Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I APPLAUD THE ADMINISTRATION
TAKING ON THIS BATTLE TO ENSURE
TRANSPARENCY AND PROTECT
TAXPAYER FUNDS.
I URGE A NO VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM ILLINOIS RISE?
TO STRIKE THE LAST RECORD.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF THE KLINE AMENDMENT.
IT IS IMPERTTIVE THAT CONGRESS
PUT THE BRAKE OPS WHAT HAS
BECOME THIS ADMINISTRATION'S
CULTURE OF RUNAWAY REGULATION.
IT WILL PROHIBIT THE USE OF
FUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A
MISGUIDED REGULATION COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT RULE WHICH HAS LED
TO JOB LOSS AND UNCERTAINTY IN
THE PROPRIETARY COLLEGE SECTOR.
I FEEL IT WILL LIMIT ACCESS TO
PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE STUDENTS
WITH SKILLS TO MEET THE DEMANDS
OF AN EVER-CHANGING JOB MARKET.
IT WOULD PROHIBIT COLLEGES FROM
OBTAINING MONEY FROM STUDENT
LOANS UNLESS LONG, COMPLICATED
RULES ARE MET.
THEREFORE THEY ONLY PURSUE
PLANS THAT MEET GOVERNMENT
GOALS RATHER THAN PLANS THAT
BEST FIT STUDENTS' NEEDS.
IT ALSO IGNORES MEASURES OF
SEEMINGLY EQUAL IMPORTANCE SUCH
AS ON-TIME GRADUATION RATES AND
CAREER PLACEMENT.
EQUALLY TROUBLING UNDER THE
RULE, PROPRIOR -- PROPRIETARY
INSTITUTIONS WOULD SADLY BE
FORCED TO NAVIGATE AN
ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIVE LAYER OF
FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY, REQUIRING
FEDERAL APPROVAL IN ORDER TO
OFFER ANY NEW PROGRAM.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PROVISION
FAILS TO REALIZE IT IS THE
AGILE NATURE OF THESE
PROPRIETARY INSTITUTIONS THAT
UNIQUELY POSITION THEM TO HELP
UNITE A PROPERLY EQUIPPED WORK
FORCE WITH EMPLOYERS IN TODAY'S
UNCERTAIN JOB MARKET.
BY UNDULY RESTRICTING THE
FLEXIBILITY, WE RISK FAILURE TO
CAPITALIZE ON MORE THAN
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
MOREOVER THE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
RULE APPLIES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY
TO ONE SECTOR OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, THE PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS WHICH TEACH
JOB-SPECIFIC SKILLS OFTEN TO
AT-RISK POPULATIONS, SUCH AS
LOW-INCOME, MINORITY, SINGLE
PARENT, HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS
WITH G.E.D.'S AND FIRST
GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO
DO NOT HAVE FINANCIAL HELP FROM
PEARNTS.
SOMEHOW, THERE'S A NOTION THAT
THE BAD ACTORS OF THE FINANCIAL
OF FEDERAL HIGHER EDUCATION
LOANS IS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE
PROPRIETARY COLLEGE SECTOR.
THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.
BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS CHOSEN TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THESE
SCHOOLS.
THE FACT REMAINS THAT A STUDENT
CAN GRADUATE FROM ANY
INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
WITH INADEQUATE INCOME TO REPAY
THEIR DEBTS AN STUDENTS SHOULD
NOT SUFFER SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
SCHOOL THAT BEST SUIT THEIRS
NEEDS OPERATES UNDER A
FOR-PROFIT MODEL.
I HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO
REFRAIN FROM IMPLEMENTING THIS
RULE UNTIL WE HAVE CLEAR DATA
ON THE STATE OF THE OVERALL --
OF THE NATION'S OVERALL HIGHER
EDUCATION SYSTEM.
IF THE ADMINISTRATION WERE
SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING
UNSCRUPULOUS RECRUITING
PRACTICES AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL
THIS DATA WOULD BE COMPILE --
COMPILED AND MADE PUBLIC,
PARTICULARLY AVAILABLE TO
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
AS IT STANDS, WE HAVE LITTLE
MORE THAN THE SINGULAR LAST
MINUTE VOTE TO SLOW DOWN THE
ADMINISTRATION'S RACE TO
SQUEEZE THE FOR-PROFIT SECTOR
OUT OF EXISTENCE.
I WOULD YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLELADY
YIELDS BACK HER TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MINNESOTA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD IN OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D
LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE IMPORTANT
-- A FEW IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT
THIS FOR-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL
SECTOR.
THAT IS THE LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
MAKE UP HALF OF THE ENROLLMENT
FOR FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES AND
MINORITY STUDENTS COMPRISE
ABOUT 37%.
SO THIS REALLY IS A MATTER OF
LOWERING -- LOW INCOME AND
MINORITY STUDENTS FACING WHAT
ARE HIGH COST LOANS FOR
STUDENTS AND OFTEN, 90% OF THE
MONEY COMES FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
NOW, AS I LISTEN TO MY FRIENDS
ON THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS, I
WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD
WANT THE BEST VALUE FOR THE
PUBLIC DOLLAR.
THIS RULE MEANS THAT SOME MONEY
SPENT WILL RESULT IN THE
OUTCOME THAT IS SOUGHT IN THE
BEGIN, WHICH IS GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT.
TOO MANY OF THE STUDENTS WHO GO
TO THESE SCHOOLS ARE COMING OUT
WITH NOTHING OTHER THAN BIG
DEBT AND NO EDUCATION, NO
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AT ALL.
THIS IS A PROBLEM.
I'M SURPRISED THAT WE WOULD NOT
SAY THAT, LOOK, WE ARE GOING TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THE FEDERAL
COLLAR IS PUT FORWARD, THERE
IT.
WILL BE VALUE COMING BACK FOR
I'M NO OPPONENT OF FOR-PROFIT
COLLEGES.
I THINK ONES THAT ARE
PERFORMING WELL CERTAINLY
WELCOME IN THE MARKET AND SERVE
A VALUABLE ROLE.
THROUGH THERE ARE BAD ACTORS
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
POINT OUT, WE HAVE SEEN THIS
MOVIE BEFORE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE'VE SEEN IT WHEN PEOPLE SAID,
LOOK, POOR PEOPLE, LOW-INCOME
PEOPLE OF COLOR, NEED TO GET
MORTGAGES, AND WELL YOU KNOW
WHAT, THEY CAN GET SUBPRIME
MORTGAGES.
NOT ALL SUBPRIME MORTGAGES WERE
PREDATORY MORTGAGES, BUT SOME
WERE.
AND ENOUGH WERE TO BE ABLE TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE ON A
VERY SEVERE SCALE.
THIS RULE, IF IT GOES INTO
EFFECT, IF ALLOWED TO PROCEED
FORWARD, WOULD MAKE SURE THAT
THESE STUDENTS AND THE
GOVERNMENT GOT GOOD VALUE FOR
THEIR MONEY AND NO FOR-PROFIT
COLLEGE THAT IS NOT RELYING ON
A BUSINESS MODEL THAT BILINGS
THE CON SUMER -- NO FOR-PROFIT
COLLEGE THAT RELIES ON THE
BUSINESS MODEL THAT IS DESIGNED
TO HELP THE STUDENTS THEY
PROPOSE TO HELP SHOULD OBJECT
TO SAYING, LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO
DELIVER ON WHAT WE SAY WE'RE
GOING TO DELIVER, WHICH IS
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.
THIS IS NO FRIENDLY THING FOR
THE POOR AND LOW-INCOME
STUDENTS OF COLOR.
THIS IS AN ABUSE.
NOT ALL FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES,
BUT SOME.
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE
THAT THESE STUDENTS ARE NOT
TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.
BY THE LOGIC OF SOME OF THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS AMENDMENT,
WE SHOULD SAY THAT, LOOK, ANY
LOAN SHARK, PAWNSHOP, PAYDAY
LENDER, WE OUGHT TO THANK THEM
BECAUSE THEY SERVE THE POOR.
WELL, THEN BETTER SERVE THE
POOR IN A FAIR, SCRAUP LOUSE
WAY AND NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
-- SCRUPULOUS WAY AND NOT TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THEM.
I URGE MEMBERS TO VOTE THIS
AMENDMENT DOWN AND TO ALLOW THE
GO FORWARD.
PROPER RULE MAKING PROCEDURE TO
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA RISE?
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT, THIS SO-CALLED
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT REGULATION
IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS BIG
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RUN AMOK.
HOOSIERS IN INDIANA AND ALL
AMERICANS ARE FREE TO CHOOSE
FROM ACCREDITED COLLEGES AND
PICK THE ONE THEY BELIEVE FITS
THEIR NEEDS.
THESE ARE ACCREDITED COLLEGES.
NO ONE HAS ACCUSED THEM OF
UNFAIRLY SERVING THE POOR NO
ONE RIGHTFULLY HAS, OR ANYONE
ELSE.
THEY ARE
ACCREDITED, THEY ARE LICENSED.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS
INVOLVED IN STUDENT LOANS AND
GRANTS ALREADY, MORE SO, I
WOULD SAY, THAN I AND OTHERS
WOULD LIKE IT TO.
BUT AT LEAST, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE
STILL LET INDIVIDUALS MAKE
THEIR OWN DECISIONS ON WHERE TO
GO TO SCHOOL.
THE NEW RULE MAKES A MOCKERY OF
OUR AMERICAN TRADITION OF FREE
CHOICE, REPLACING IT WITH A
BIZARRE PROGRAM WHERE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECIDES WHAT
JOB YOU SHOULD SEEK AND WHAT
SCHOOL YOU CAN ATTEND.
LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH IT.
UNDER THIS RULE, THE OBA MAW
ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED A
PLAN THAT NUMBER ONE CREATES A
MATRIX THAT EXAMINES THE
STUDENT LOAN DEBT TO FUTURE
INCOME OF A PROSPECTIVE
STUDENT.
THEN IT COMPARES THAT RASHEE TO
THE STUDENT LEN REPAYMENT RATES
OF GRADUATES OF THE SAME
PROGRAM AND NUMBER THREE, AND
FINALLY, IT DECIDES IF THE
STUDENT CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THE
LOANS THEY WOULD NEED TO ATTEND
THE SCHOOL OR PROGRAM OF THEIR
CHOICE.
SO FOR THOSE OF US LISTENING,
WATCHING AT HOME, WHAT THIS
MEANS IS, IF YOU ARE
CONTEMPLATING GOING TO COOL SO
YOU CAN ECONOMICALLY BETTER
YOURSELF, OR BECAUSE YOU
OTHERWISE WANT TO ENRIP YOUR
LIFE YOU JUST CAN'T GO TO THE
-- ENRICH YOUR LIFE, YOU JUST
CAN'T GOAT TO THE COLLEGE OF
YOUR CHOOSING IF YOU NEED A
GOVERNMENT LOAN.
INSTEAD, A NAMELESS, FACELESS
BUREAUCRACY, USING SOME BIZARRE
ARBITRARY FORMULA GETS TO
DECIDE WLORN YOU HAVE CHOSEN A
FIELD OF STUDY THAT WILL PAY
ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE
INVESTMENT.
IN THE MINDS OF THAT PARTICULAR
BUREAUCRAT.
-- IN THE MIND OF THAT
PARTICULAR BUREAUCRAT.
UNBELIEVABLE.
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION
ARE MICROMANAGING THIS PART OF
OUR LIVES TOO.
TALK ABOUT CENTRAL MANAGEMENT.
THIS WILL AFFECT THOSE LEAST
ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT,
WORKING AMERICANS WHO NEED NEW
TRAINING AND SKILLS TO MOVE
FORWARD IN THE WORK FORCE.
THIS IS WHAT THIS CONGRESS
SHOULD BE ABOUT.
IF THIS REGULATION BECOMES
REALITY, IT WILL PREVENT
400,000 PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING
NEW SKILLS TO BENEFIT THE WORK
FORCE.
BY 2020, NEARLY 5.4 MILLION
STUDENTS WILL BE DENIED THE
HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM OF
THEIR CHOICE.
IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY, WE CANNOT
COMPETE WITHOUT AN EDUCATED AND
FLEXIBLE WORK FORCE.
THIS AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW
AMERICANS THE CHOICE THEY
DESERVE AND THE EDUCATIONAL
FLEXIBILITY OUR NATION NEEDS.
I URGE A YES VOTE AND I YIELD.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
RISE TODAY IN STRONG OPPOSITION
TO THE
KLINE-FOX-HASTINGS-MCCARTHY
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD STOP THE
PROPOSED GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
REGULATION.
FOR -- FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 17% OF THE
HIGHER EDUCATION YET 44% OF
STUDENT LOANS BORROWERS WHO
DEFAULTED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
BEGINNING THEIR REPAYMENT WERE
FOR-PROFIT SCHOOLS.
STUDENTS WHO HAD ATTENDED
. I KNOW SOMETHING
ABOUT THESE PRIVATE, POST-
SECONDARY SCHOOLS, ONE COULD
MAKE THE ARGUMENT AND ONE WOULD
SAY NOT ALL THE SCHOOLS, NOT
100% OF THE SCHOOLS ARE RIP-OFF
ARE.
SCHOOLS BUT A MAJORITY OF THEM
I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS
FIRST-HANDED.
WHILE I WAS WORKING WITH POOR
STUDENTS IN SOUTH LOS ANGELES,
WE WERE TRYING TO GET THEM INTO
G.E.D. CLASSES, THE RECRUITERS
WOULD COME ALONG AND TELL THEM
THAT THEY COULD GET THEM INTO
THEIR SCHOOLS AND HELP THEM TO
GET PELL GRANTS AND HELP THEM
GET A CAREER.
AND LO AND BE HOLD, THEY WOULD
SIGN UP AND THEY WOULD SIGN UP
AND SOME WERE GOING TO BE DENTAL
ASSISTANTS AND HAD A LITTLE
GREEN JACKET ON AND A LITTLE BOX
THAT THEY CARRIED TO MAKE IT
LOOK AS IF THEY WERE CARRYING
DENTAL TOOLS, BUT IT WAS A
MATTER OF MONTHS LATER WHERE YOU
WOULD FIND THE SCHOOL IS OUT OF
BUSINESS AND BEEN GOING TO
SCHOOL WHERE THERE WAS NO
TEACHERS OR EQUIPMENT AND THEY
WERE RELATIONSHIP-OFF SCHOOLS
AND THEY MAKE A LOT OF MONEY.
LOOK AT THIS ONE SCHOOL, CAPELLA
AND EARNED $335 MILLION IN
PROFITS, SOME OF THAT WAS
GOVERNMENT MONEY.
SOME OF MY FRIENDS ON THE
OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE AISLE WILL
HAVE YOU BELIEVE THEY WANT TO
SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY AND
WANT TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT
FROM SPENDING THE TAXPAYERS'
MONEY UNWISELY.
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS
PICTURE WHEN THEY TAKE THE FLOOR
AND ARGUE FOR THE CONTINUED
RELATIONSHIP-OFF OF OUR STUDENTS
AND OUR TAXPAYER MONEY TO THESE
SCHOOLS.
LET ME TELL YOU WHO SOME OF THEM
ARE, CORINTHIAN, EVERESTT AND
KAPLAN AND "WASHINGTON POST"
OWNS IT.
DO YOU THINK IT MAKES IT MONEY
FROM THE NEWSPAPER?
YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHT COMING.
THEIR REVENUES ARE COMING FROM
KAPLAN UNIVERSITY WHO HAVE BEEN
FOUND TO HAVE DONE ALL KINDS OF
THINGS TO GET THESE STUDENTS IN,
CHARGING THEM HIGH PRICES FOR
THESE CLASSES.
THEY'RE NOT GETTING JOBS.
THEY DON'T GET A CAREER AND THEY
END UP NOT ONLY OWING THE
GOVERNMENT MONEY, BUT THEY'RE
PREVENTED FROM HAVING A DECENT
QUALITY OF LIFE BECAUSE NOW THEY
CAN'T GET A SECTION 8, CAN'T GET
ANOTHER PELL GRANT AND YOU KNOW
WHAT?
IN MANY STATES, THEY ARE GOING
AFTER SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY AND
RETIREMENT MONEY.
THIS IS THE NEXT BIG SCANDAL IN
AMERICA.
YOU THINK THAT THE MELTDOWN THAT
WE JUST HAD AND THE FORECLOSURES
THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING ACROSS
THIS COUNTRY IS BAD, YOU WAIT
DONE.
UNTIL THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE
AND THE TRUTH IS TOLD.
AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IS
COUNTED ABOUT THE RIP-OFFS.
NOW I KNOW THAT THIS IS A
POWERFUL LOBBY THAT I'M WORKING
AGAINST.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THEY ROAM THESE HALLS AND THEY
HAVE PLENTY OF RESOURCES AND PUT
OUT PLENTY OF MATERIALS.
THEY BUY FULL-PAGED ADS AND UP
ON TELEVISION, JOE BLOW SCHOOL
OF COMPUTER LEARNING THAT HAS NO
SCHOOL.
BUT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS
HOW THEY CAN BE JOINED BY PEOPLE
WHO CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT THE
TAXPAYERS' MONEY AND CLAIM THAT
THEY ARE FIGHTING TO REDUCE
GOVERNMENT, WHEN, IN FACT, THEY
ARE SUPPORTING THE RIP-OFF
SCHOOLS THAT IS INCREASING THE
AMOUNT OF PELL GRANTS WE GIVE TO
SCHOOLS WHO WILL NOT GET ANY
JOBS OR CREATE ANY CAREERS.
THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER
THIS KIND OF MISREPRESENTATION.
OUR MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE SHOULD
BE IN SUPPORT OF STUDENTS WHO
WANT TO LEARN.
THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN
TO STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF
SCHOOL, TO STUDENTS WHO HAVEN'T
MADE IT, TO ALL OF A SUDDEN
THINK THAT SOMEHOW THEY ARE
GOING TO GET INTO A JOB AND GET
INTO ONE OF THESE RIP-OFF
SCHOOLS AND GET DISAPPOINTED
TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
I SEE THE POPULATION THEY ARE
TARGETING.
THEY ARE TARGETING THE WELFARE
MOTHERS AND GANG BANGERS AND ALL
KIND OF PEOPLE THAT THEY KNOW
ARE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFICULT
TIME SUCCEEDING.
YOU KEEP DOING IT BECAUSE IT IS
GOING TO CATCH UP WITH YOU A I
ASK THAT THIS AMENDMENT NOT BE
SUPPORTED.
THE GENTLELADY'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA
RISE?
I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF THE AMENDMENT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS PROMOTED A
POLICY TO ADD FIVE MILLION
GRADUATES BY 2020 AND I COMMEND
THE PRESIDENT FOR THAT GOAL BUT
I HAVE TO WONDER HOW ARE WE
GOING TO ACHIEVE THE MISSION IF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS
GOING TO PUT UP ROADBLOCKS SUCH
AS PROPOSED RULES FOR GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT?
THE REALITY, CAREER COLLEGES
SERVE MANY DIFFERENT PURPOSES
FOR PEOPLE OF ALL WALKS OF LIFE.
THIS ISN'T AN ISSUE OF BLACK AND
WHITE, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.
OPPORTUNITY.
THIS IS AN ISSUE OF ACCESS TO
I REPRESENT A VERY RURAL
DISTRICT IN PENNSYLVANIA.
MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO A COMMUNITY
COLLEGE AND THEY LIVE A
SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE TO ANY
UNIVERSITY.
MY SCHOOLS HAVE SPRUNG UP OUT OF
NECESSITY.
MANY STUDENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA
CHOOSE THESE SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF
THEIR CONVENIENCE.
THEY REALIZE THAT CAREER
COLLEGES OFFER COURSE WORK OF
ALL TYPES AND WORK TO
ACCOMMODATE THE BUSY SCHEDULES
WE ALL HAVE.
THEY REALIZE THAT LIFE DOES NOT
JUST STOP FOR FOUR YEARS SO YOU
CAN GO TO A SCHOOL.
AND THEY REALIZE THESE
INSTITUTIONS WILL GIVE THEM THE
SKILLS THEY NEED TO ENTER THE
LIVING.
WORK FORCE AND EARN A DECENT
HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE
MR. SPEAKER, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAS
STEPPED WAY BEYOND ITS AUTHORITY
AND BEGUN THE DETERMINATION OF
AN ARBITRARY RULING ON GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT AND I ASK MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT AND I YIELD
BACK MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I THANK THE
SPEAKER AND I MOVE TO STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. SPEAKER, I
RISE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
AMENDMENT THAT WILL PROHIBIT THE
USE OF FUNDS BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION FOR ITS MISGUIDED
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT RULES.
PERHAPS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR
THE BODY AND THE PUBLIC TO KNOW
WHAT THIS GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT IS
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT,
PROPRIETARY COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES AND CAREER TRAINING
PROGRAMS ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER
PROGRAMS THAT LEAD TO GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT IN A LEGALLY
RECOGNIZED OCCUPATION IN ORDER
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL
STUDENT AID PROGRAM.
THE TERM, GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT,
40 YEARS.
HAS BEEN IN THE STATUTE FOR OVER
AND DURING THE MOST RECENT
RE-AUTHORIZATION OF THE HIGHER
EDUCATION ACT, THERE WAS
ABSOLUTELY NO DEBATE OR
DISCUSSION ON A NEED TO FURTHER
DEFINE THE TERM.
NOW WHEN THIS ORIGINATED,
SEVERAL OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND I'M
APPRECIATETIVE OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND MY COLLEAGUES IN A
BIPARTISAN FASHION, WE WENT
ABOUT OUR BUSINESS TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND JUST WHAT KIND OF
PROPOSED RULE IT IS THAT THE
DEPARTMENT IS TALKING ABOUT AND
JUST HOW IT IS THAT IT WILL
IMPACT THE OVERALL PUBLIC.
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS
PROHIBIT THE USE OF FUNDS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRAFT
REGULATION THAT THE DEPARTMENT
ISSUED ON OCTOBER 29, 2010 AND
WILL PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT
FROM PROMULGATING OR ENFORCING
NEW REGULATIONS REGARDING
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.
LET ME PUT A FACE ON THESE
SCHOOLS AS MY COLLEAGUES THAT
ARE OPPOSED HAVE DONE.
PERHAPS SOME OF THEM HAVE NEVER
EATEN AT A RESTAURANT THAT THE
PERSON THAT PREPARED THE FOOD
WENT TO A PROPRIETARY
I HAVE.
INSTITUTION.
PERHAPS NONE OF THEM HAVE HAD
PHYSICAL THERAPY WHERE THE
PERSON ADMINISTERING IT
GRADUATED FROM PROPRIETARY
I HAVE.
SCHOOLS.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WANT
THIS BODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE
EIGHT PEOPLE THAT HAD THE LAST
HANDS-ON EXPERIENCES WITH MY
MOTHER FOR TWO YEARS THAT ALL
WERE NURSES IN TWO DIFFERENT
HOSPITALS AND AT HOME, GRADUATED
FROM PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS.
NOW WE ALL AGREE THAT BOTH
TAXPAYER FUNDS AND STUDENTS ARE
-- BEST INTERESTS SHOULD BE
PROTECTED IN HIGHER EDUCATION,
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS, GOING
INTO A BLANKET APPROACH THAT
WILL LIMIT STUDENT ACCESS TO
HIGHER EDUCATION AND FAIL TO
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PROBLEM
GO.
INSTITUTIONS IS NOT THE WAY TO
YOU KNOW WHAT WE DID HERE IN
THIS INSTITUTION?
WHAT WE DID HERE FOR THE PEOPLE
THAT WORK WITH US, YOUNG PEOPLE
THAT GRADUATE FROM IVY LEAGUE
SCHOOLS, HISTORICALLY BLACK
SCHOOLS ALL OVER THIS PLACE, WE
CREATED A PROGRAM THAT WILL
ALLOW THEM TO HELP PAY OFF THEIR
STUDENT LOANS.
SOME OF US HIRE PEOPLE THAT I
WOULD NOT CALL GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT THAT MAY HAVE
GRADUATED FROM INSTITUTIONS THAT
I ATTENDED OR THAT THE PRESIDENT
ATTENDED.
NOW I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE
DEPARTMENT REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE
JOB PLACEMENT, PROFESSIONAL
CERTIFICATION PASSING RATES,
EMPLOYER VERIFICATION OR
ANYTHING ELSE RELATED IN
DETERMINING AN INSTITUTION'S
EFFECTIVENESS.
IT IS -- IF IT IS UNREASONABLE
AMOUNT OF STUDENTS THAT THEY ARE
TRYING TO ADDRESS, WELL, I AGREE
THAT IS A CONCERN.
LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION, BUT IT
IS NOT ONLY THE INSTITUTIONS
THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE.
STUDENTS, LENDERS, POLICY
MAKERS, AS WELL AS INSTITUTIONS
MUST BE PART OF THIS PROCESS AND
MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
THIS PROPOSED RULE IS VERY BROAD
AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION SO
BURDENSOME THAT MANY SCHOOLS
WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CLOSE.
AND I DON'T BUY INTO THAT FALSE
ARGUMENT THAT 50% OF THESE
PEOPLE DON'T GRADUATE OR DON'T
GO TO GO ON A DO THIS, THAT AND
THE OTHER IN THIS ECONOMY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A
WHOLE LOT OF STUDENTS ARE
GRADUATING FROM A WHOLE LOT OF
SCHOOLS A AND ARE NOT GETTING
JOBS TODAY AND MANY OF THESE
SCHOOLS WE ARE ATTACKING
UNREASONABLY ARE PLACES WHERE I
KNOW AT LEAST IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT THAT I'M
PRIVILEGED TO SERVE, THAT MANY
OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE RECEIVED
EDUCATION AND MANY OF THEM LEAVE
THE INSTITUTION LIKE THE TWO
LAST NURSES THAT WORKED WITH MY
MOM THAT HAD A JOB WHEN THEY
LEFT THE INSTITUTION.
THIS MAY PLEASE SOME OF MY
FRIENDS IN THIS BODY AS THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BUT
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE SINGLE
MOTHER LOOKING TO CHANGE CAREERS
WHO NEEDS THE FLEXIBILITY OF A
PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGE.
WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST GENERATION
COLLEGE STUDENT THAT NEEDS THAT?
MR. SPEAKER, I URGE THAT WE
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND I
THANK MY COLLEAGUE.
THE TIME OF THE
GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA RISE?
MOVE TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF
THE AMENDMENT.
IF THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO ISSUE
A RULE, DO A RULE THAT ACTUALLY
TARGETS THE ABUSES RATHER THAN
TAKES ON A SEGMENT OF THE
INDUSTRY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE
COMPLICIT IN THE KIND OF
ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE THERE.
THIS IS OVERLY BROAD.
LET'S HAVE THEM GO BACK TO THE
DRAWING BOARD AND TARGET ABUSES
THAT OCCUR, NOT A SEGMENT OF THE
INDUSTRY THAT IS ACTUALLY
PROVIDING SERVICES.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ARIZONA YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION
TO THE KLINE AMENDMENT.
AND ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT CAREER
COLLEGES PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE
IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION, I
CANNOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT
AND I CANNOT SUPPORT IT BECAUSE
THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION IS
TOO BROAD AND THE TIMING OF THIS
AMENDMENT, THAT IS PRIOR TO THE
RELEASE OF ANY FINAL REGULATION
PREEMPTS THE TRADITIONAL
REGULATORY AUTHORITY.
TOGETHER, THE AMENDMENTS'
COMPREHENSIVE BAN ON THE
DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO
IMPLEMENT, ADMINISTER OR ENFORCE
ANY CURRENT, PENDING OR FUTURE
REGULATION OF GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
AND PREMATURELY
RESTRICTS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE ADMINISTRATION TO REGULATE
EDUCATION.
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
IN THE MANY MEETINGS I HAVE HAD
WITH CAREER COLLEGE STAKE
HOLDERS, EACH ONE OF THEM HAVE
ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE BAD
ACTORS.
DESPITE THIS UNIFORM
RECOGNITION, THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD TIE THE HANDS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FROM ANY
EFFORT TO JOURGE THESE SCHOOLS
TO IMPROVE THEIR -- ENCOURAGE
THESE SCHOOLS TO IMPROVE THEIR
PRACTICES AND PROTECT .
I SUPPORT CAREER COLLEGES, YET
I'M RESOLUTE IN MY BELIEF THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
STUDENTS AND HOLD INSTITUTIONS
OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACCOUNTABLE,
ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ACCESS
PUBLIC DOLLARS.
I STAND WITH OVER 50 CIVIL
RIGHTS GROUPS, HISTORICALLY
BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
AND STUDENT GROUPS WHO SUPPORT
STRONG GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
PROTECTION FOR STUDENTS,
INCLUDING KEY CIVIL RIGHTS
GROUPS SUCH AS THE NAACP,
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL
RIGHTS AND CHILDREN'S DEFENSE
FUND.
ADVOCACY GROUPS, UNITED ***
COLLEGE FUND AND THURGOOD
MARSHAL.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
N.E.A. AND COUNCIL FOR
OPPORTUNITY AND EDUCATION, LET'S
BE CLEAR AND MAKE NO MISTAKE,
THE KLINE-FOXX AMENDMENT IS NOT
ABOUT PROTECTING LOW INCOME
STUDENTS.
IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN THOSE
CONCERNS WOULD HAVE BEEN
EXPRESSED BY NOT CUTTING PELL
GRANTS FOR OVER ONE MILLION
STUDENTS BY APPROXIMATELY $845
PER STUDENT.
IF THE GOAL WAS TRULY TO SUPPORT
LOW INCOME MINORITY STUDENTS,
THE C.R. WOULD NO NOT HAVE CUT
$200 MILLION IN INSTITUTIONAL
AID FROM PREDOMINANTLY BLACK
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND
HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.
IF THE GOAL WAS TO HELP
LOW-INCOME MINORITY STUDENTS,
THE C.R. WOULD NOT HAVE CUT $44
MILLION FROM OTHER PROGRAMS.
PROGRAMS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
HELP FIRST GENERATION STUDENTS
PREPARE AND SUCCEED IN COLLEGE.
THE REALITY IS IS THAT THIS
AMENDMENT COMPLETELY STOPS THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FROM ANY
FORM OF OVERSIGHT OF CAREER
COLLEGES THAT EDUCATE 10% OF
HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS,
RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY 24% OF
FEDERAL GRANTS AND LOANS AND
ACCOUNT FOR 48% OF LOANS
.
DEFAULTS.
LET'S STOP NOW.
LET'S GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION THE OPPORTUNITY
REVIEW ITS WORK AND COME BACK
TO US WITH SOME REGULATIONS
THAT TAKE CARE OF THE NEEDS OF
STUDENTS AND NOT PROTECT JUST
THE INSTITUTION.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE QUESTION SON THE AMENDMENT.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN RISE?
-- DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
YORK RISE?
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THE KLINE-FOX AMENDMENT WHICH
WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF FUNDS
FOR GEORGIA THE GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT ACT.
I AM CONCERNED THAT IF THIS
RULE IS IMPLEMENTED IT WILL
APPLY AN UNNECESSARY BROAD
BRUSH APPROACH TO A COMPLICATED
SITUATION.
THIS RULE, IF IMPLEMENTED IN
ITS PROPOSED FORM WILL
EFFECTIVELY CLOSE HIGH-QUALITY
PROGRAMS WITHOUT LEAVING
OPEN.
PROGRAMS OF QUESTIONABLE VALUE
THIS IS NOT A WAY TO DEAL WITH
THIS ISSUE.
WE ALL KNOW THAT A COLLEGE
EDUCATION WHENEVER POSSIBLE IS
ONE OF THE BEST PATHS A STUDENT
CAN TAKE TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT
IN A TIME WHEN OUR NATION'S
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS JUST UNDER
10%.
IN SOME COMMUNITIES, IT DOUBLES
THAT.
LET'S NOT CLOSE OFF ANY
MEANINGFUL JOB TRAINING
PROGRAM.
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT
FORGET THAT THESE PROGRAMS
SERVE 2.8 MILLION AND MANY OF
THEM ARE ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED MINORITY
STUDENTS.
WHO WILL LOSE ACCESS TO THE
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT
THEY CANNOT GET ELSEWHERE.
THESE STUDENTS ARE
NONTRADITIONAL AND NEED THE
EXTRA ASSISTANCE OFFERED BY
THESE FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS.
SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT IS
SUPPORTING ACCESS AND CHOICE.
SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT IS
SUPPORTING EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITIES.
A YES VOTE IS A VOTE FOR
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
STUDENTS, MANY OF THEM ARE THE
FIRST IN THEIR FAMILIES TO
ATTEND COLLEGE.
THESE STUDENTS WHO WISH TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND A
FLEXIBLE PROGRAM THAT TRAINS
THEM TO BE THE BEST THEY CAN
BE.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS
IS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE YOUNG
PEOPLE IN MANY INSTANCES.
ONE INCIDENT YOU CANNOT DRAW
NATIONAL CONCLUSIONS BECAUSE
YOU KNOW ONE STUDENT THAT DID
NOT FINISH.
WELL, YOU CAN PICK THE FINEST
UNIVERSITY AND THE MOST
PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITY IN THIS
COUNTRY AND YOU CAN FIND
EXAMPLES.
LET US BE SERIOUS.
WE NEED TO PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE A BETTER QUALITY
OF LIFE.
ON THAT NOTE, I ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE YES ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE QUELT
FROM NEW JERSEY RISE?
TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I REQUEST UNANIMOUS CONSENT
TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I JOIN --
I JOIN A STRONG
COALITION ON THIS BECAUSE I
BELIEVE EVERY STUDENT SHOULD
KNOW HE IS GOING TO GET A HIGH
QUALITY EDUCATION FOR EVERY
BECAUSE EVERY TAXPAYER SHOULD
TUITION DOLLAR SPENT AND
BE GUARANTEED THAT NOT ONE DIME
OF PELL GRANT OR STUDENT MONEY
GOES TO ANY SCHOOL UNDER ANY
OWNERSHIP OR MANAGEMENT THAT
DOES NOT PROPERLY SPEND THE
PUBLIC'S MONEY.
THIS IS A GOAL THAT I BELIEVE
IS SHARED UNIVERSALLY BY EACH
SPEAKER ON EACH SIDE WHO HAS
SPOKEN HERE TONIGHT.
OUR DIFFERENCE IS NOT OVER
WHETHER WE SHOULD GUARANTEE
STUDENTS AND TAXPAYERS HIGH
QUALITY AND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.
OUR DIFFERENCE IS OVER HOW TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT.
HERE'S MY CONCERN ABOUT THE
RULE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED
THUS FAR.
IT IS BOTH UNDERINCLUSIVE AND
OVERINCLUSIVE.
TO UNDERSTAND THAT, CONSIDER
TWO SCHOOLS.
THE FIRST SCHOOL SUCCESSFULLY
PLACES 50% OF ITS GRADUATES IN
THE JOB FOR WHICH IT'S TRAINING
PEOPLE.
LET'S SAY IT'S A JOB IN MEDICAL
RECORDS TECHNOLOGY AND 50% OF
THE STUDENTS FROM THAT SCHOOL
ARE PLACED SUCCESSFULLY.
THAT SCHOOL HAS A TUITION THAT
GENERATES A RATE SO THAT 7% OF
THE GRADUATES' -- GRADUATE'S
INCOME GOES TO PAY BACK THEIR
STUDENT LOAN.
THE SECOND SCHOOL SUCCESSFULLY
PLACES 90% OF ITS GRADUATES IN
THE MEDICAL RECORDS TECHNOLOGY
FIELD BUT ITS TUITION GENERATES
A REPAYMENT RATE OF 10%.
SO AGAIN, THE FIRST SCHOOL ONLY
PLACES HALF OF ITS GRADUATES IN
THE JOB FOR WHICH IT'S TRAINING
PEOPLE AND THE SECOND SCHOOL
PLACES 90%.
OF ITS JOBS FOR WHICH IT'S
TRAINING PEOPLE.
UNDER THIS RULE, THE FIRST
SCHOOL SURVIVES AND THE SECOND
SCHOOL IS THROWN OUT OF THE
PROGRAM.
LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN.
THE SCHOOL WITH THE 50%
PLACEMENT RATE CONTINUES TO GET
TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
BUT THE COOL WITH THE 90%
PLACEMENT RATE DOESN'T.
THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
IT IS THE BASIS FOR OUR
BIPARTISAN OBJECTION.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
IF WE'RE GOING TO MEASURE
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, LET'S COME
UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT
MEASURES GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.
LET'S ASK THE QUESTION, WHEN
STUDENTS GRADUATE FROM A
SCHOOL, WHETHER IT'S
FOR-PROFIT, NONPROFIT, OR
PUBLIC, WHETHER THOSE STUDENTS
IN FACT GAIN PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT, AND WHETHER THAT
EMPLOYMENT RAISES THEIR INCOME
AND THEREFORE IS GAINFUL.
LET'S MEASURE WHAT THE LAW
ACTUALLY SAYS.
FINALLY, I THINK THERE IS THE
DECISION.
ISSUE OF WHO SHOULD MAKE THIS
AS CHAIRMAN KLINE POINTED OUT,
AS MR. HASTINGS POINTED OUT, AS
OTHERS POINTED OUT, THE
STATUTORY PHRASE GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN WITH US FOR
A VERY LONG TIME.
BUT THIS CONGRESS HAS NEVER
CHOSE TON DEFINE IT.
SO THE ISSUE HERE IS A
SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE.
WHO SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT MEANS?
SHOULD IT BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY, OR SHOULD IT BE THE
DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PEOPLE?
I THINK IT SHOULD CLEARLY BE
THE DULY ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
SO I WOULD URGE MY FRIENDS BOTH
DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN TO VOTE
YES FOR A PROCEDURE THAT WILL
CORRECT THIS RULE, LET US JOIN
TOGETHER REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS, AND DO A BILL, WORK
ON LEGISLATION THAT WILL GIVE
US THE KIND OF OUTCOME THAT WE
SHOULD REALLY HAVE HERE.
NOW WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
WE'RE DOING IT SO THE PERSON
WITH THREE JOBS GETS FAIR
TREATMENT HERE.
YOU ALL KNOW HER.
SHE'S THE PERSON WHO WORKS 35
OR 40 HOURS A WEEK ON HER FEET,
AND THAT'S A FULL-TIME JOB.
SHE'S RAISING CHILDREN, AND
THAT'S A FULL-TIME JOB.
AND SHE'S GOING TO SCHOOL.
AND THAT'S A FULL-TIME JOB.
LET'S NOT PUT THE ADDITIONAL
BURDEN OF TAKING AWAY OR
JEOPARDIZING THE QUALITY SCHOOL
THAT SHE HAS CHOSEN FOR
HERSELF.
EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER, I
BELIEVE, SUPPORTS HIGH QUALITY
CAREER EDUCATION.
INTED OF A RULE THAT SUBVERTS
THAT PRINCIPLE, LET'S WRITE A
BILL THAT ADVANCES THAT
PRINCIPLE.
LET'S VOTE YES FOR THE
KLINE-HASTINGS AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MINNESOTA, MR.
KLINE.
AS MANY AS ARE IN FAVOR WILL
SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I REQUEST A
RECORDED VOTE.
A RECORDED VOTE IS
REQUESTED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
BE POSTPONED.
GENTLEMAN FROM MINNESOTA WILL
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 11,
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MR. PENCE OF
INDIANA.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
WITHOUT OBJECTION,
REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
SO ORDERED.
I BELIEVE THAT
ENDING AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE
IS MORALLY WRONG.
BUT I RISE TONIGHT BECAUSE I
ALSO BELIEVE IT'S MORALLY WRONG
TO TAKE THE TAXPAYER THAT ARES
OF MILLIONS OF PRO-LIFE
AMERICANS AND USE IT TO FUND
ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE AND
PROMOTE ABORTION.
LIKE PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
AMERICA.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO
KNOW THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS
NOT ONLY THE LARGEST ABORTION
PROVIDER IN AMERICA, PLANNED
PARENTHOOD IS ALSO THE LARGEST
RECIPIENT OF TAXPAYER FUNDING
UNDER TITLE 10.
ACCORDING TO THEIR LATEST
ANNUAL REPORT THEY RECEIVED
MORE THAN $363 MILLION IN
TAXPAYER MONEY.
WHILE BOASTING OF HAVING
PERFORMED AN UNPRECEDENTED 324
,008 ABORTIONS IN THE SAME
YEAR.
THE AMENDMENT I BRING TO THE
AND ALL FUNDING TO PLANNED
FLOOR TONIGHT WOULD DENY ANY
PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF
AMERICA AND ITS AFFILIATERS IN
REST OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
BUT LET ME BE CLEAR.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT CUT
FUNDING FOR HEALTH SERVICES.
IT WOULD SIMPLY BLOCK THOSE
FUNDS ALREADY IN THE BILL FROM
SUBSIDIZING AMERICA'S LARGEST
ABORTION PROVIDER.
NOW I AM AWARE THAT TITLE 10
FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS ARE
ELIMINATED IN THIS BILL.
BUT ELIMINATING TITLE 10
FUNDING HAS NEVER BEEN MY GOAL.
I SUPPORT THE IMPORTANT WORK OF
TITLE 10 CLINICS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
THE REALITY IS THAT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD RECEIVES HUNDREDS OF
MILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS
FROM FUNDING SOURCES OTHER THAN
TITLE 10 AND OUR EFFORT IS TO
FOCUS ON DENYING ANY AND ALL
FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE LARGEST
ABORTION PROVIDER IN AMERICA.
THE REASONS FOR DOING SO ARE
MANY.
THE CASE FOR DEFUNDING PLANNED
PARENTHOOD HAS MADE HEADLINES
FOR YEARS.
IN 2002, PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS
FOUND CIVILLY LIABLE IN ARIZONA
FOR FAILURE TO REPORT STATUTORY
***.
SINCE THAT TIME, PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES HAVE BEEN
FOUND VIOLATE REGULAR PORTING
LAWS IN INDIANA, CALIFORNIA,
FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED
STATUTORY REFORM LAWS IN MACES
LIKE OHIO.
RECENTLY CALIFORNIA,
WASHINGTON, NEW JERSEY, AND NEW
YORK PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINICS
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF FRAUDULENT
ACCOUNTING OVER BILLING
PRACTICES AND LAST WEEK AS THE
NATION WATCHED IN HORROR, NEW
UNDERCOVER VIDEOS WERE RELEASED
THAT SHOWED PLANNED PARENTHOOD
EMPLOYEES IN MULTIPLE STATES
APARENTLY WILLING TO AID HUMAN
SEX TRAFFICKERS BY COACHING
THEM ON HOW TO FALSIFY
DOCUMENTS TO SECURE SECRET
ABORTIONS FOR UNDERAGE
PROSTITUTES.
YOU KNOW, AS THE FATHER OF TWO
TEENAGE DAUGHTERS, THERE ARE
NOT WORDS STRONG ENOUGH TO
PORTRAY MY CONTEMPT FOR THIS
PATTERN OF FRAUD AND ABUSE
AGAINST YOUNG WOMEN BY PLANNED
PARENTHOOD.
AND THAT'S WHAT BRINGS US HERE
TODAY.
NOW, I KNOW THAT SOME CONSIDER
THIS AMENDMENT TO BE SOMETHING
OF A WAR ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD'S RIGHT TO BE IN THE
ABORTION BUSINESS.
SADLY, ABORTION ON DEMAND IS
LEGAL IN AMERICA.
NOBODY IS SAYING THAT PLANNED
THIS IS ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR IT.
PARENTHOOD CAN'T BE THE LEADING
ADVOCATE OF ABORTION ON DEMAND
IN AMERICA BUT WHY DO I HAVE TO
PAY FOR IT?
NOBODY IS SAYING THAT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD CAN'T CONTINUE TO BE
THE LARGEST ABORTION PROVIDER
IN AMERICA, BUT WHY DO TENS OF
MILLIONS OF PRO-LIFE AMERICAN
TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT?
LET ME BE CLEAR AS I COME TO
THE FLOOR.
I LONG FOR THE DAY THAT ROE VS.
WADE IS SENT TO THE ASH HEAP OF
HISTORY, WHEN WE MOVE PAST THE
BRECKEN HEARTS AND BROKEN LIVES
OF THE PAST 38 YEARS.
BUT AS THIS DEBATE RAGES ON, I
CALL ON MY COLLEAGUES IN BOTH
PARTIES.
LET'S AT LEAST RESPECT WHAT HAS
BEEN THE HISTORIC AND
OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE OUGHT
NOT TO USE THEIR TAXPAYER
DOLLARS TO PROVIDE OR PROMOTE
.
ABORTION AT HOME AND ABROAD.
LET'S END TAXPAYER SUPPORT FOR
ABORTION PROVIDERS, SPECIFICALLY
PLANNED PARENTHOOD, ONCE AND FOR
ALL.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO TAKE A
STAND FOR TAXPAYERS AND TO TAKE
A STAND FOR LIFE.
TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE
PATTERN OF CORRUPTION.
AND TO TAKE A STAND FOR YOUNG
WOMEN IN PREGNANT CRISES WHO
DESERVE UNBIASED AND
COMPASSIONATE HEALTH CARE
SERVICES.
LET'S END TAXPAYER SUPPORT OF
PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
THE PENCE AMENDMENT'S PURPOSE
IS TO DO EXACTLY THAT, AND IN
SO DOING TO STAND WITH THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO STAND WITH
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER AND TO
STAND WITHOUT APOLOGY FOR THE
SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
INDIANA YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY RISE?
TO ASK TIME IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. SPEAKER, WE
WERE TOLD BY OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES THEY WERE HERE TO
CREATE JOBS, TO TURN THE
ECONOMY AROUND, AND TO REDUCE
THE DEFICIT.
BUT HERE THEY GO AGAIN,
SPENDING TIME ON AN EXTREME,
DIVISIVE, SOCIAL AGENDA.
IN A BREATHTAKING AND RADICAL
STEP, THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
HAS ALREADY PROPOSED TO
ELIMINATE TITLE 10 FUNDING,
WHICH HAS CONNECTED MILLIONS OF
AMERICAN WOMEN TO HEALTH CARE
SINCE 1970.
AND NOW THIS AMENDMENT BY THE
CONGRESSMAN FROM INDIANA
CONTINUES THE SAME PATTERN OF
CONTEMPT FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH AND
BASIC RIGHTS.
WITH THIS AMENDMENT, MY
COLLEAGUE IS TRYING TO
SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE ONE
PROVIDER OF LEGAL HEALTH
SERVICES.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD, FROM
FEDERAL FUNDS.
THIS AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE DEFICIT.
IT IS AN ATTACK BY ONE
CONGRESSMAN ON ONE ORGANIZATION
, AND IT NEEDLESSLY PUTS THE
LIVES OF AMERICAN WOMEN IN
DANGER.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CARRIES OUT
MILLIONS OF PREVENTATIVE AND
PRIMARY CARE SERVICES EVERY
YEAR.
THIS INCLUDES IMMUNIZATIONS AND
ROUTINE GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMS.
THIS INCLUDES NEARLY ONE
MILLION SCREENINGS FOR CERVICAL
CANCER, IDENTIFYING MORE THAN
90,000 WOMEN WHO ARE AT RISK
FOR CERVICAL CANCER.
CERVICAL CANCER EVERY YEAR
KILLS 4,000 WOMEN.
IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE RISK
EARLY ON, THEN YOU CAN SAVE A
WOMAN'S LIFE.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CARES FOR
MORE THAN THREE MILLION
AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN EVERY
YEAR.
IN MY STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
MORE THAN 62,000 MEN AND WOMEN
BENEFIT FROM HEALTH CARE AT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINICS.
OVER 70% OF THOSE PATIENTS HAVE
A FAMILY INCOME OF LESS THAN
$16,245 A YEAR.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS THE
ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN AFFORD
CARE.
IN FACT, SIX OF EVERY 10 WOMEN
WHO SEEK CARE AT A TITLE 10
FUNDED CENTER LIKE PLANNED
PARENTHOOD CONSIDER IT THEIR
MAIN SOURCE OF MEDICAL CARE.
THE VITAL PREVENTATIVE CARE AND
FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
SUPPORTED BY TITLE 10 SAVE
MONEY AND SAVE LIVES.
FOR EVERY DOLLAR INVESTED IN
TITLE 10, TAXPAYERS SAVE JUST
UNDER $4.
BUT UNDER THE GUISE OF BUDGET
CUTTING, THE NEW MAJORITY IS
LAURGING AN ASSAULT ON TITLE 10
AND ENDANGERING WOMEN'S HEALTH.
UNDERSTAND THEIR PURPOSE.
UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY.
TO IMPOSE THEIR TRADITIONAL
VIEW OF A WOMAN'S ROLE.
THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT ABOUT
FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION.
FEDERAL FUNDS, INCLUDING TITLE
10, ARE ALREADY BANNED FROM
GOING TOWARDS ABORTION SERVICES
UNDER THE HYDE AMENDMENT.
RATHER, MUCH LIKE THE REPEAL OF
HEALTH CARE REFORM, THIS IS
PART OF A REPUBLICAN AGENDA TO
FORCE WOMEN BACK IN TRADITIONAL
ROLES WITH LIMITED
OPPORTUNITIES.
THIS AMENDMENT WILL CAUSE MORE
THAN THREE MILLION PEOPLE TO
LOSE ACCESS TO BASIC PRIMARY
AND PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE.
I'M A CANCER SURVIVOR.
I'M A CANCER SURVIVOR WHO IS
ONLY HERE BECAUSE MY CANCER WAS
FOUND IN STAGE 1.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT LOSING
ACCESS TO SCREENING WILL COST
LIVES AND WILL KILL WOMEN IN
THIS COUNTRY.
IT COMES DOWN TO THIS, THE
PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE TITLE 10,
DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD ARE
BAD POLICY THAT HURT WOMEN AND
DO NOTHING FOR OUR ECONOMY.
IN FACT, IT COSTS MONEY.
THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IS
TRYING TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK
ON WOMEN'S HEALTH AND TURN BACK
THE CLOCK ON WOMEN'S BASIC
RIGHTS.
THEY ARE TAKING US BACK TO A
DAY WHEN FAMILY PLANNING WAS
NOT A GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR
WOMEN.
AND INSTEAD OF MAKING IT HARDER
FOR WOMEN TO GET HEALTH CARE,
WE SHOULD BE STANDING UP FOR
THESE VITAL SERVICES.
I ENCOURAGE AND URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO DEFEAT THIS
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM OHIO RISE?
MADAM SPEAKER, I HAVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD AND ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REVISE AND
EXTEND MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION,
FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THE GENTLEWOMAN IS RECOGNIZED
THANK YOU.
MADAM SPEAKER, YOU KNOW EVERY
DAY AMERICANS SIT AT THEIR
KITCHEN TABLE AND DO A NUMBER
OF THINGS INCLUDING TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO STRETCH THAT
DOLLAR.
AND HOW TO STOP
UNNECESSARY SPENDING.
THEY'RE ASKING US IN CONGRESS
TO DO THE SAME.
I LOOK AT THIS ROOM AS OUR
KITCHEN TABLE.
AND OVER THE LAST WEEK, WE'VE
DEBATED THAT ISSUE, HOW DO WE
STRETCH THE AMERICAN TAX-PAYING
DOLLAR?
AND TONIGHT I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF THE PENCE AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE IT ENSURES THAT OUR
PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS WILL NO
LONGER GO TO A GROUP WHOSE MAIN
ABORTIONS.
PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE
MAKE NO MISTAKE, PLANNED
PARENTHOOD IS OUR NATION'S
LARGEST ABORTION PROVIDER.
IT RECEIVES 1/3 OF ITS $1.1
BILLION FROM TAX-PAYING
AMERICANS.
FOR THE SAKE OF ABORTION,
PLANNED PARENTHOOD HOLDS ITSELF
ABOVE THE LAW, IGNORING
MANDATORY REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, SKIRTING PARENTAL
CONSENT, AND AIDING AND
ABETTING CHILD ***
TRAFFICKING.
AND MADAM SPEAKER, THIS HURTS
YOUNG GIRLS IN THE PROCESS.
FOUR YEARS OF INVESTIGATION
SHOWS 17 PLANNED PARENTHOOD
CLINICS IN 10 DIFFERENT STATES,
FACILITATING THE ***
EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN.
IN 2008, THE MONA LISA PROJECT
SHOWED 10 PLANNED PARENTHOOD
CLINICS IN CALIFORNIA, INDIANA,
ARIZONA, TENNESSEE, ALABAMA,
AND WISCONSIN IGNORING
MANDATORY REPORTING LAWS AND
FINDING WAYS TO SKIRT PARENTAL
CONSENT LAWS, COVERING UP
*** ABUSE SO GIRLS CAN GET
SECRET ABORTIONS.
AND I ONLY WISH THIS WASN'T
TRUE BUT IN MY OWN HOMETOWN OF
CINCINNATI, OHIO, TWICE
CINCINNATI PLANNED PARENTHOOD
DID JUST THAT.
IN ONE CASE IT WAS THE FATHER
WHO BROUGHT HIS DAUGHTER TO THE
ABORTION CLINIC.
AND WHEN SHE WAS TAKEN INTO THE
ROOM, SHE TOLD THE ABORTION
PROVIDER IT WAS HE WHO ***
HER.
THEY DID NOTHING.
HE'S NOW IN JAIL.
WE HAVE AN ONGOING CASE NOW OF
A COACH WHO TOOK THE YOUNG GIRL
GUARDIAN.
TO THE CLINIC AND SAID, I'M HER
WHEN LATER THE PARENTS TOOK HER
TO THE DOCTOR AND SAID, WHEN
DID SHE HAVE THIS ABORTION, THE
PARENTS WERE SHOCKED.
HE'S NOW ON TRIAL.
THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S OUT
THERE OF A WISH COME MAYBE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENED IN MY OWN CITY.
IN 2011, SEVEN PLANNED
PARENTHOOD CLINICS IN NEW
JERSEY, VIRGINIA, NEW YORK, AND
WASHINGTON, D.C. AIDED AND
ABETTED *** TRAFFICKING OF
CHILDREN, HELPING ACTORS POSING
AS PIMPS AND PROSTITUTES TO
MANAGE AN UNDERAGE SEX RING TO
GET SECRET ABORTIONS,
CONTRACEPTIVES, S.T.D. TESTING
AND KEEP THEIR COMMERCIAL CHILD
*** BUSINESS SAFE.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD COACHED THE
*** AND *** HOW TO USE
JUDICIAL BYPASS TO GET SECRET
ABORTIONS FOR THEIR UNDERAGED
SEX SLAVES.
PROFESSIONAL.
LIKE FORMER PLANNED PARENTHOOD
DIRECTOR ABBY JOHNSON SAID IT'S
NOT A TRAINING PROBLEM BUT AN
IDEOLOGY PROBLEM.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD WILL TELL
YOU THEY'RE TRYING TO PREVENT
ABORTIONS BUT LAST YEAR ALONE,
THEY PERFORMED 324,000
ABORTIONS AND ONLY PREVENTED
283,000.
YOU KNOW, ONE IN 10 PLANNED
ABORTION.
PARENTHOOD CLIENTS RECEIVES AN
THEY ARE THE LARGEST PROVIDER
OF ABORTIONS IN AMERICA.
AMERICA'S TAXPAYERS ARE ASKING
US TO BE WISE WITH THEIR
DOLLARS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT -- WHEN YOU
ASK THE QUESTION, SHOULD WE BE
PAYING FOR ABORTIONS?
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS SAY NO.
SHOULD WE BE PROVIDING
AMERICA'S LARGEST ABORTION
PROVIDER TAXPAYER FUNDING TO
HELP KEEP ITS LIGHTS ON SO ON
ONE SIDE IT CAN PROVIDE FAMILY
PLANNING SERVICES, AND ON THE
OTHER SIDE PROVIDE ABORTIONS?
I BELIEVE THE FOLKS AT THE
KITCHEN TABLE IN AMERICA ARE
SAYING NO.
TONIGHT IN THIS CHAMBER AT
AMERICA'S KITCHEN TABLE, I'M
ASKING OUR MEMBERS TO SAY NO TO
THIS PRACTICE AND SUPPORT THE
PENCE AMENDMENT, AND I YIELD
BACK.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NEW YORK RISE?
I RISE TO STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLEWOMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN I
RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
THE AMENDMENT.
OUR CONSTITUENTS SENT US HERE
TO CREATE JOBS.
INSTEAD, THE MAJORITY IS
PUSHING AN TREMENDOUS
RIGHT-WING AGENDA TO LIMIT
WOMEN'S HEALTH.
IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING
THE UNDERLYING BILL THAT
ELIMINATES THE FEDERAL FAMILY
PLANNING PROGRAM, A MEMBER OF
THE MAJORITY, IN FACT, ANOTHER
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA,
PROPOSED PROVIDING BIRTH
CONTROL TO HORSES.
AND NOW WE'RE CONSIDERING AN
AMENDMENT ATTACKING PLANNED
PARENTHOOD, WHICH HAS PROVIDED
HEALTH SERVICES TO ONE IN FIVE
AMERICAN WOMEN.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THAT HORSES
SHOULD HAVE FAMILY PLANNING BUT
WOMEN SHOULD NOT.
I STRONGLY URGE THOSE WHO
SUPPORT THIS AFFRONT TO WOMEN'S
HEALTH TO CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO
THEIR CONSTITUENTS THAT THEY
WANT TO MAKE IT HARDER TO
ACCESS PAP TESTS, BREAST EXAMS,
ROUTINE GYNECOLOGICAL
EXAMINATIONS, FLU VACCINATIONS,
SMOKING CESSATION SERVICES,
CHOLESTEROL SCREENING,
CONTRACEPTIVES, AND ALL OF THE
OTHER SERVICES THAT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD PROVIDES.
MY FRIENDS, THIS IS NOT ABOUT
ABORTION.
FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS FEDERAL
DOLLARS FROM BEING SPENT ON
ABORTION.
THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT DENYING
WOMEN ACCESS TO BASIC HEALTH
SERVICES.
I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE
WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON
CREATING JOBS AND PROTECTING
WOMEN'S HEALTH.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM MINNESOTA
RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE THE GENTLELADY
IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER,
AND I THANK MR. PENCE FROM
INDIANA WHO IS BRINGING FORWARD
THIS TREMENDOUS AMENDMENT
TONIGHT FOR US TO CONSIDER.
I'M GRATEFUL FOR HIS
WILLINGNESS TO BRING THIS
FORWARD BECAUSE THIS IS A
CONCERNING ISSUE FOR SO MANY
AMERICANS, CONCERNING ON SO
MANY ISSUES AND CONCERNING FOR
PEOPLE AS WELL WHO ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE YOUTH
FUNDS.
THERE'S AN ARTICLE
THAT APPEARED IN "THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL" IN 2008 THAT
WAS A FAIRLY DEEP EXPOSE OF
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND WHAT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS DOING
WITH THEIR MONEY AND I'D LIKE
TO QUOTE FROM THAT ARTICLE,
FLUSHED WITH CASH, PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES
NATIONWIDE ARE AGGRESSIVELY
EXPANDING THEIR REACH, SEEKING
TO WOO MORE AFFLUENT PATIENTS
WITH A NETWORK OF SUBURBAN
CLINICS AND HUGE NEW HEALTH
CENTERS THAT PROJECT A
DECIDEDLY UPSCALE IMAGE.
EXECUTIVES SAY THEY'RE
REBRANDING THEIR CLINICS TO
APPEAL TO WOMEN OF MEANS, A
MOVE THAT OPENS NEW AVENUES FOR
BOOSTING REVENUE AND THEY HOPE
NEW POLITICAL CLOUT.
TWO ELEGANT NEW HEALTH CENTERS
HAVE BEEN BUILT, AT LEAST FIVE
MORE ARE ON THE WAY.
THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD FACILITY
IN DENVER, COLORADO, IS 52,000
SQUARE FEET.
THEY FEATURE TOUCHES SUCH AS
MUTED LIGHTING, HARDWOOD
FLOORS, AND AIRY WAITING ROOMS
IN COLORS SELECTED BY MARKETING
EXPERTS.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ALSO OPENED
MORE THAN TWO DOZEN
QUICK-SERVICE EXPRESS CENTERS,
MANY IN SUBURBAN SHOPPING
MALLS, INCLUDING MY HOME STATE
OF MINNESOTA.
SOME PLANNED PARENTHOODS SELL
JEWELRY, SOME SELL CANDLES,
BOOKS, AND T-SHIRTS RIGHT NEXT
TO THE CONTRACEPTION.
IT'S INDEED A NEW LOOK, A NEW
BRANDING SAYS THE PRESIDENT,
LESLIE DURGIN, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CLINIC.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS THE
NATION'S LARGEST ABORTION
PROVIDER.
THEY REPORTED A RECORD $1
BILLION IN ANNUAL REVENUES, 1/3
OF THAT COMES FROM THE FEDERAL
AND STATE GRANTS THAT WE ARE
DISCUSSING THIS EVENING.
AND THE NONPROFIT ENTERED THEIR
YEAR WITH A SURPLUS OF $115
MILLION, OR A 1/3 OF THE GRANTS
THEY RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT
AND WITH NET ASSETS OF NEARLY
$1 BILLION.
IN 2008, PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAD
882 CLINICS NATIONWIDE.
ONE OF THEIR COMPETITORS, AND
THEY DO HAVE INDEPENDENT
FOR-PROFIT COMPETITORS, SAID
PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS NOT
CHAINS.
UNLIKE OTHER BIG NATIONAL
THEY PUT LOCAL, INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES IN A TOUGH
SITUATION.
EVEN AS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
ABORTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
HAS DROPPED, THE NUMBER
PERFORMED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD
.
HAS GROWN TO NEARLY 290,000 A
YEAR.
IN 2005, PLANNED PARENTHOOD
ACCOUNTED FOR ONE IN FIVE
ABORTIONS AND LOOKING TO
INCREASE THEIR MARKET SHARE.
THE PRESIDENT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
ROCKY MOUNTAIN SAID SHE
ABORTION.
ENCOURAGED MORE CLINICS TO OFFER
THE HEAD OF THE OPERATION IN MY
STATE OF MINNESOTA SAID SHE
OPENED THREE EXPRESS CENTERS IN
THREE WEALTHY SUBURBS AND MALLS
WHERE WOMEN ARE DOING THEIR
GROCERY SHOPPING, LIVING THEIR
DAILY LIVES AND STOPPING OTCH
FOR AN ABORTION.
IT IS THE LENS CRAFTER OF FAMILY
PLANNING, THE TOP EXECUTIVE OF
ILLINOIS SAID AS HE TOWERED AN
EXPRESS CENTER A FEW DOORS DOWN
FROM A HAIR SALON AND A JAPANESE
RESTAURANT.
THE STRATEGY DRAWS NEW PATIENTS
AND MONEY.
IN ILLINOIS, FOR INSTANCE,
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OFFICIALS SAY
THEY TAKE A DOLLAR A PAKISTAN ON
BIRTH CONTROLS THAT GO TO POOR
WOMEN UNDER TITLE 10, HOWEVER
THEY MAKE $22 ON EACH MONTH OF
PILLS SOLD TO AN ADULT WHO CAN
AFFORD TO PAY FULL PRICE.
MAJORITY OF WOMEN WHO STOP BY
THE NEW PLANNED PARENT HOOD ARE
IN THAT GROUP.
IN 2008, PLANNED PARENTHOOD
POLITICAL ACTION ARM PLANNED TO
RAISE DOLLARS TO INFLUENCE THE
FALL CAMPAIGN.
UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, THE
HEALTH CARE WING OF PLANNED
PARENTHOOD CAN'T SUPPORT
POLITICAL CANDIDATES, BUT THEY
CAN MOBILIZE VOTERS AND THEY CAN
ADVOCATE ON ISSUES LIKE ABORTION
RIGHTS AND SEX EDUCATION IN
SCHOOLS.
ALL PAID WITH FEDERAL GRANTS.
TO ENCOURAGE THE NEW WAVE OF
PATIENTS TO JOIN THE CAUSE, AN
EXPRESS CENTER IN PARKER,
ILLINOIS SETS OUT BUTTONS BY THE
MAGAZINE RACK.
THE CENTER OPENING IN DENVER IN
2008 USES 20% OF THEIR SPACE FOR
HEALTH CARE, 40% OF THEIR SPACE,
THEY USE FOR MEETINGS, INCLUDING
POLITICAL WORK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
RISE?
STRIKE THE
REQUISITE WORDS.
FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I YIELD TO MY FRIEND IN THE
WELL
THERE ARE SPACE
FOR CANDIDATE FORUMS AND PHONE
BANKS AS WELL AS A CLINIC,
AGAIN, ALL PAID FOR WITH
ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY FROM THE
FEDERAL AND STATE TAXPAYER.
MR. GREENBERG SAID DONORS WERE
SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE SIZE AND
$16.5 MILLION COST, BUT
EVENTUALLY THEY CAME AROUND
BECAUSE THE BUILDING BECOMES A
SYMBOL FOR OUR OUTREACH AND A
SYMBOL FOR OUR COMMUNITY
ACTIVISM.
MADAM SPEAKER, IT'S CLEAR AFTER
EXTENSIVE STUDY AND REVIEW BY
THIS "WALL STREET JOURNAL"
ARTICLE, WHAT WE ARE SEEING
TODAY, MADAM SPEAKER, IS THAT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS FOCUSED ON
POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND FOCUSED
ON BECOMING BIG BUSINESS.
WHEN YOU HAVE THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNED
PARENTHOOD IN ILLINOIS SAYING
THEY WANT TO BECOME THE LENS
CRAFTER OF BIG ABORTION, I THINK
WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THEM.
IF THEY WANT TO BECOME THE LENS
CRAFTER, THEN LET THEM BECOME
THE LENS CRAFTER.
A AS MR. PENCE SAID, ABORTION IS
LEGAL TODAY IN THE UNITED
STATES, BUT THE TAXPAYER
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SUPPORT IT.
AND IF THEY WANT TO BECOME THE
LENS CRAFTER, PLANNED
PARENTHOOD, $1 BILLION
ORGANIZATION, SHOULD LOSE THE
$300 MILLION THEY RECEIVE IN
FEDERAL GRANTS AND THEY SHOULD
ALSO HAVE THEIR TAX EXEMPT
STATUS SERIOUSLY STUDIED BY THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
IF THEY ARE COMPETING WITH
FOR-PROFIT BUSINESSES AND
PUTTING THEM OUT OF BUSINESS,
THEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS NO
BUSINESS HOLDING A NONPROFIT
STATUS THAT BENEFITS THAT
ORGANIZATION.
ON ANY NUMBER OF LEVELS, MADAM
SPEAKER, THIS YEAR, MORE THAN
ANY OTHER YEAR, WE NEED TO
COMPLETELY DEFUND PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AND BEGIN A PROCESS
TO END THE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF
THIS NOW PROFIT-SEEKING,
POLITICAL-SECRETARYING
ORGANIZATION.
AND I YIELD BACK.
AND I YIELD BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THE GENTLELADY RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.