
The federal government and state governments should not be forced to
have blood on their hands.
We do not need to fund Planned Parenthood, which killed over 327,000
babies in 2013 alone.
And states do not need to do this either.
Instead, we should be sending this money to health centers that truly
have the patients in mind.
How many more Planned Parenthood scandals do we need before they are
cut off from federal and state dollars?
How many more mothers will be lied to and babies killed as a result
of continued funding?
Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, for that matter,
must be defunded.
It is our role to protect the most vulnerable among us--
Unborn children and mothers and families in crisis alike.
I urge a YES vote on H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety
Act.
And that's just the way it is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 444, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. SINEMA. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. SINEMA. Madam Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Sinema moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3495 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed as prohibiting health care services from being
provided to a woman by an institution, agency, entity, or
person, so long as such services are provided to protect the
health of the woman.

Mr. PITTS (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of
order against the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.

{time} 1515

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. SINEMA. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit is the final
amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If this amendment is adopted, the bill will immediately
proceed to final passage, as amended.
This motion is straightforward and commonsense. The motion ensures
that nothing in this bill prohibits a woman's access to healthcare
services. This amendment protects the health of American women.
I believe a woman's personal healthcare decisions should be decided
by the woman, her family, and her doctor. Women and their families
should be able to make these decisions free from government
interference.
Despite our political differences, protecting the health, safety, and
independence of American women is something that most of us in this
Chamber can readily support. It is what the American people want and
believe.
The American people and people in my home State of Arizona want
Congress to put aside partisanship and focus on solving our country's
great challenges. They want Congress to focus on growing our economy,
creating opportunity for hardworking families, making college
affordable, reforming the VA, and strengthening our military and
national security. The list goes on and on.
It is no surprise that Republicans and Democrats alike think that
Congress is a mess, but Congress doesn't have to be a mess. Congress
can produce results when it puts partisanship aside and works for the
American people.
Earlier this year, we worked together to find a real solution to the
long-term challenge of reimbursing doctors through Medicaid. We
replaced the SGR and protected seniors' access to health care. That is
the kind of success we can achieve for the American people if we work
together.
We also worked together to help prevent veteran suicide and improve
access to mental health care for veterans. The Clay Hunt SAV Act, which
passed with the support of every Member of Congress, is an important
step toward ending the epidemic of veteran suicide in our country. That
is the kind of

[[Page H6335]]

work we can do for our veterans when we work together.
We worked together to pass the 21st Century Cures Act to encourage
biomedical innovation and the development of lifesaving treatments and
cures. This creative, bipartisan approach cuts through red tape,
allowing innovators to focus on lifesaving discoveries rather than
government bureaucracy. These are the solutions we can create when we
work together.
Last night, we passed the PACE Act, which enables employees at small-
and medium-sized businesses to keep their health insurance plans. This
is the kind of bipartisan work we can accomplish.
If we work together, we can get things done for the American people.
We can find a long-term sustainable solution to funding our highways
and infrastructure; we can pass a budget that creates jobs and
opportunity, grows our economy, and improves our national security; and
we can reform our broken Tax Code so it provides certainty, encourages
job growth, and enables us to compete on a global scale.
Instead, I've watched Congress fight once again in a partisan way,
without a bipartisan solution on the horizon. This is not what
Arizonans want. It is not what the American people want.
I offer this motion today to stand for something we all agree on,
protecting the health of women, and I ask my colleagues to support this
reasonable motion.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentlewoman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, today, under the Obama administration's
interpretation of Federal statute, States are forced to include in
their Medicaid program providers who perform elective abortions,
whether they like it or not.
The Women's Public Health and Safety Act is a commonsense measure
that would allow a State to choose to establish criteria regarding the
participation in its Medicaid program of entities or persons who
perform or participate in the performance of elective abortions.
Unlike what some Members on the other side of the aisle have said,
this bill will not harm women's access to health care. Rather, this
gives States more tools to design a Medicaid program that fully serves
low-income women and men.
The Women's Public Health and Safety Act would put States back in the
driver's seat and let each State design their Medicaid program in a
manner that best meets the needs and respects the choices and values of
the people within their States.
This bill should be supported by every Member who believes the States
should be strong, full partners in the operation of the Medicaid
program. If State taxpayers do not want to include abortion providers
in their Medicaid program, they should not be forced to include them.
I urge the Members strongly to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SINEMA. 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.

____________________