(CNSNews.com) – At a hearing on Planned Parenthood funding in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) pointed out to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards that the organization’s most recent tax report shows $127 million dollars of revenue in excess of expenses.
Mulvaney asked Richards whether taking away just the $60 million in discretionary funding appropriated by Congress of the more than $450 million in federal funding that the Congressional Budget Office estimates Planned Parenthood gets each year.
“One of the proposals here, Ms. Richards, is to defund Planned Parenthood, which includes taking roughly $60 million away from what you get out of discretionary funding,” Mulvaney said to Richards at a hearing of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, where she was a witness. “If we took $60 million away from you, you could still perform every single service that you gave last year, can’t you?”
“I can’t say that because …” Richards responded.
A Sept. 16 Congressional Budget Office report on the cost of H.R. 3134, a bill to put federal funding of Planned Parenthood on hold until investigations into the alleged trafficking of baby organs from aborted babies is complete, shows that the organization receives about $450 million in federal funds annually. Of that, $390 million is provided through Medicaid and less than $1 million through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicare combined. That leaves about $60 million in family planning funding through Title X, which is subject to appropriation by Congress.
The following exchange then ensued between Richards and Mulvaney:
Mulvaney: “Well you made $127 million. You have revenues in excess of expenses of $127 million. Now you told me what you do with the $127 million. You’re spending it. You’re investing it. You’re expanding. I get that, but if you had $60 million less last year, you could have provided every single service to every single woman that you did last year.”
Richards: “Well, I constantly raise money to expand services to the patients that look to us and so ….”
Mulvaney: “Well, God Bless you. I think that’s great, but answer my question, please. You could have provided every single service that you did to every single woman last year if you did not get a penny from the discretionary fund from the United States Congress.”
Richards: “Well, I actually disagree. There’s no way I could agree to that. These are services that are spread out all across the country, and I can’t possibly account for how each dollar that I raise -- committed to other services, and expansion of services -- could simply replace federal dollars.”
Mulvaney: “Not expansion of services, I’m talking about services you actually provided. You would have had $6[0] million …”
Richards: Well, we’re expanding services beyond what we already provide …”
Mulvaney: “Got that. That’s not my question. My question is if we had not funded you last year, you would have still been able to provide the services, and I think the answer is unequivocally yes. You might not have been able to expand your services, but every single woman that walked into every single clinic would have been served if you had not received that money from Congress.”
Richards: “I disagree, but …”
When Mulvaney’s time had expired, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the committee, weighed in.
“We’re just trying to figure out why – why you would disagree with that,” Chaffetz said. “Revenues would still exceed expenses even with $60 million less.”
Richards, who remained composed during a hearing that lasted for more than four hours, including a break for voting, then praised her organization for its “education” of Americans.
“I raise money every single day to expand services – education services to people in America,” Richards said. “That’s what we do at Planned Parenthood, and like any other non-profit, we reserve money for all kind of services that need to be expanded, assistance that needs to be provided, and that’s what we do with our money.
“We’re a non-profit,” she said. “We don’t do anything else with our money other than put it back into the services, the education, and sometimes the advocacy that we provide.
”