[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14462-14475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 421

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

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


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1330

  Madam Speaker, I commend this rule and both the underlying bills to 
my colleagues for their support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina, my good friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in very strong opposition to H.R. 3134 
and H.R. 3504 and in very strong opposition to the underlying closed 
rule.
  Today, the House should be debating a bill to keep the government 
open before funding runs out at the end of the

[[Page 14463]]

month. We have just 6 legislative days before there is a government 
shutdown--6 legislative days--and instead of tackling this, we are once 
again debating another Republican attack on women's health.
  In 6 legislative days, the government might shut down; and I am 
worried because, judging from recent events within the Republican 
caucus, the right hand doesn't know what the extreme right hand is 
doing. They can't seem to get along with each other, and I am afraid 
yet there will be another catastrophe and everything will come to a 
halt, and the people that will suffer will be the people of this 
country whom we are supposed to represent.
  Madam Speaker, in fact, the Republicans were in such a hurry to waste 
our time with this destructive legislation that one of the bills we are 
considering, H.R. 3504, had no hearings--not one, none--no markup, and 
this is the first time we are seeing the bill--and no amendments, by 
the way. Nobody can offer an amendment. It is totally closed.
  Whatever happened to regular order? This process, Madam Speaker, 
stinks, and it is indefensible.
  Of all the measures that have come before the Rules Committee, more 
than 75 percent have completely ignored regular order and were rushed 
to the floor without a legislative hearing and markup, denying the 
people's elected representatives the opportunity to hear the experts 
and speak up for their constituents. Well, when you look at the 
politically motivated legislation that regularly comes before this 
body, I guess it is easy to see why. This is not how the people's House 
is supposed to work.
  Late last night, the Republican majority of the Rules Committee took 
another shortcut through a process called self-executing that let them 
slip an amendment offered by Mrs. Ellmers into today's legislation to 
redirect funding away from Planned Parenthood facilities. Under regular 
order, this amendment would have required three waivers--three. It 
would require three waivers from the committee to be considered on the 
House floor.
  On top of that, the Ellmers amendment would have also violated 
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits the 
consideration of legislation that exceeds a committee's allocation of 
budget authority. But the Republican-controlled Rules Committee said: 
Who cares? We are in charge. We don't care about the rules. We don't 
want to be fair. We don't want to be open. We don't want to be 
transparent. We are in charge, and we can do whatever we want.
  Madam Speaker, this is just another attempt by the House majority to 
shut out debate on important issues and ignore the House rules when it 
is convenient for them. During this Congress alone, 118 waivers have 
been granted; 115 of those waivers, 97 percent, have been for 
Republicans. Instead of the House Rules Committee, we should be known 
as the House Break-the-Rules Committee, because that is all the Rules 
Committee seems to do. It breaks rules, goes around rules, and tries 
all kinds of trickery to be able to force legislation to the floor that 
limits debate and doesn't allow Members to offer amendments.
  This legislative process in this House has become a joke. It is 
shameful, and this is not serious legislating.
  With one bill after another, Republicans have repeatedly hurt our 
country's most vulnerable families, and these bills today are just the 
latest chapter. This is nothing new.
  One of the first acts of the Republican House majority in 2011 was to 
drive us to the brink of a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood. 
In October 2013, Republicans did shut down the government by insisting 
on defunding the Affordable Care Act. Now, 2 years later, they are 
right back to threatening a Republican government shutdown over Planned 
Parenthood.
  H.R. 3134, the so-called Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, is a 
bad and a backward-thinking bill. In the 114th Congress, the House has 
already taken four anti-women's health votes and today sets the stage 
for us to take two additional votes to restrict women's access to 
women's health care. Incredibly, this is already twice the number of 
anti-women's health votes than at this same point in the 113th and 
112th Congresses--and this Congress is not even half over.
  In this Republican Congress, facts don't matter. We don't talk about 
facts. They are inconvenient and they are a nuisance--especially when 
they get in the way of their extremist political agenda.
  The fact is that Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in 
protecting and providing access to critical health services for both 
women and men. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood 
health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves 
2.7 million patients each year. One of the most important statistics 
that my Republican friends like to ignore is that more than 90 percent 
of what Planned Parenthood does nationally is preventive care, 
including cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and 
family planning--not abortion services.
  I just came from a luncheon a few minutes ago where we were honoring 
individuals who were leaders in the cancer prevention field, people who 
have advocated that it is important for all of us to be able to get 
checkups on a regular basis in order to prevent cancer; and here we are 
about to vote on a bill that, if the Republicans get their way, would 
limit and would eliminate access to lifesaving cancer screenings for 
countless individuals across this country.
  What are you thinking? This is not the way we should be proceeding.
  Add to this the fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are often one of 
the few affordable healthcare options available for many women--nearly 
80 percent of women using Planned Parenthood clinics have incomes at or 
below 150 percent of poverty--and it is easy to see why a majority of 
Americans don't think Federal funding should be eliminated. In one 
recent poll, 63 percent of voters, including 72 percent of 
Independents, do not agree with my Republican friends that Federal 
funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated.
  Madam Speaker, we have also heard very little from my friends on the 
other side of the aisle about the consequences that defunding for 
Planned Parenthood would have for families across the country. One of 
the biggest myths perpetrated by Republicans is the idea that our 
Nation's community health centers--which I love, adore, respect, and 
support--could somehow magically pick up the slack overnight if Planned 
Parenthood is defunded.
  For the millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood 
clinics, this scenario would mean the loss of affordable and accessible 
contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and cervical 
cancer screenings and testing. The idea that our community health 
centers could, overnight, suddenly step up and cover millions of new 
patients is simply wrong and shows a fundamental misunderstanding by 
Republicans of how our country's healthcare system works.
  In fact, the Guttmacher Institute recently found that, in 21 percent 
of counties with a Planned Parenthood health center, Planned Parenthood 
is the only safety net family planning provider. The report also 
states: ``In two-thirds of the 491 counties in which they are located, 
Planned Parenthood health centers serve at least half of all women 
obtaining contraceptive care from safety net health centers. In one-
fifth of the counties in which they are located, Planned Parenthood 
sites are the sole safety net family planning center.''
  This makes clear just how devastating it would be for these 
communities to recklessly cut funding for these vital health services 
for the people who need them most.
  Everyone here in this Congress, every single one of us, with the snap 
of our fingers, can get health care; but with today's bills, 
Republicans seem to be saying that for families who are poor or who 
live in rural areas or where this is the only option for preventive 
care where they live are simply out of luck. Talk about cruel.

[[Page 14464]]

  Madam Speaker, I have a recent article from the Health Affairs Blog, 
titled, ``Planned Parenthood, Community Health Centers, and Women's 
Health: Getting the Facts Right.'' It says: ``a claim that community 
health centers readily can absorb the loss of Planned Parenthood 
clinics amounts to a gross misrepresentation of what even the best 
community health centers in the country would be able to do were 
Planned Parenthood to lose over 40 percent of its operating revenues 
overnight as the result of a ban on Federal funding.''
  I will enter the full article into the Record.

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

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

                          (By Jennifer Frost)

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


                   contraceptive care by the numbers

       Below are the key takeaways of Guttmacher's findings 
     related to Planned Parenthood's provision of publicly 
     supported contraceptive care.
       Planned Parenthood health centers serve a considerable 
     proportion of all clients obtaining contraceptive care from 
     safety-net health centers.
       In 2010, 36 percent of the 6.7 million U.S. women receiving 
     contraceptive care from safety-net family planning health 
     centers were served at Planned Parenthood centers. And there 
     are some areas of the country where women rely particularly 
     heavily on Planned Parenthood: In 18 states, Planned 
     Parenthood health centers serve more than 40 percent of women 
     obtaining contraceptive care from a safety-net family 
     planning health center. In 11 of those 18 states, Planned 
     Parenthood serves more than half the women obtaining 
     contraceptive care from a safety-net health center.
       Planned Parenthood health centers often serve most or all 
     of the safety-net contraceptive clients in their county.
       In 68 percent of counties with a Planned Parenthood site 
     (332 counties out of 491), these sites serve at least half 
     the women obtaining publicly supported contraceptive services 
     from a safety-net health center. And in 21 percent of 
     counties with a Planned Parenthood site (103 counties), 
     Planned Parenthood serves all of the women obtaining publicly 
     supported contraceptive services from a safety-net health 
     center.
       The majority of women who need publicly supported 
     contraceptive care live in counties with a Planned Parenthood 
     health center.
       Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the 19 million women in 
     need of publicly supported contraceptive services and 
     supplies live in counties with a Planned Parenthood health 
     center. Moreover, 30 percent of these women live in counties 
     where Planned Parenthood serves the majority of those 
     obtaining publicly supported contraceptive care from the 
     family planning safety net. (Women are considered to be in 
     need of publicly supported contraception if they have ever 
     had sex; are aged 13-44; are able to become pregnant; are not 
     pregnant, postpartum, nor trying to become pregnant; and 
     either have a family income below 250 percent of the federal 
     poverty level or are younger than age 20.)
       Planned Parenthood health centers serve a greater share of 
     safety-net contraceptive clients than do any other types of 
     providers.
       Although Planned Parenthood health centers comprise 10 
     percent of publicly supported safety-net family planning 
     centers, they serve 36 percent of clients who obtain publicly 
     supported contraceptive services from such centers. By 
     contrast, centers operated by health departments serve 27 
     percent of safety-net contraceptive clients, FQHCs serve 16 
     percent, sites operated by hospitals serve 8 percent, and 
     sites operated by other agencies serve 13 percent.
       On average, Planned Parenthood health centers serve many 
     more contraceptive clients per year than do other types of 
     safety-net providers. Planned Parenthood health centers serve 
     an average of 2,950 contraceptive clients per year, many 
     times more than any other type of publicly supported health 
     center. By contrast, those operated by hospitals serve an 
     average of 770 contraceptive clients, health departments 
     serve an average of 750, FQHCs serve 330, and centers 
     operated by other types of agencies serve 680 contraceptive 
     clients each year.
       Planned Parenthood health centers are more likely to 
     facilitate women's timely access to a wide range of 
     contraceptive services and supplies.
       Planned Parenthood sites are considerably more likely to 
     offer a broad range of contraceptive methods than sites 
     operated by other types of agencies. Specifically, 91 percent 
     of Planned Parenthood health centers offer at least 10 of 13 
     reversible contraceptive methods, compared to between 48 
     percent and 53 percent of sites operated by other types of 
     agencies.
       Moreover, Planned Parenthood sites are particularly likely 
     to help women who choose oral contraceptives to get their 
     pills without having to make an additional trip to a 
     pharmacy: 92 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers 
     offer oral contraceptive supplies and refills on-site, as do 
     86 percent of health department sites. Considerably smaller 
     proportions of sites operated by FQHCs and other types of 
     agencies--37 percent and 55 percent, respectively--do so.
       Finally, women are often able to get the care they need 
     more quickly from Planned Parenthood than from other types of 
     safety-net providers. Sixty-three percent of Planned 
     Parenthood health centers offer same-day appointments, 
     compared to between 30 percent and 40 percent of sites 
     operated by other types of agencies. And the average wait for 
     an appointment at a Planned Parenthood health center is 1.8 
     days, whereas wait times at sites operated by other types of 
     agencies range from 5.3 to 6.8 days.


                             looking ahead

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

  Mr. McGOVERN. Here are some more facts.
  For every patient served by a community health center today, nearly 
three residents of low-income communities remain without access to 
primary health care. By voting for a sudden cutoff in funding, we would 
create an immediate healthcare access crisis for millions of women, 
placing an enormous strain on community health centers and other 
providers.
  Community health centers offer women's health services as part of 
comprehensive primary care programs. They simply cannot put their other 
responsibilities aside. With so many of our Nation's community health 
centers already struggling to meet the needs of our most vulnerable 
communities, the last thing we should be doing is trying to make their 
jobs harder.
  Now, on top of all of this, Senator McConnell has already said that 
Senate Republicans do not have the votes

[[Page 14465]]

to pass this bill and it will never reach the President's desk. So what 
are we doing here? This is not a rhetorical question. We are literally, 
as I said earlier, 6 legislative days away from another government 
shutdown; and instead of talking about how we are going to keep the 
doors open, how we are going to do what the people of the country have 
sent us here to do and keep government running, we are wasting time 
with this politically driven legislation that does nothing to make the 
country better.
  Madam Speaker, the other bill before us, H.R. 3504, is not a simple 
restatement of the current born-alive law, by the way, which passed by 
a voice vote in 2002, no. Just so my colleagues understand, this bill 
fundamentally interferes with the sacred doctor-patient relationship 
and undermines doctors' clinical judgment and tells them how to provide 
medicine, or else they will face criminal penalties.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. We 
already have strong Federal and State laws to protect babies born 
alive. The bottom line is that these anti-women's health bills would 
limit women's access to safe, legal, reproductive health care.
  Congress should be governing responsibly and working to solve the 
real issues our country is facing. We should be focused on growing our 
economy and creating jobs. I think you may have forgotten that that is 
an important priority of the American people because my friends never 
like to mention the word ``jobs.''
  But we ought to be focused on creating jobs. We ought to be 
protecting access to health care, increasing college affordability, and 
building a better future. Instead, 30 conservative House Republicans 
have decided to take government funding hostage, and that is what we 
are here for.
  The American people deserve better.
  Finally, let's be clear. Let's all kind of clear the air and be 
honest about one thing. The debate we are having today really isn't 
about the quality of care provided by Planned Parenthood. That is 
really not what is at the heart of all this. This is an effort by my 
friends on the Republican side to kind of pursue their agenda of 
criminalizing and outlawing abortion in every circumstance.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side have been very vocal about 
the fact that they want to criminalize abortion, even in cases of rape 
or incest. They would make a woman who is a victim of rape or incest a 
criminal. They would criminalize the doctors. That is what this is all 
about, trying to force their narrow agenda down the throats of the 
American people.
  I would say to my colleagues that we ought to reject this and get 
down to the business of governing this country. This is not what we 
should be doing here today. This is an insult, I think, to women. This 
is an insult to the good people who work at Planned Parenthood who 
provide excellent care to millions of people across this country, and, 
quite frankly, it is an insult to the American people that, with 6 
legislative days left before you shut the government down, this is what 
you choose to bring to the floor and not a bill to keep the government 
open.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues would like to use 
parliamentary terms like ``regular order,'' ``self-execute,'' or 
``waivers'' to hide from debate over the gruesome practices of 
abortionists, that is their prerogative.
  They ignore what one key Planned Parenthood abortionist said: ``We've 
been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so 
I'm not gonna crush that part. I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm 
gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.''

                              {time}  1345

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

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

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Energy and Commerce

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 2015.

                               Memorandum

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

                            I. Introduction

       This memorandum serves as an update on the Committee's 
     ongoing investigation into claims regarding the alleged sale 
     of fetal tissue by affiliates of Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of America (PPFA) to tissue procurement 
     organizations (TPOs). The review has included bipartisan 
     briefings by Planned Parenthood officials as well as 
     representatives from StemExpress, Novogenix Laboratories, and 
     Advanced Bioscience Resources--three TPOs that partner with 
     Planned Parenthood affiliates and other healthcare providers 
     to collect specimens to supply to researchers working with 
     fetal tissue.
       In addition to these briefings, the Committee has received 
     documents and written responses to a series of questions it 
     posed in writing to PPFA regarding its ``practices relating 
     to fetal tissue collection and sale or donation.'' To date, 
     the Committee has received no evidence to substantiate the 
     allegations that Planned Parenthood has engaged in the sale 
     of fetal tissue for profit.

[[Page 14466]]

     Furthermore, the Committee has received no evidence to 
     support the allegations that fetal tissue was procured 
     without consent, that Planned Parenthood physicians altered 
     the timing, method, or procedure of an abortion solely for 
     the purposes of obtaining fetal tissue, or that Planned 
     Parenthood physicians performed intact dilation and 
     evacuation in order to preserve fetal tissue for research. 
     Thus far, the investigation has revealed that PPFA requires 
     all affiliates to ensure compliance with all state and 
     federal laws and that specific PPFA guidance requires 
     affiliates to ensure that reimbursement for fetal tissue is 
     limited to actual costs.
       The Committee received evidence that the individuals making 
     these unsubstantiated claims misrepresented themselves in 
     order to gain access to Planned Parenthood personnel and 
     facilities, and that the videos released by the Center for 
     Medical Progress (CMP) are incomplete, selectively edited, 
     and intentionally misleading.

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


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

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

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

       Federal law prohibits the payment or receipt of money or 
     any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, 
     regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is 
     being provided is federally funded or not.
       There are limited exceptions that allow reimbursement for 
     actual expenses (e.g. storage, processing, transportation, 
     etc.) of the tissue. If an affiliate chooses to accept 
     reimbursement for allowable expenses, it must be able to 
     demonstrate the reimbursement represents its actual costs. 
     PPFA recommends that an affiliate consult with CAPS 
     [Consortium of Abortion Providers] about steps to take to 
     document and demonstrate actual cost. [emphasis in the 
     original]
       The guidance also advises affiliates that ``there are 
     federal, and frequently, state laws that govern these 
     activities, as well as ethical considerations. Great care 
     must be taken to assure that these programs are above 
     reproach in all respects.''
       In a briefing with Committee staff, Dr. Raegan McDonald-
     Mosley, the Chief Medical Officer of PPFA, explained that 
     PPFA accredits its affiliates. Affiliates are autonomous 
     legal entities, with their own separate boards, executive 
     personnel, and legal counsel.
       Dr. McDonald-Mosley further described how PPFA oversees its 
     affiliates and verifies their compliance with its fetal 
     tissue donation guidance. Each affiliate is independently 
     responsible for ensuring compliance with the guidance, as 
     well as with all applicable state and federal laws.
       PPFA oversees its affiliates through an accreditation 
     process, whereby each affiliate is reviewed at least once 
     every three years. Affiliates are evaluated on a range of 
     hundreds of possible elements of performance, including, as 
     of 2013, compliance with PPFA's fetal tissue donation 
     guidance. Accreditation involves both offsite reviews of 
     affiliate documentation as well as onsite reviews that 
     include interviews with staff and direct observation of 
     patient care. Non-compliance with PPFA required standards may 
     affect an affiliate's accreditation status and result in 
     actions that jeopardize that affiliate's ability to continue 
     to use the Planned Parenthood trademark.
       Although the precise language of PPFA's fetal tissue 
     guidance has been revised over the years, affiliates have 
     always been required to ensure that their tissue donation 
     programs are in compliance with all state and federal laws, 
     including the prohibition on receiving valuable 
     consideration. For example, an earlier version of the 
     guidance from 2001 provided to the Committee instructs 
     affiliates that federal laws ``forbid the payment or receipt 
     of valuable consideration for fetal tissue. However, they 
     permit `reasonable payments associated with the 
     transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, 
     quality control, or storage' of fetal tissue.'' This guidance 
     was reissued to affiliates in 2011.
       Several years ago, PPFA undertook an effort to revise their 
     Manual of Medical Standards and Guidelines (the Manual) by 
     removing those sections not directly related to clinical 
     care. According to Dr. McDonald-Mosley, the Manual is a desk 
     reference for clinicians for directing medical care. It is 
     intended to assist practitioners in providing regular care 
     for a patient and is revised on a two-year cycle. As a result 
     of this revision effort, the fetal tissue guidance was 
     separated from the Manual and is now a standalone document. 
     It is distributed to affiliates through the PPFA intranet. 
     Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who is PPFA's Senior Director for 
     Medical Services and has had primary responsibility for the 
     Manual since July 2009, explained to Committee staff that 
     guidance on fetal tissue donation was removed from the Manual 
     as part of this process to streamline and remove non-clinical 
     information.
       As of November 6, 2013, affiliates are now permitted to 
     facilitate fetal tissue donation without prior approval from 
     PPFA. PPFA distinguishes between ``core services,'' which all 
     affiliates are required to provide, such as well-women visits 
     and education and prescribing for all FDA-approved methods of 
     contraception, and services which are voluntary or optional 
     for affiliates to offer. Earlier versions of the fetal tissue 
     guidance instructed affiliates to ``submit a written request 
     to initiate an aborted tissue and/or blood donation program 
     to PPFA for review and approval.'' According to PPFA, it 
     ``implemented this policy change as part of a broader effort 
     to reduce the administrative burden on affiliates and support 
     affiliate service expansion.
       This overhaul affected other services besides facilitation 
     of tissue donation; PPFA no longer requires prior approval 
     for an affiliate to offer certain other non-core services.''

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

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

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

[[Page 14467]]

     prompts the patient who is donating tissue to affirm the 
     following statements:

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

[[Page 14468]]

       All Planned Parenthood staff emphasized that patient safety 
     is their top priority. Dr. McDonald-Mosley stated, ``The 
     ultimate goal is the safety of the patient.'' Dr. Nucatola 
     said, ``Patient safety comes first.'' PPFA's August 27, 2015, 
     letter reiterated the same message: ``Our patient's health is 
     our paramount concern.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. These heavily edited videos that my friends keep on 
referring to, again, I think is just a cover for what really is behind 
all of this, and that is their attempt to criminalize and outlaw 
abortion in all circumstances.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in defense of Planned Parenthood, an 
organization that for nearly 100 years has been the only accessible and 
affordable health care for millions of Americans, men and women.
  Yet again, we find ourselves debating a bill that has no chance of 
becoming law, that attacks women and their healthcare decisions, and 
that distracts from what we should be doing: a budget to keep the 
government funded, which the majority shows no interest in moving 
forward.
  Instead, we are rehashing old bills that we have seen many times 
before. These Republican broadsides fly in the face of the millions of 
women across the country and undermine the health and well-being of 
poor and rural women, who, in most cases, have no place else to turn 
except to Planned Parenthood for basic medical treatment.
  Need I remind the Chamber that one in five American women has relied 
on a Planned Parenthood health center for care in her lifetime, as my 
colleague said, more than 90 percent of which is for preventive care: 
cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and even HIV 
counseling?
  There is no other medical procedure so furiously debated. Do we spend 
years here debating whether men can get vasectomies during their 
reproductive years? Maybe we should do that because, obviously, we have 
cloaked ourselves in the medical field so that we can make those 
priceless decisions that people should make for themselves. Do we 
threaten to shut down the government over access to Viagra? No, we 
don't.
  This week, I received an email from a local Planned Parenthood 
affiliate about a woman who, when she was 19 years old, went to Planned 
Parenthood to get a prescription for birth control. During a routine 
screening, the doctor found a cluster of abnormal cells that could have 
turned into life-threatening cancer.
  The woman wrote: ``Early detection and treatment . . . allowed me 
later in life to have a healthy baby who is the light of my life. 
Planned Parenthood is the provider I know and trust. Why should 
politicians tell anyone where they can and cannot go for care? Planned 
Parenthood was there for me when I needed affordable, quality health 
care, and I don't know what I'd have done without their services.''
  That is what is at stake. In spite of these pleas, Republicans 
continue their obsession with attacking women's health--I would think, 
by now, they would know better--and co-opting the most personal 
decisions of a woman's lifetime.
  Legislatures across the country, including this one, waste valuable 
time in pretending to be doctors instead of doing their jobs. 
Legislators do not spontaneously become medical professionals upon 
their elections.
  These constitutionally protected decisions are for women with the 
advice of their doctors, their families, and anyone she wants to 
consult, be it her priest or rabbi or pastor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. What terrible decisions there are to be made between 
medical personnel and the patient. I don't want anybody to have to say: 
I have to wait until Louise Slaughter gets here because Congress has 
the last word in whether we live or die.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, this debate is not about any one 
organization that receives tax dollars. This isn't about Republicans 
versus Democrats. It is not even about pro-life versus pro-choice. The 
issue before us today, Madam Speaker, is about defending the most 
vulnerable among us.
  It is about a fundamental question: Will we allow and, indeed, give 
the people's money to an organization that takes a tiny baby outside 
the womb--with a beating heart, with lungs that function--and takes a 
scalpel and cuts open the head so that the brain can be extracted and 
sold for profit?
  That is gruesome--I am sorry--but watch the video. Or are we going to 
say: Let's suspend the funding to this organization while we 
investigate? That is a reasonable position.
  Any organization that receives Federal funds and that is being 
investigated for breaking the law ought to have its funds suspended.
  My wife, Renee, and I are expecting our first child in just a matter 
of days. So this is an issue that is very personal to me.
  I would just say to my colleagues: Let's support this legislation and 
make sure that no baby is ever again cut into pieces and sold for scrap 
parts in this country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to stand 
with millions of American women and men who receive essential health 
services from Planned Parenthood.
  These attacks against Planned Parenthood threaten access to health 
care across this country, particularly for low-income women and men who 
already face barriers to access.
  For many of our Nation's underserved populations, Planned Parenthood 
is the only source for vital services, such as contraceptive services 
and counseling and breast and cervical cancer screenings.
  If the majority succeeds in its effort to defund Planned Parenthood, 
millions of Americans will be stripped of access to health care, in 
turn, creating hardships for American families.
  More troubling still is the majority's willingness to shut down the 
government in order to deny health care to millions of women. Women's 
health should not be used as a bargaining chip for political messaging.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics driven by 
purposefully misleading videos. Attacking Planned Parenthood is a 
dangerous distraction to the real issues facing American women and 
families.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Utah (Mrs. Love).
  Mrs. LOVE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3134, to defund 
Planned Parenthood, and H.R. 3504, which requires that babies born 
alive during abortions get the same medical treatment as any other 
child.
  It is crucial that we stand for those who cannot speak for 
themselves: the unborn. These bills are critical to curtailing the 
horrific practices that include harvesting fetal tissue while babies 
are still alive.
  We, as Americans, value human life. We are fighting terrorists in 
Iran because we value the lives of people. Fighting for the unborn is 
no different.
  I demand a full investigation into Planned Parenthood's donation of 
fetal tissue and the removal of taxpayer funding for the organization.
  My colleagues will try to distract, distort, and divide us into 
thinking that this is all about women's health issues. This is, in 
fact, about saving American lives.
  Let me remind my colleagues that Black Americans make up 12 percent 
of the population and that the fetuses that are being aborted make up 
78 percent of who is being aborted.
  We must act to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I 
know my job. Please do yours.

[[Page 14469]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, there are two issues that are very contentious: 
abortion and fetal research. I support the right of a woman to choose. 
I support medical research that is legal under our laws so we can get 
cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and diabetes. I also respect those 
who disagree with me, but this bill is terrible.
  Here is why: It is unfair to women who are not part of this debate 
and whose access to Planned Parenthood is about getting preventive 
health care, 16,000 women in our State. The second reason is that this 
bill, as designed, is destructive to the institution we represent.
  Here is how it is designed: One, take the money away and then 
investigate. In a fair society, we do it the opposite way.
  Second, it eliminates access to care for innocent people, who have 
nothing to do with this, as I mentioned, 16,000 in Vermont.
  Three, it is a prelude to the shutdown, resorting to the tactic of, 
unless you get your way, we are shutting down the entire government.
  Four, it is part of the ``dump the Speaker'' campaign, as though, if 
the Speaker resists a shutdown, his job should be taken away.
  Bad for women. Bad for the institution.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I stand today in support of the 
innocent and the unborn. I strongly believe now is the time for 
Congress to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
  The videos that have been released that expose the appalling acts 
committed by Planned Parenthood are horrifying.
  These are despicable acts that are on par with the sickest of 
criminals who are behind bars, and that is exactly where these people 
belong: in prison, behind bars. These videos have given everyone 
insight into the inexcusable and horrific culture at Planned 
Parenthood.
  Taxpayer funds should never be used to fund or to offset the cost of 
providing abortions; and it is especially unacceptable when these 
illegal and horrific practices, like the selling and trafficking of 
unborn fetal tissue, are happening.
  As a father and a grandfather, I believe we must seek justice for 
these crimes that have been committed.
  I urge Federal law enforcement to execute a full criminal 
investigation into these alleged actions by Planned Parenthood.
  These two bills being debated today, of which I am a cosponsor, are 
the necessary next steps. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation and to support life.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, let's be clear. This is not a debate about 
abortion. There are different points of view on that question, but it 
is a settled question by the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who want to make 
this about something that it is not need to look at the legislation 
that they are supporting.
  This is about whether or not families have access through Planned 
Parenthood to preventative health care, to lifesaving cancer 
screenings, to basic health care that ought to be available in every 
possible way. This bill would have an extreme and devastating impact on 
access to those fundamental services that Planned Parenthood provides.
  Here we are, 7 legislative days before this government shuts down; 
and what is preoccupying the floor of the House of Representatives 
today? An ideological debate that everyone on both sides of the aisle 
acknowledges will not become law.
  Everyone acknowledges it will not become law, but we are taking time 
to pander to some of the voices that simply oppose women's healthcare 
choices instead of taking up the questions that the American people 
sent us here to do. Where is the budget? Where are the budget 
negotiations? Where is the discussion about roads and bridges?
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, no taxpayer should be forced to fund an 
organization that aborts more than 350,000 unborn babies every year. 
This is a commonsense truth that even pro-abortion activists have a 
hard time arguing.
  Guess what--they changed the argument. They pretend that abortion 
doesn't exist and that Planned Parenthood is the only place where low-
income women can get health care. Taking away taxpayer funding from 
Planned Parenthood means denying women access to health care, they say.
  That is untrue, and anybody spreading that should be ashamed. There 
are more than 13,000 federally qualified and rural health centers 
throughout this country offering low-cost health care to women. They 
outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 20 to 1.
  If this was really about making sure women had access to health care, 
we could all agree right now that supporting these community health 
centers is the right thing to do; but that is not what this is about.
  It is because community health centers don't perform abortions; 
Planned Parenthood does. That is what this is about. It is about 
preserving a pipeline of funding to the Nation's largest abortion 
provider. We all get this. Let's drop the phony women's health charade.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill. With this bill, the majority has declared war on the 
health and well-being of millions of women.
  Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million Americans every year with 
lifesaving services, like pap tests, breast exams, screenings for 
sexually transmitted infections. For many low-income families, Planned 
Parenthood is their only option.
  The majority claims that other clinics can take up the slack, but 
just listen to Dr. Mark DeFrancesco, the president of the American 
Congress of OB/GYNs: ``If Planned Parenthood went away, there are a 
good number of patients just in my service area that no longer will 
have a doctor. If they start calling my office, it is going to be `we 
could take you, but it might be 2, 3 months down the road.' And if they 
call other places, it might be `we can't even take you.'''
  This bill creates chaos, and in that chaos, people's lives will be 
put at risk. This bill is spiteful; it is mean spirited, and it is 
cruel. It tells millions of low-income Americans: Forget your health. 
You can just die.
  Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, there are many more options for women's 
health care than the discredited abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
  While Planned Parenthood is only approximately 665 clinics, federally 
qualified health centers, FQHCs, and rural health centers, RHCs, 
provide over 13,000 publicly supported locations, providing 
alternatives for women's health care. This means there are 20 federally 
funded comprehensive care clinics for every one Planned Parenthood.
  This bill does not change the availability of funds for women's 
health. It simply establishes a safeguard so that the Nation's largest 
abortion chain is not the one providing such services.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Loudermilk).
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, there comes a time when we must face 
the truth, regardless of how disgusting or offensive that truth is. As 
much as we dislike where we are and the shame the harvesting of baby 
parts has brought on our Nation, we are the ones who must face this 
truth and take action.
  Some who oppose this bill and other actions this Congress may take 
state

[[Page 14470]]

that defunding this or other organizations will not completely stop 
these horrific acts, and that may be true.
  Did our involvement in World War II against Hitler end anti-Semitism? 
No, it didn't. Did our government's decision to take out Osama bin 
laden end terrorism? No, it didn't. How many innocent lives were spared 
because we did take action?
  The question before us is not whether our actions will stop this 
evil, but if this government will continue to fund it, sanction it, and 
tolerate it.
  For years, William Wilberforce fought against the evil of slavery, 
and he challenged his fellow countrymen with these words: ``You may 
choose to look the other way, but you can never say that you did not 
know.''
  If we know the truth, which we do, and decide not to respond, we 
will, in part, share the blame, share the responsibility, and share in 
the judgment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in 
opposition.
  These bills today are the direct result of a series of videos that 
have been found to be purposefully misleading, alleging misdeeds that 
never happened that will result in the punishment of millions of women 
who have absolutely nothing to do with it.
  In many areas of this country, Planned Parenthood clinics are one of 
the few affordable healthcare options for women.
  During the Senate debate on defunding, a letter was introduced from 
California's community health centers, stating in no uncertain terms 
that defunding the Planned Parenthood clinics would place untenable 
stress on the community healthcare providers, but our Republican 
colleagues are indifferent to the experts.
  Truth, as usual, is the first casualty when they wage their cultural 
wars; and all that matters is the theater, their bizarre kabuki 
theater, of ritualized outrage.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Virginia Foxx, who is 
a tremendous leader for life and a great leader in this Congress, for 
yielding.
  Mr. McGovern said we are wasting our time. Mr. Kildee talked about 
pandering, which I think is an insult.
  I would just like to ask Mr. McGovern: Yes or no, has the gentleman 
watched the videos?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman has?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Okay. It is disappointing then that the 
gentleman is not moved to compassion over the terrible inhumanity 
displayed on those videos by the Planned Parenthood personnel.
  Madam Speaker, human dismemberment is a painful and absolutely 
frightening way for anyone to die, but in Planned Parenthood clinics 
across the country, such violence against children is commonplace.
  Subsidized by half-a-billion dollars annually, Planned Parenthood 
kills a baby every 2 minutes, snuffing out the lives of over 57 million 
infants since 1973, a staggering loss of life, a staggering loss of 
children.
  Madam Speaker, now, because of undercover videos by The Center for 
Medical Progress, we know Planned Parenthood is also trafficking in 
baby parts, turning babies into human guinea pigs while making the 
abortion industry even richer than before.
  Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned 
Parenthood's meticulously crafted facade of care and compassion has 
been shredded. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood's top leadership, not 
interns or lower-level employees, show callous disregard for children's 
lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain.
  This begs the question: Do Americans really know what horrors are 
done to children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional 
colleagues and has President Obama watched the videos yet?
  In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America's Medical Services and a late-term 
abortionist herself says on camera:

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

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

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

  That means born alive. That means born alive.
  ``The fetus just fell out,'' she says. It just fell out. It, the 
baby, fell out. What happens to that baby? Tragically, we know what 
happens. They are killed, and some of their organs are stolen.
  The second bill made in order by the rule--the Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act, authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks--
simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same 
care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. The 
new bill builds on the landmark Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 
2002, authored by Steve Chabot, by ending important enforcement 
prohibitions.
  I would remind my colleagues that it was just 2 years ago that the 
infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of 
killing children, as well as women in his clinics, but children who 
were born alive after an attempted abortion.
  The grand jury report describes his practice--and I read the entire 
report;

[[Page 14471]]

you ought to read it--Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies 
he delivered. He killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it 
``ensuring fetal demise.'' He called it ``snipping.''
  Support these two bills, I say to my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, human dismemberment is a painful and absolutely 
frightening way for anyone to die but in Planned Parenthood clinics 
across the country, such violence against children is commonplace and 
usual.
  Subsidized by half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, Planned 
Parenthood kills a baby every two minutes, snuffing out the lives of 
over seven million infants since 1973--a staggering loss of children.
  Now, because of undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress, 
we know Planned Parenthood is also trafficking in baby body parts--
turning babies into human guinea pigs while making the abortion 
industry even richer than before.
  Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned 
Parenthood's meticulously crafted facade of care and compassion has 
been shredded. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood's top leadership--not 
interns or lower level employees--show callous disregard for children's 
lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain.
  Which begs the question: do Americans really know what horrors are 
done to children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional 
colleagues--has President Obama--watched the videos yet?
  In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America's Medical Services and a late term 
abortionist herself says on camera: ``We have been very good at getting 
heart, lung, liver, because we know that, I am not going to crush that 
part. I am going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above, 
and I am going to see if I can get it all intact . . . I would say a 
lot of people want liver; and for that reason, most providers will do 
this case under ultrasound guidance, so they will know where they are 
putting their forceps.''
  In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that 
preserves organs and body parts for sale.
  Planned Parenthood Medical Directors' Council President Dr. Mary 
Gatter appears on a video nonchalantly talking about utilizing a ``less 
crunchy'' abortion method--again to preserve baby body parts. Regarding 
the pricetag for baby body parts she says: ``let me just figure out 
what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then its fine, 
if it's still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.''
  Planned Parenthood's National Director for the Consortium of Abortion 
Providers Deborah VanDerhei says ``we're just trying to figure out as 
an industry . . . how we're going to manage remuneration because the 
headlines would be a disaster''. Concern for making money and avoiding 
bad press--no concern whatsoever for the child victim.
  Holly O'Donnell, a tissue procurement technician for StemExpress, a 
biotech company that partners with Planned Parenthood says some women 
undergoing abortions did not give consent: ``. . .'' there were times 
when they would just take (the body parts) what they wanted. And these 
mothers didn't know. On the video, Ms. O'Donnell says: ``Pregnancy 
tests are potential pregnancies, therefore potential specimens. So it's 
just taking advantage of the opportunities.''
  O'Donnell also tells how her supervisor told her to cut through the 
face of a baby in order to get brain tissue. ``She gave me the scissors 
and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can't even 
describe what that feels like'' she says.
  H.R. 3134 authored by an extraordinarily caring and compassionate 
Member of Congress Diane Black of Tennessee places a yearlong 
moratorium on funding to Planned Parenthood and redirects withheld 
monies to other facilities that provide women's health.
  At the instruction of Speaker Boehner, several committees of congress 
have launched probes into this baby body parts trafficking scandal.
  I suspect that if the President watches at least one of the videos, 
he'd at least demand real answers concerning Planned Parenthood's 
inhumane behavior. Or at least I hope he would.
  Mr. Speaker, the videos have again brought into sharp focus the fact 
that some babies actually survive abortion.
  Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned 
Parenthood Rocky Mountains confesses that ``Sometimes, we get--if 
someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure then they 
(the baby) are in intact . . .'' A fetal tissue broker describes 
watching a ``fetus . . . just fell out.''
  It just fell out. It, the baby, fell out, she says. And then what 
happened to that baby?
  Tragically, we know what happens to these victimized babies--they are 
killed and some have their organs stolen.
  So the second bill made in order by the rule--The Born Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504)--authored by pro-life champion 
Trent Franks, simply says any child who survives an abortion must be 
given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same 
gestational age. The new bill builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant 
Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important 
enforcement provisions.
  I would remind my colleagues that it was just two years ago the 
infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of 
murder for killing children who were born alive after an attempted 
abortion. The Grand Jury report described his practices, ``Gosnell had 
a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. 
He didn't call it that. He called it ``ensuring fetal demise.'' The way 
he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the 
baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that ``snipping.''
  Gosnell's grisly after-birth abortion practices were only exposed 
when he was investigated for illegal drug charges and, in the words of 
the Grand Jury ``the search team discovered fetal remains haphazardly 
stored throughout the clinic--in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, 
and even in cat-food containers. Some fetal remains were in a 
refrigerator, others were frozen.''
  Last week Gianna Jessen an abortion survivor, told the House 
Judiciary Committee:
  ``My biological mother was seven and a half months pregnant when she 
went to Planned Parenthood, who advised her to have a late-term saline 
abortion.
  ``This method of abortion burns the baby inside and out, blinding and 
suffocating the child, who is then born dead, usually within 24 hours.
  ``Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's 
womb, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on 
April the 6th, 1977. My medical records state: ``Born alive during 
saline abortion'' at 6 am.
  ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, 
he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving 
me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed 
to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live.
  ``I did. I was later diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy, which was caused 
by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was 
never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And Cerebral Palsy is 
a great gift to me.
  Gianna asked the committee,
  ``If abortion is about women's rights, then what were mine? You 
continuously use the argument, `If the baby is disabled, we need to 
terminate the pregnancy,' as if you can determine the quality of 
someone's life. Is my life less valuable due to my Cerebral Palsy?
  ``You have failed, in your arrogance and greed, to see one thing: it 
is often from the weakest among us that we learn wisdom--something 
sorely lacking in our nation today. And it is both our folly and our 
shame that blinds us to the beauty of adversity.''
  Gianna Jesson's reminds us that we have a duty to protect the weakest 
and most vulnerable.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just state three facts here: We 
know that these videos that have been mentioned have been selectively 
edited; we know for a fact that 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood 
does is preventive care, including screenings for cervical cancer, 
nothing to do with abortion; and we know for a fact, because it is the 
law, that no taxpayer dollars can be used to pay for abortion.
  Having said that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bills. This closed rule makes in order misguided legislation 
that would seriously limit access to crucial healthcare services, like 
cancer screenings, and limit access to contraception that would prevent 
unwanted pregnancies.
  We are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood? How 
counterproductive. In my home State of Oregon, more than 72,000 
patients were served by Planned Parenthood in 2013 alone. We are 
talking about real women and men who received compassionate, preventive 
care. I have heard from Oregonians like Stacy, who went to Planned 
Parenthood and got a lifesaving cancer screening when she had no 
insurance.

[[Page 14472]]

  It is unfortunate that the House is using its limited time to debate 
legislation that harms women, but it is downright irresponsible to even 
consider shutting down the government over access to these vital 
services. There is no evidence that Planned Parenthood has broken any 
laws.
  We have seen proposals like this before. It is time to end these 
attacks on women's constitutional reproductive rights. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this rule and other legislation that limits access 
to vital healthcare services.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues have asked for an investigation into The Center for 
Medical Progress, which released these videos. The Center for Medical 
Progress does not receive half a billion in taxpayer dollars every 
year; Planned Parenthood does. It is the role of Congress to exercise 
oversight on those who receive taxpayer dollars. It is also appropriate 
for Congress to cease funding a scandal-ridden organization.
  It is extremely interesting to hear my colleagues across the aisle 
talk about investigating the creators of these videos. If only there 
was such enthusiasm for oversight on other issues, such as ObamaCare 
implementation, immigration executive orders, and Hillary Clinton's 
refusal to share her actions on Benghazi.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I would not be here on the floor to 
lend suspicion to the faithfulness of anyone, but as evidenced by what 
we have been hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
this is nothing but a politically charged debate and an undermining of 
women's health care.
  We made it very clear in the Committee on the Judiciary that Roe v. 
Wade is the law of the land. We know that because the Texas Supreme 
Court, in 2014 and 2015, rolled back the Texas law that was going to 
close a number of clinics evidencing and providing for women's health 
care. Planned Parenthood provides for 378,000 pap tests and 487,000 
breast exams. 87,000 women found out they had cancer through Planned 
Parenthood.
  As it relates to the fetal tissue, we know that there are laws in 
place that do not allow the sale of such, but we also know the fetal 
tissue research has generated spinal cord, neurological research and 
cures.
  Therefore, let me say to my colleagues, the law of the land is Roe v. 
Wade. This is a protracted political fight, and I would only say, ask 
the person who filmed these particular videos. He stole the identity of 
his high school classmate to do this underhanded work. That shows you 
that this is a political effort.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the 
underlying bills.
  I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House 
majority to defund Planned Parenthood and undermine women's right to 
make their own choices regarding their reproductive healthcare.
  Instead of spending time fueling a politically-charged attack on 
America's leading provider of reproductive health care services for 
women, and attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected 
rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our 
truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems.
  We are brought here today to examine the practices and procedures of 
Planned Parenthood. Yet, tellingly, the Majority has failed to reach 
out or obtain any direct information or witnesses from Planned 
Parenthood.
  The bills before us are offered not for the purpose of exposing any 
wrongdoing of Planned Parenthood, but simply to sensationalize 
opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our 
government.
  The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. 
Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to 
privacy includes her right to abortion.
  Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have 
substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted 
pregnancies.
  Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services 
only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to 
accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
  In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of 
restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's 
health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different.
  In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 
percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged 
before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.
  On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional 
a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that 
provided the full range of services would be required to have a 
hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.
  This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to 
continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to 
women.
  Texas has 268,580 square miles, only second in size to the state of 
California.
  The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to 
reproductive services for millions of women in my state.
  In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to 
reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 
healthcare providers in the state of Texas.
  The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women 
to block the move to close clinics in my state.
  It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access 
to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.
  And in fact we are here today supposedly to talk about the safety of 
medical care provided by Planned Parenthood.
  But we know that's not really the case.
  If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, 
they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based 
proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.
  Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed 
attempt to ban abortion.
  That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about 
protecting women's health, it's about politics.
  Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel 
(or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of 
ethics of abortion from the question of ethics of using fetal tissue 
from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the 
foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed 
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal 
views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.
  Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or 
receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal 
tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being 
provided is funded or not.
  A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, 
lies with the provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses 
(e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.
  Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their 
affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this 
requirement.
  In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the 
country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue 
donation services and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) 
offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned 
Parenthood service centers.
  The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per 
tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.
  It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.
  Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and 
treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, 
immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.
  One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal 
kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now 
estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.
  The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue 
transplantation has been the treatment of Parkinson's disease.
  Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken 
pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal 
tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.
  When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in 
fetal tissue donation

[[Page 14473]]

and research, and no clear credible proof of illegal activity, it is 
obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are wholly misguided.
  Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and 
accreditation processes in the country.
  It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of 
evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health 
care is provided throughout the country.
  Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of 
nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including 
medical experts from Harvard and Columbia.
  Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews 
that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 
600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half 
of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.
  Planned Parenthood has strict requirements regarding compliance with 
all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A specific area of 
compliance is with mandatory reporting laws and regulations regarding 
reporting in instances where the welfare of a minor is endangered.
  All staff with patient contact are rigorously trained regarding 
compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing 
service to minors.
  Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to 
disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
  It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme 
anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion 
procedures in this country.
  To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned 
Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to 
millions of women every year.
  They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and 
undermine Planned Parenthood.
  Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group 
that can be taken credibly.
  The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history of 
doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions 
about Planned Parenthood.
  It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned 
Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care 
across the board.
  At the same time, national media is reporting about a major 
coordinated push by anti-choice groups and Members of Congress to 
defund Planned Parenthood.
  This coordinated effort to defund Planned Parenthood is an assault on 
all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who 
aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this 
country.
  The public is standing by Planned Parenthood, which plays a vital 
role in defending women's health and rights.
  Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading 
groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial 
generation.
  My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to 
services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and 
STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative 
screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their 
access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health 
services.
  I urge all Members to vote against the rule and the underlying bills.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
how many more speakers she has on her side?
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am expecting one more speaker that I am 
trying to accommodate. However, if the gentleman is prepared to close, 
then I will do my best to do that also.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If 
we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation 
that would treat wildfires like similar major natural disasters and 
eliminate the need to transfer funds from forest management and 
conservation programs for fire suppression. It is time to make 
commonsense changes to the Federal wildfire budget.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the bills that the rule will make in 
order that are before us today, these bills and others are ongoing 
attacks that are part of the Republican drumbeat for a government 
shutdown over women's healthcare choices. It isn't enough to attack 
women's health. Republicans are now willing to take down the entire 
Federal Government in their political attacks.
  As I mentioned at the outset in my opening statement, the facts are 
the facts; and I know for some of my colleagues, they are inconvenient 
and they like to avoid talking about them, but the reality is that 
these videos that my colleagues are referring to have been selectively 
edited.
  We also know that 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is 
preventive care: cervical cancer screenings, important lifesaving 
procedures that benefit women. They do preventive care that benefits 
men as well.
  It is also important for my colleagues to realize that there are no 
Federal funds, no taxpayer dollars that go to fund abortion. That is 
illegal. That is the law of the land. That is the Hyde amendment.
  To shut down these important preventive healthcare services, to kind 
of advance this agenda that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have, which is to criminalize abortion under all circumstances--
including, many of my colleagues advocate no exceptions even for rape 
or incest. A young girl who was a victim of rape or incest would be a 
criminal if she had an abortion.
  This is all about taking away a woman's right to choose. That is what 
this is all about. Planned Parenthood happens to be the pawn, the 
latest pawn in this debate.
  It is interesting. I watched the Republican debate last night. It was 
really quite entertaining. I heard Donald Trump and Marco Rubio and Ted 
Cruz say that they would be open to putting civil rights activist Rosa 
Parks on the $10 bill, but Republicans might be surprised to learn that 
Rosa Parks sat on the national board of Planned Parenthood Federation 
of America, the organization that my Republican friends, including the 
people who invoked her name last night, are now trying to defund.
  This is about preserving access to good, quality health care, and I 
really regret the fact that this has become such a political wedge 
issue in this Congress, but I get it. I know where my colleagues are 
coming from. That you would take up the time of this House to do this, 
which the Senate won't take up and which the President wouldn't sign 
even if they did, at a time when we have 6 legislative days left before 
the Federal Government shuts down, I don't know what my colleagues are 
thinking.
  Part of what your job is is to keep this government running; and 
instead of doing that, we are doing these rightwing message bills that 
don't even go through regular order, that committees of jurisdiction 
don't even have a chance to consider, when every Member, Republican or 
Democrat, is told you can't even amend any of this stuff no matter what 
kind of idea you have.
  This whole process is disgraceful. We need to get our priorities in 
order here. We ought to protect women's healthcare services; we ought 
not to be defunding an organization like Planned Parenthood, which does 
good work all across this country; and we ought to be bringing a bill 
to the floor to keep this government running.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the

[[Page 14474]]

previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last evening when I spoke on this legislation in the Committee on 
Rules, I mentioned that this is a very emotional issue for those of us 
who value life so much. One of my colleagues has already spoken to the 
fundamental issue of life, but I think we always should have time to 
talk about our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
  Particularly as it relates to this issue, it is the Declaration of 
Independence which says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, 
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, 
and the pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments 
are instituted among Men.''
  Madam Speaker, that is what we are talking about here today. We are 
talking about what our government should be doing in the light of 
knowing that the most vulnerable among us are being destroyed, and that 
without life, there is nothing else.
  Our colleagues keep saying there are things that are more important 
for us to be debating today. Madam Speaker, I would purport that there 
are few things more important than this debate over the trafficking of 
hearts and other body parts of unborn children, some of whom may have 
been born alive.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this 
legislation is part of a war on women, but in reality it is designed to 
stop the war on children that is going on in abortion facilities across 
this country.
  Large majorities of Americans believe their tax dollars should not go 
to fund abortions. They felt this way even before learning that, during 
those abortions, children are dismembered and sold piece by piece. It 
is unfathomable that we have to debate stopping the provision of tax 
dollars to organizations participating in such activities. It is also 
unbelievable that we do not immediately pass, by unanimous consent, 
legislation ensuring that children born alive, breathing and crying, 
like each of us was on our first day outside the womb, deserve the same 
medical care that any child born in a hospital would receive.
  What is heartening, in the face of this contentious debate, is the 
principle that the truth always comes out. Abortionists can no longer 
hide in the dark back rooms of their facilities and sell unborn 
children piece by piece under an illusion that no one will ever know 
their crimes.
  Our debate today and the videos that have been released have 
shattered that darkness and exposed the callousness of the abortion 
industry toward life and the consequences of accepting abortion on 
demand as acceptable. Both of these bills, the Defund Planned 
Parenthood Act of 2015 and the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act, contain commonsense provisions addressing the barbaric actions 
that have come to light in the abortion industry, and I commend the 
underlying bills in this rule providing for their consideration to all 
of my colleagues for their support.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

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

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


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

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

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

[[Page 14475]]



                          ____________________