tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 9, 2015 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
your own state is funding women's health at a higher level at the state level. i was reading something yesterday, that there is more funding than there had been in the past, despite the restrictions that have been placed on aforce facilities through different measures. you know, i think that's a great example that, you know, we know that the state of texas is still funding women's health services at an all-time high level. i apologize that i don't have that specific information but i was just reading it on the plane last night. and i have to just say as a woman who survived an abortion, there is something wrong when health care and women's needs and women's empowerment is based on someone's life ending. >> absolutely. >> thank you. my understanding is there is 732 federally qualified health centers in texas.
and there are 38 planned parenthood centers in texas. the issue about the videos and was it edited and not edited, that seems to be the discussion in congress on multiple things. do we have the full video? do we have all of the e-mails? do we have the side deals with the iranian nuclear agreement? you know, we always seem to be missing something when we want to make a decision. and here we are wanting the full videos. i think that will all play out. but the issue is whether or not there should be federal funds for planned nonharparenthood. ms. jessen? is it jessen? >> yes. >> tell me a little about your knowledge of planned parenthood, i mean, based on your background and your life shernss. you don't have to go into those, but margaret singer or planned parenthood, what do you know
about them? >> well, my biological mother went to a planned parenthood and they advised her to have a saline abortion, so planned parenthood has had an enormous impact on my life. i have the gift of cerebral palsy as a direct result of lack of oxygen to my brain from that procedure. margaret sanger was quite an individual. she said -- if i may. >> you may. >> reread this quote that i quoted her earlier. she said, the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. and i just -- that's the woman
that began this organization. >> do you have a problem with statues of her in different prominent places in america? >> a little bit, yeah, uh-huh. >> i mean, do you or not? >> yes, yes. >> do you think that, just your opinion, based on your life experiences, and i value you a great deal. >> thank you. do you think that the taxpayers should fund planned parenthood, an organization that does harvest, if we can use the term, body parts, of unborn -- of the unborn? >> absolutely not. >> my time's expired. i'll yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. and i recognize ms. lofgren for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my apologies for having to step out. i chair the california democratic delegation and we had
the secretary of labor meeting with us and i had to go over for 50 minutes to deal with that. however, i've had the benefit of reading all the testimony, of course, hearing the testimony this morning. and i really -- it seems to me there are a lot of distortions in terms of how we're approaching this issue. the real agenda here is pretty obvious, which is to try and outlaw or eliminate abortion in the united states. that is a right women have under the constitution, at least in the first trimester. and i think it's this -- thiscy-s a thinly veiled attack on that right that women have. now, ms. smith, you are at the law school. you've analyzed all this stuff. i've got a list of the services
that are provided by planned parenthood in my state, in california. 117 centers. just over 800,000 patients that could not be absorbed by the other clinics at all. none of the abortion services are funded by the federal government. it's only these other services. the contraception, sexually transmitted disease treatment, pap smears, breast exams, and even sex education and outreach. i'm just wondering what the impact would be if you had a chance to look at california's impact, if these centers were defunded, what would happen to their patients? >> thank you for the question. yeah. i haven't -- i don't have the
exact numbers, but what i know is that -- and i think this is the terrible irony of this hearing and this idea of defunding planned parenthood, is that if you defund the important nonabortion-related services that the government funds around this country, including in california, what would end up happening is there would be a significant increase in the number of unintended pregnancies and, therefore, also an increase in the number of abortions that would occur. now, that's just the impact on abortion rates alone. we are also talking about the ability of women, particularly low income women, to obtain high-quality services. services that simply cannot be absorbed by state community health centers, as has been suggested. we're talking about wellness exams, cancer screenings, pap smears, std testing, all kinds
of services. so, planned parenthood has become so popular, not because it provides abortions, but because it provides a wide range of services that women and men need to stay healthy. and it does so at reasonable costs. and with very high quality. and that's why i support planned parenthood and that's why a vast majority of the american people do as well. >> well, in my community, planned parenthood not only provides birth control and cancer screening and the like, but they provide pediatric care. you know, it's whole family. it's not just women and children that are getting immunizations and getting, you know -- >> yes. >> -- pediatric care. >> that's an an important point. the name planned parenthood, i would disagree with the member
before, the name planned parenthood is, indeed, very apt, because planned parenthood is about helping people plan their families, plan when they're going to have their families and take care of their families. >> just -- >> -- to the best of -- >> a final question. there's been talk of shutting the government down and that, you know, it would somehow stop planned -- what would happen to funding for planned parenthood if we had a government shutdown, you know, at the end of this month? >> well, i think it -- i don't -- because i'm not an official at planned parenthood, i don't know what would happen exactly with their funding stream, when they get federal -- >> it's mainly medicaid. >> so, it would be medicaid recipients would not be covered, i assume, for their services and for their health care needs and would be unable to go to planned parenthood clinics and women would go without necessary -- and their children would go without necessary health care. >> but it wouldn't defund
abortions because there's no federal money going into abortions. >> no, it wouldn't defund abortions. this question about fungibility of money is quite ironic. under federal law we don't consider money fungible in this way because it really doesn't apply in these -- it doesn't move from one sphere to another. for example, in our religious freedom cases, we allow the funding of secular services at faith-based organizations. and we do that and we say it's not an establishment clause violation because the money that goes to religious activities at those same organizations is separately funded. so, we recognize the ability. and we can keep those things separate in our head in that context. i think we should be able to keep those things separate here as well because they are separate in reality. >> my time's expired.
thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentle lady. i'll route mr. gowdy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. xhachairman. can you describe the process of a partial birth abortion so people will have a better understanding of why it might have been banned? and they may have a better understanding of why professor smith might have argued against that ban. >> yes. a partial birth abortion is defined under federal law is where a physician partially delivers -- usually the trunk and legs of the baby leaving only the head in the birth canal. and the baby is alive. then takes an act to kill the baby at that point, usually thrusting scissors into the back of the skull in order to kill the baby. and then completes the delivery. so, it's a way of killing the baby when most of the baby has already been -- is already outside of the womb.
>> there were actually people who argued against banning that barbaric practice? >> oh, yes. i mean, many of the people we've been hearing from today were big advocates for continuation of partial birth abortions. they have no respect for human life, if they consider it to be unborn or they want to label it as a fetus. and literally anything is all right as far as they seem to be concerned. >> let's go to that point. because professor smith seems to draw a line, artificial as it may be, between the humanity owed to a viable fetus and the -- and the lack of humanity owed to what she considers to be a nonviable fetus. who gets to draw that line of demarcation between viability and nonviability? >> well, that's a complex question. number one, tit is a medical determination on whether or not a child is viable but it's a
difficult one. there are many gray areas, for instance. the statistics are after 20 weeks one in four can survive. and we would consider that to mean, therefore, that anyone born at that point in time ought to be considered viable, but many times you simply don't know until later. and i haven't heard any people that work at abortion clinics are able to make that fine and complex medical decision. >> no, i think professor smith,fy heard her correctly, said she was not a doctor and it should be up to the doctors that make that determination, although i did note the irony, it was nonlawyers who came up with that plan. not one of whom was a doctor. i also noted the irony of hank johnson wondering why there weren't more women on the side of the aisle as they tend to seek office as republican women
and there wasn't a single woman on the court when roe versus wade was decided. but that doesn't seem to trouble him much either. for those watching at home or here doesn't civil law recognize the viability of even a previable fetus when it comes time for the plaintiff's attorney to get paid? >> there are many instances of wrongful -- cases in various tats of wrongful death of the unborn, of criminal laws to punish -- >> we're going to get to criminal law in a second. let's just stick with civil right now. when it comes time for the trial attorney to get paid, we have a different definition of viability, right? >> well, viability is simply not relevant. >> exactly. you can be two weeks pregnant and you have a cause of action on behalf of that unborn child. and our friends on the other side of the aisle, some who were plaintiffs' attorneys, have no trouble being paid for the life
of that 2-week-old. >> right. the idea of using viability as a standard is really antiquated and most courts have gone away from that to just simply the point that if the child is alive. >> but it's hard to go away from viability when professor smith said there's not any humanity owed a previable -- she won't say baby -- previable fetus. >> that's exactly right. >> did i misunderstand her? is there any degree of humanity owed? >> well -- >> you've been sitting beside her all morning. dy miss something? is there something outside the bounds of decency that we really won't allow as long as the fetus is previable? >> as i understand her testimony f the born alive infant is considered nonviable, we have a free fire zone. we can do whatever we want.
kill the infant, harvest their tissues. the concern about the producing intact infants, which has been demonstrated in the videos, is, of course, the possibility that these possibility -- these unborn children are alive. and there's even evidence that one of the intact babies born alive had a beating heart, which is a definition of being alive. >> which is why the videos are relevant to our conversation about partial birth abortion. mr. chairman, i'm out of time. i just have two really quick questions for ms. smith, which she can answer with a yes or no. ms. smith f we were to double the amount of money available to the providers but give it to someone not named planned parenthood, would you be okay with that? >> i would have to know who it was going to and whether they were qualified -- >> anyone not named planned parentho parenthood. >> not anyone, no. >> if they were capable of providing -- >> if they provide high-quality
services to low income people in the same way planned parenthood does, yes, frankly -- >> you're okay with us defunding planned parenthood as long as the money goes somewhere where it can do the most amount of good for the same group of people? >> yes. >> you're okay with congress defunding planned parenthood? >> not in the current environment where there is no one able -- >> if there were, would you be okay -- >> if there were, yeah, it would be a different world and, yes, then you could fund that organization. >> so, if we can identify service providers that meet that same quality of care, not named planned parenthood, you'll support the republicans in defunding planned parenthood? >> i don't know that you and i will agree on who those people are, and i would have to know -- >> how about we start? how about we just try? >> theatrically -- if you're asking me a hypothetical question -- >> yeah, i'll double the money as long as it doesn't go to the folks who donate money to democrats planned parenthood? we'll double the amount of money available as long as it doesn't go to planned parenthood, how's that?
>> as long as it doesn't go to planned parenthood? planned parenthood today is the institution that provides the best, highest quality care to women in this country, across this nation, in cities, in low-income areas, where these services are unavailable to them -- >> they're also the target of videos that are barbaric, heinous and subhuman. as long as we can get the same level of care -- >> if they provide -- >> -- not named plant parent hood -- >> provide abortions as a small amount of their services and that's why you oppose pem. >> you have no reason why. i was voting to defund planned parenthood, with all due respect, before the videos showed up. >> i wasn't talking about the videos. >> i don't think you know each other well enough to know what i'm doing. >> vice versa. and vice versa. >> i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. just to clarify, ms. smith, you said earlier that in order to determine whether an unborn
child is viable, one would need to ask a doctor. and so consequently, would you support a requirement that when an unborn child is born alive, that the child be transported to a hospital so that it can survive if it's viable? >> if it's viable -- >> i'm saying -- >> -- born alive? >> so it can be transported to a hospital where a medical doctors can ascertain -- >> mr. chairman s there an intent to have a second round of questions since you are engaging -- >> i'm move on. can you answer the question? >> i would have to see the bill, so i'm not prepared to support or not support. >> all right. now, i'll recognize -- mr. gud re gutierrez, i believe you're next in line. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just first say i thank all of the men and women that work at planned parenthood. i thank them for the incredible
service they offer millions of women that who would otherwise go without. the kind of kind, considerate, compassionate, understanding service that i believe that women in this country need. and that isn't being offered in other venues. i thank them because just last year, 500,000 fewer pregnancies. that's a way to stop abortions. this shouldn't be a question of who's for abortion, who's against. everybody's against abortion. but how do you stop abortions? how do you allow everyone to live in the 21st century? how do you allow women to live freely in the 21st century if they're not in charge of their reproductive system? i think that's key. i think part of what is going on here is is that planned parenthood has a direct association with the pill, with
contraceptive. and that fight continues to go on. we shouldn't have that fight. the vast majority of women in america and across the world that have access take birth control. i'm certainly not going to judge my wife. we have two beautiful daughters. eight years apart. why? because we had access to birth control. we had access to birth control so that we could determine when it was we were going to have children and we could raise those children. we could race those children to be productive citizens of our society. you know, when you show me that planned parenthood actually was selling body parts, then we'll have a conversation. about the future of planned parenthood. nobody's shown that. and let's make it very, very clear. medical advances and vaccines for polio, measles, rubella, vaccines against drugs, neurological disorders, immune deficiencies, cancer, parkinson's, we need to continue to have medical research. part of that medical research is
because there is the ability to access the fetal tissues. and that there isn't profitability in it. no one's shown there's profitability in it. but there needs to be a way that we have medical research in this country. and so i just to want say thank you to all of the women and the men and all of those that labor in our health care delivery system across this country. especially those who would provide that to women. 80% of the clients receive birth control services. that's -- 516,000 unintended pregnancies annually. i want you to think about that. i want you to think about the estimated 1 out of 5 women in the united states has visited a planned parenthood health center at least once in her life. 20% of the women in this country. of course, some people don't want them to visit there
anymore. and i also to want talk about the fact that as much as we try to have universal health care, we still don't have universal health care, unfortunately, in this country. i just want to talk a little bit. it isn't about being -- i'm not for abortion. do i honk if i see a sign that says, honk if you're for choice? yeah, i do honk. we've been very lucky and fortunate in my family and in my own personal experience, even when we were pretty poor to have access to health care for my wife because there were people out there that were giving that kind of access. and i want to end not by trying to have it -- for saying we're for planned parenthood because we receive money, i think, it's a little under the belt. this is really about women and what's about the law. two last points. there seems to be a question
here of morality. i just to want say, look, when you have members of the house of representatives proposing doma that have been divorced four times, i think we might want to question their knowledge, their sincerity about marriage. of course, that was overturned by the supreme court. when we are clerks that are married once, twice, three, then get religious and say, i'm not going to give marriage certificate to them because it's a question of my morality? in the end what you cannot question is this congressman's right to defend his two daughters' rights. i raised them. i gave them the best i could and i trust them. and i'm going to protect their right and the right of every other woman to make decisions about their reproductive systems with their conscience. i raised them. i gave them the best values and the best i could do. and i need to respect them now.
i just wish that in this society we would have a system that respected all women and the kinds of decisions they have to make every day. every day they have to make decisions. i don't think we're in a position to judge them. i'm certainly not going to allow others to promote legislation or to promote situations that put that in jeopardy. thank you so much, mr. chairman. >> now recognize mr. labrador for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in fact, i'm really grateful for the words of morality that we just heard from my good friend, mr. gutierrez. >> in fact, i don't know if we're ever going to be able to answer that question whether it was illegal for them to do what they were doing. the real tragedy is that we're
dollars are contributing to it. i think that's immoral. i do not want to contribute to a system that profits from it is often a temptation to boil this down to medical terms and ignore the real losses our nation faces when we continue to rejected someone has not always been easy. but i am incredibly grateful you were given the opportunity to
live and that you are choosing to spend time with us today. i, too, could be said to be a survivor of abortion. my mother, god rest. encouraged by people like ms. smith and others to abort me. she was told that the only way she was going to have a life, a good life, was making sure that she did not have this child. and she did make a personal choice, a choice that should be respected. she made the choice to give me life, but not to just give me life, but to give me a good life. to raise me to the best of my ability to become the best that i could do. she made a deal with her god that if she was going to have this child, she was going to do
everything in her power to make sure that this child had a good life. even though she was a single mom. she didn't have? i money. she didn't have much in her life. she was going to give me the best opportunities and everything else available to me. and when we talk about this in scientific terms, we forget that we are talking about children. we are talking about human life. we are talking about people who have a god-given poeshtential b the best they can be and to be everything they can be. so i hope we don't forget that. when i watch those videos, i have to admit i can only watch two of them. i think there's seven or eight of them. i could not watch after the second one, because i was sickened to my core. to me, it was immoral. i don't know if it's illegal, ms. smith, but it was immoral what i was seeing on that video. we can have a discussion whether at some point there should be abortions. you and i will disagree on that discussion.
but i can tell you at that point when those videos were showing that abortion, this nation should really step back and decide whether we are a moral nation or are an immoral nation. whether we are willing to allow that to happen or not. so, i have a few questions for you, ms. smith. you emphasized federal funding for planned parenthood is not used for abortions, yet you go on to say defunding planned parenthood would ultimately lead to an increase in abortions. explain to me why you only association abortion with planned parenthood in the case of defunding planned parenthood but fail to recognize the connection when the federal government actively contributes money to planned parenthood? >> what i was saying was that if you defund planned parenthood, you defund their contraceptive services and the care they provide to women -- >> so, as mr. gowdy said, if we gave that money to other community health organizations,
would that be okay? >> if there were community health organizations that provided as high quality care as -- >> do you think the only community health care organization in this country is planned parenthood? >> currently it's definitely the highest -- >> you're saying the highest. the only. there are other -- >> there are other community health centers. there are reasons people don't go to them. you go to planned parenthood. >> you haven't elaborated about the legal troubles planned parenthood may face. even if it's found planned parenthood does not violate any law, what justification do you have for -- >> i'm sorry, quet again, sir? >> have you elaborated on whether that -- planned parenthood potentially violated the law. even if they didn't violate the law s there any justification to continue to fund their practices? >> is there any justification to continue to fund their practices? >> yeah. >> no. the reason there's no justification is that even if the current laws are not violated, they clearly are
committing abuses and violating moral and ethical principles and violating the safeguards that the -- you know, as wrong as the niha panel was about recommending this research, at least they talked about and proposed safe >> guest: guards, like no financial incentives. when the laws got passed, it was passed by people that wanted to facilitate -- the law was written by people that wanted to facilitate fetal tissue procurement from aborted fetuses and, frankly, went beyond what the panel would have limited it to. so, you know, we -- it could very well be that the current laws need to be adjusted in order to provide, one, effective protection against these financial incentives and, two, by providing the necessary protection for infants born alive, which, you know, we have a witness right here before this committee speaking for the
abortion industry that says, they're in a free fire zone if they're not viable. >> okay. thank you. i yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i'll recognize mr. deutsche for five minutes. >> today marks the first hearing after a lengthy august recess. how fitting it is that it be devoted to a bogus and politically motivated attack on women's health care and on those who provide it. let's be clear. the entire premise of today's hearing is based on viral videos that have been dissected, debunked and discredited. for three years, anti-abortion activists fraudulently casts themselves as biomedical researche researchers. their goal to find a got ya moment. after three years of deception, they failed to find it. so, what do these extremists do? they heavily edited footage to smear planned parenthood, a
nonprofit health care provider that serves over 2.7 million americans every year, as some sort of for-profit enterprise engaged in a prepost yous black market of fetal tissue. conveniently scrubbed out were the parts where staff says no one should sell fetal tissue and their goal is to cover the cost of the donation process. in short, these videos are heavily edited and intended to deceive. why are we here? we learned planned parenthood did notten gauge in any wrongdoing. they only do fetal tissue donation in a handful of states. that fetal tissue research was consensually obtained through legal abortions was legalized by congress in 1993 with bipartisan support. that planned parenthood's goal is to fulfill the wishes of those patients who decide to donate fetal tissue to science. and, perhaps, perhaps contribute to research that may some day yield cures to alzheimer's and
blindne blindness, muscularfy and so many other ills. so, fetal tissue research is legal. family planning is legal. and as much as some of our witnesses today like to pretend otherwise, abortion is legal. yet here we are. this deception is like congress to hold the first of apparently several hearings. this deception has led presidential candidates to pledge to defund planned parenthood, a provider that 1 in 5 american wechl relies on in their lifetime. well, guess what? no federal funding goes to abortion. so, when you defund planned parenthood, you're just defunding over 90% of what they do that is not abortion, meaning you defund pregnancy test, you defund birth control, you defund screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer and ovarian cancer, defund vaccinations, referrals to hospitals and specialists and deny prenatal care. so, what happens when you defund planned parenthood, a provider that serves over 2.7 million americans? you defund access to health care that has nothing, nothing to do
with abortion. let me correct the record here. planned parenthood does spend federal funding on birth control that prevents unwanted pregnancies that may lead to abortions. indeed, in 2013 alone, title 10 sites like planned parenthood prevent 1 million unintended pregnancies which statistically would have led to over 300,000 more abortions that year. i honestly don't know why we're here today. but here's what i do know. i know that not a single one of the men sitting on this dase today ever had to cap a sentence about their educational goals or career plans or their financial aspirations with the phrase, unless i get pregnant. i know that federal law already prohibits planned parenthood from using any tax dollars on abortion-related care. frankly, i think all women should have access to legal abortion regardless of their financial means. i know this movement to defund planned parenthood is not just an attack on the constitutional right to a safe and legal
abortion. it's an attack on the entire concept of reproductive justice, which is the idea that all women, regardless of their race or sexual orientation or economic background have the right to education about sexual health and the right to manage their reproductive health. that they have the right to delay child-bearing until they're ready to become mothers. this right to control their fertility gives them a better shot at controlling their own destinies. today's hearing, mr. chairman s an attack on the autonomy and, therefore, on the dignity of women. i, therefore, will not dignify it with any questions. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i'm grateful. we now recognize mr. radcliff for five minutes. >> thank the chair for convening this hearing, although i certainly wish it wasn't necessary and that the horrifying events that have prompted it had not occurred in our country. i'm grateful for pro-life leaders like chairman goodlatte who are spearheading this
critical investigation. i think it's worth pointing out that that's what this is, it's an investigation. and it's the beginning of an investigation, not the end of one. i didn't come here to make conclusions, unlike some of the democratic colleagues of mine who have been making conclusions from the beginning of this hearing. in fact, the ranking member's opening remarks, he stated there was no credible evidence that planned parenthood violated the law pep said that before he heard a single word of testimony here. the democrats in this room, my colleagues across the aisle, can feign outrage but this is the obligation of congress. if federal tax dollars are going to planned parenthood, we have an obligation, duly elected representatives of the people to determine whether or not they're using those federal tax dollars to violate the law. so, my colleagues can -- across the aisle can be upset, but congress is doing exactly what it should do here today. the gentleman before me just
commented on the fact that congress has returned after a month of recess. i can tell you what the 700,000 people in east texas that i'm privileged to represent wanted to talk about. they wanted to talk about what they saw on these planned parenthood videos. now, again, my colleagues across the aisle can say the videos aren't real. but they're very real to the 700,000 texans that i represent. and i came here today to ask some questions about that. and i think that the texans i represent and americans generally have been sickened by what they've seen on those videos. professor smith, earlier today you referred to planned parenthood as a beloved institution. i don't know planned parenthood. all i know is what i've seen on the videos and what their representatives have said. in examining that footage, i don't see a beloved institution. i see an organization that seems to appear to have a blatant disregard for human life. at least what appears on the video.
i know you talked about how those videos are not reliable, but that's not the same thing as saying they're not true. you're not here today under oath to say that none of those statements made by planned parenthood employees were not true, are you? >> certainly some of the words they uttered and statements thy they made, absolutely. but i think the videos were edited to make it seem they said things they didn't say. >> again, i'm not asking to you say they're true. what i'm saying is, would you at least agree with me that if the words, as you heard them on the video are true, that there were some outrageous statements made? >> well, we've had to talk about which statements, i think. >> well, let's talk about some of those statements. ms. o'donnell said, and i'll quote it exactly. this is the most gestated fetus. the nodes were still firing. i don't know if that means it's
tech alley dead or alive. had it had a face. it wasn't completely torn up. it had a nose. eyelids. since the fetus was so intact she said, okay, well, this is a really good fetus and it looks like he can que procure a lot from it. we're going to procure a brain. i'm not asking if that statement is true. i'm saying, if it is true, would you agree with me that's outrageous and raises questions about the legality of actions being taken at planned parenthood? >> i don't think it raises questions about the legality of the actions. i think what she's talking about is an abortion of the a previable fetus in ways that are distasteful to many of us. and and i think the language is, perhaps, not -- is not sensitive to people and how they want to think about a fetus. >> we often equate fetus with baby. in fact, members of this committee have done so repeatedly today. that makes us think about full-term gestated babies.
so, when you -- when you juxtapose those images in your mind, it becomes very distasteful. but when you're talking about a very early, undeveloped -- >> well, i -- let me reclaim my time here. i understand we're going to -- we're going to disagree about -- use the term fetus, i use the term baby. but that statement as i read doesn't give you reason to think that congress should investigate whether or not that statement, if true, perhaps violated the partial birth ban or -- >> no, because there's -- >> -- or the born alive law? >> there's nothing in that statement. let me talk briefly -- >> let me move on. you told me you disagree with me. we'll have to agree to disagree. but something you said earlier is that you'd be okay with defunding -- congress defunding planned parenthood if it made those same federal tax dollars available to other providers that were qualified to give
health care to women in this country. >> if there was an institution that provided as high quality care as planned parenthood does on a consistent basis -- >> that's not what you said earlier. >> let me correct the record and be more clear about it. yes, that's what i'm talking about. so did you know there are 20 federally funded comprehensive care clinics for every one planned parenthood in this country? >> there are many community health centers. >> are you aware there are actually 13,000 federally qualified health care centers for women in this country? >> yes. many of them provide much lower health care quality than planned parenthood does. there was an investigation really on an article -- i think it was in salon.com about the difference between community health centers and planned parenthood clinics and compares -- >> with all due respect, professor smith. you keep saying -- >> there's a reason to go to planned parenthood, which is that the care is very good, very compassionate and -- >> as compassionate as what we saw in those videos? >> -- people trust them. >> we'll have to agree to
disagree on that. i want to reserve some of my time to -- >> unfortunately, the gentleman's time is expired. >> then i will yield back. >> and the chair thanks the gentleman. recognizes the gentle lady from washington. >> thank you. i'm surprised the first order of business after this august break is to launch yet another attack on women's health, but i'm not. already this year the house has voted to restrict health care in private insurance to enact a sweeping 20-week abortion ban and to allow employers to discriminate against their workers for using birth control. now we're conducting a so-called investigation that's rooted in extreme anti-choice ideology rather than evidence and facts. it's shameful this committee is ledge mattedizing -- and to shutter planned parenthood clinics in communities across the country. in my state of washington we're
already seeing the consequences of these irresponsible, baseless attacks. last friday one of our planned parenthood clinics was the victim of of arson, a senseless act of violence. it's past time for congress to stop focusing on ideology and start focusing on the facts. the fact is defunding planned parenthood would have a devastating impact on women's access to care. that care includes well women visits, cancer screenings, i'mizations, birth control. in fact, more than 90% of the services provided by planned parenthood are preventive. we cannot allow the reckless actions of a few extremists to jeopardize the critical safety net provided by planned parenthood. and with that, mr. chair, i would like to submit a letter from 92 organizations including the national women's law center, spra expressing their support for planned parenthood. >> without objection it will be made part of the record. >> thank you. professor smith, we were just
talking about comments some of my colleagues have made that community health centers would be able to fill the void if planned parenthood was defunded. i'd love to get your opinion on that. is it your understanding some americans would be left without preventive health care services if they were defunded and if those service were no longer available? >> raert. i don't know all the details. i haven't studied all the areas without community health centers, but i know there are many places that simply don't have access to them. i also question the level of services that are provided in some of those centers as well. and planned parenthood remains the only option for many people to obtain these services. that's definitely true. can i correct the record with one point also while -- >> certainly. >> something mr. labrador said that people like ms. smith encourage people to have abortions. i just want to correct the record and say, i've neveren
couraged someone to have an abortion. i've talked to some women who have been considering abortion, and they've discussed their options with me. but i would never encourage someone or push anyone to have an abortion. i wanted to just make that clear in the record. >> understand. i want to highlight in my state of washington, planned parenthood has almost 120 -- this is actually 2013 numbers. almost 120,000 patients, over 17,000 folks who have gone in for a pap test, 17,000 who have gone in for breast exams so we're talking about preventive services that are critical. >> a huge number of them, yes. >> in your opinion are there particular groups that would be impacted more significantly if planned parenthood preventive service were no longer available? >> absolutely. women who don't have insurance, low income women, women of color in communities which don't have access to high quality services and insurance despite the
affordable care act and all the gains we have made there. >> and, you know, as we talk about some of the attacks that we have seen against planned parenthood, you talked about this in your testimony, there's a history of this. can you elaborate a little more on that? >> yes. there's -- there have been nine different similar kinds of smear campaigns just since 2000 using these kinds of videos, accusing planned parenthood of everything from hiding statutory rape to -- i forget a number of them. and that certainly has gone on every time there's been a full investigation, there's a huge cry about it. it gets in the press. everyone goes crazy. congressional hearings are held, things are investigated and the claims are debunked. it's happened again and again and again. and i predict -- i will predict that that will happen again this time.
>> thank you. it's unfortunate it is happening right now. thank you. and i yield back the remainder of my time, mr. chair. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. bishop, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you to those who have shown up to testify today. thank you for the fact you've had to sit through this long bit of questioning. it's very important to all of us. i take except with the last exchange that i heard. words like -- terms like smear tactics or smear campaign, attack on women's health. what would you have us do? i don't understand. all of us had to witness what we saw in these videos. planned parenthood is funded by the united states government, by taxpayers. it is our responsibility as members, republicans and democrats to address issues like this in this foremate.
i think it would be easy to walk away from this and pretend it didn't happen, put our head in the sand. seems like congress does that a lot. but in this case, the videos were so abhorrent and so unconscionable that as our responsibility to step up and have these hearings to get to the bottom of it before we go forward with the same old same old of funding, and funding for the sake of having done it before. this is our responsibility. and i just to want make that point clear. that i'm not here on any witch hunt. i'm a newer member. i have not been a part of anything that's happened in the past. i'm not here as republican or democrat. i'm here because i'm an american citizen. and i'm also a taxpayer. and i believe it's our responsibility to marshal our resources and do it in a way that's consistent with our fiduciary duty. that said, when i see this video i'm outraged. as a citizen, i want to be here and talk to all of you.
and i want to get back to -- i'm sorry about the diatribe but i think it's important. you see the emotion in all of us. i want to get back to a question we began with. that's the discussion we had about viable consideration and whether or not any of this testimony, everything we've heard, the videos is, in fact, illegal. what is valuable consideration? i offer that as a question to my legal counsel here, both of you. mr. bopp, you suggested there's a gaping hole. it's for reasonable payments for reimbursable costs, whatever that might mean. i want to read you a portion of this transcript, if i might. and this is between one of the folks that set up the undercover video and two individuals in planned parenthood. the actor that was there for the undercover video said, and we
agree that $100 would keep you happy, correct? lauren fellser replies -- also the the senior director of planned parenthood, i think so. dr. getter, also there m.d. with planned parenthood said, let me find out what other affiliates in california are getting and if they're getting substantially more then we can discuss it then. the actor says, yes. dr. getter says, i mean, the money is not the important thing, but it has to be big enough that it's worthwhile. the undercover person says, no, no, but it's something to talk about. i mean, it was one of the first things you brought up, right? dr. getter, hmm. the undercover person says, now here's another thought if we could talk about a specimen, per specimen per case or per procured tissue sample. dr. getter, hmmm.
buyer, so if we're able to get a liver thimus pair, maybe that's $75 per specimen. so that's a liver -- pair and that's $150. dr. getter, hmm. maybe it's uh-huh. i can't tell by this transcript. a brain hemisphere and all of that, and dr. getter says, okay. buyer, so that protects us so we're not paying for stuff we can't use. and i think it also maybe illustrates things. dr. getter, it's been years since i talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are g getting. if this is in the ballpark, that's fine. if it's still too low, bump it up. i i want a lamborghini. the undercover person says, what did you say? dr. getter says i want a lamborghini. now, i just read a portion of
th that. is that not valuable consideration you're talking about and have we had any discussion about reasonable payment for reimbursable costs? >> that is why your last point is noteworthy. because paying anything is a valuable consideration. and the exception, which they are trying to exploit, is for reasonable reimbursement of costs. reasonable payments for various costs associated with the procurement of the tissue. well, the costs don't vary based upon how many specimens you get out of a particular fetus. what varies is how much money you're going to get out of it. and what is noteworthy about that exchange is where was the discussion or reference to, well, what does it cost us?
when they're talking about how much. what she was interested in is what is the market price. in other words, what is everybody else gelting for this. not because of our costs but because of what they're getting. that discussion is 100% about maximizing the amount of money that is obtained based on market considerations and based on per specimen. costs are not going to change by how many specimens you get. and not on based on any idea of what are the costs related to the procurement. >> thank you. i know that my time is expired, mr. chair. but if i might, the video to which i just referred to and what this committee has repeatedly referred to throughout this hearing is a material part of this discussion. and at this time i would ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record the entire
transcripts, all the transcripts from these abhorrent tapes that we have been discussing today. >> without objection. >> point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman? >> sorry. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. >> sure. >> are those transcripts complete and full and unedited? do they contain all of the statements, maybe? because i think a review is done that demonstrated the transcripts were inaccurate and i think it's important if the committee's going to admit them and rely on them that we should have some affidavit ensuring that they are in fact complete, fair and accurate recordings of what was actually said in the complete unedited recordings. >> mr. chair, if i might respond. >> we're just going to compound injury upon injury if we're going to admit to this committee a set of transcripts that are inaccurate, that distort exactly what happened. we have a responsibility -- >> there's a gentleman requesting that the transcript of the public video be made a
part of the record. >> yes. these are the public videos that appear -- >> reserving the right -- >> look like a transcript of any other program that is made available through a news organization or anything else. that's what the gentleman is -- >> reserving the right to object. you're putting in transcript of the public. >> i would like to comment. it has been the policy of the committee to object to putting anything in the record of whatever evidentiary value. so i do understand that tradition. and it is not my intention in the end to object. but i would like to note that if we're going to agree with this, we must also include the forensic report by the fusion group that analyzed the video showing that it has no evidentiary value. >> if the gentleman wishes to
offer that, i would be happy to put that in the record if there's no objection to that as well. >> that would be my request, mr. chairman. >> all right. without objection both of those documents be made part of the record. and chair thanks the gentleman. and now recognize the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for being here today and for offering your differing viewpoints on this very difficult issue. and i know the passion that accompanies both sides as well as passion for my colleagues. i'm still struggling with what exactly this hearing is about. issues have been raised with respect to the fetal tissue research. it's clear that there are established scientific protocols that were followed. there's a correspondence in the record from august 27th that confirms that. there's a lot of discussion about late-term abortion which is of course prohibited under federal law and a lot of discussion about this central question over whether women have constitutional right to make decisions regarding their own reproductive health care.
that's also a question. you said in your written testimony reviewed these and reveal many legal issues with planned parenthood's procedures and practices regarding fetal tissue procurement. and you based it on your view of these video recordings. and then you were asked about a series of allegations that laws may have been broken in the generation of these videos, federal tax laws, criminal laws in california that prohibit fraud and forgery, making false charitable solicitations and the like. and the lawyer recently advised federal court that he intends to invoke his fifth amendment right against self-in crimination in response to a lawsuit alleging he violated federal and state laws. you said further that you were advised by this committee not to discuss the circumstances that occurred in the production and editing and alteration and securing of these videos, is that correct? >> as you're aware the purpose of this hearing --
>> that's not my question. were you advised by the committee counsel not to discuss the allegations of criminal behavior in the generation of these videos? >> no. >> yes or no? >> i'm not answering yes or no to that question. >> were you advised? you said -- >> you misstated what i said i was advised about. so how can i say yes or no? >> were you advised not to discuss how these videos were produced? whether it was done in violation of law. >> i was advised that that's not the purpose of the hearing and i shouldn't comment. >> okay. what this really is, mr. chairman, members of the committee, is creating an opportunity to defund planned parenthood and to make it more difficult for women to have full access to reproductive health care. we know planned parenthood each year provides essential care to 2.7 million patients, men and women, that one in five women in the united states has visited planned parenthood once in her lifetime, that a million and a half young people and adults participate in educational programs on reproductive health,
that 6 million visits a month to the planned parenthood website where health care is -- information is ready available in english and spanish, 700 clinics throughout the country that provide 900,000 cancer screenings to have women detect cervical and breast cancer. 500,000 breast exams and 80,000 of those cancer screenings detected early so that hundreds of thousands of children, siblings and parents are still able to be with their loved ones because planned parenthood saved their lives. i want to associate myself with the remarks of congressman deutsche and congressman gutierrez. i think as you said rk miss smith, is the cruel irony to prohibit planned parenthood already prohibited from using funds to provide abortion services means the other 97% of their services that i just outlined would be compromised. and in fact the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and
abortions would increase. so defunding planned parenthood is very likely to cause exactly the thing that the opponents of planned parenthood claim they don't want, and that's more abortion. would you speak more about that? >> yes, i think that's right. and i think one of the things that this makes clear is that the campaign against abortion goes beyond abortion. it's also a campaign against contraceptives. we've seen that campaign heat up recently. and there's a number of -- i just wrote a paper about this not to promote my own research, but called contraceptive come stock ri which is about the recent campaign which is revive some of the tactics of anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive advocates in the late 1800s and into the 1950s. so that continues today. >> yeah. it's very disappointing since many of us had hope that had this issue has been settled, that women have the right to full reproductive health care, that they have a right to make
decisions about their own bodies in consultation with their own physicians and their own conscience. and to have our first hearing in the committee to make it more difficult for women in america to access high quality health care is incredibly disappointing. i thank you for your testimony. yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i actually enter into the record opening statement. >> without objection it will be made part of the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i have said many times as being a member last time on this last congress and now this congress i'm sort of down here toward the end. and after hearing everything, there are many times you come to points of really wondering, you know, the points of why we're here. and i'm able to talk about a lot of different things. ms. smith, i'm not even sure, and i may get to you on questions, but what i've heard a lot today from you is context. i'm not sure how any of these
you could ever put into proper context. i don't care how many ways you want to spin it. what was on those videos and what was said even in there's no way you put some of these in context that they're not abhorrent to anyone who would watch those videos. but i think there's a bigger issue here that really for me carries out something. you made a statement in your opening statement about you talk about and i've heard this and i have counselled many who have either had abortions or was thinking about abortions in my life and what i've done as a chaplain, as a pastor, but also as an attorney. and you made a statement, because i've heard this before, if a baby is disabled, we need to terminate the pregnancy. if -- as if someone on the outside can determine a quality of life. and that, frankly from my position, is what was mentioned by even a friend of mine, he's a friend, we disagreed greatly on
this issue, it is many times a mom and a dad who are facing a tough decision. just like we did 23 years ago when my daughter we found out she had spina bifida. my wife went back to work. skb in a time of much emotional turmoil, a colleague of hers said in very interesting ways i'm being helpful, you know, you have choices, you don't have to go through this. we were a young couple back then. she was just starting teaching and i was working. yeah, there's life choices made, ms. smith. but as you go along, as you look at this, my wife finally figured out what she was trying to tell her. she said you can go kill your child and you won't have to worry about it anymore. when my wife understood that, she said you're talking about my baby, not a fetus, a baby.
today, i think we miss this. and this is what gets lost in this debate about quality of life and other issues of when they're born and how they're not born, but the two of you have lives that are so productive. you're not a failure. you're a failure of a misguided person who would want to kill you before you can say you're killing me. but you're not a failure. cerebral palsy, i love how you said that. my blessing. i never thought to think the first steps my daughter would ever take was rolling in a wheelchair. she texted me earlier today. and she was just asking how your day was going. i said it's pretty hard day. didn't tell her what i was doing. she's at a place getting job skills and life training to be independent. and she said, well, dad,
whatever you're going through i'm praying for you. my child has a life. and there are many in the abortion industry that are willingly telling people that if you have a child that has the most debilitating condition, or even up to spina bifida or other issues, you don't have to go through this. we forget in this argument today, and i am so over context, i'm so over clinics and this is we like our clinic better than the other clinic, ms. smith, there are other clinics out there that can help women skb help in these issues. you may not like them. it's your choice. but i am so over the fact that we miss a fundamental issue here. and that's life. for me i commend the hearing. i think it is something because i just don't see a context it can actually be explained away.
and if i was you, miss smith, i'd want to as well. but at the end of the day let's stand up and ask the hard questions, and remember that life. and remember those as you said, even those who don't really have a voice, if we don't let them have a voice then they are silent. for many of us we'll never be silent because life is precious. and for me they deserve a birthday. with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. peters for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a long day for the witnesses in particular. i want to thank you all for being here and spending the time. i do observe that there's a sad and cruel irony in those who say they're against abortion trying to defund an organization that works so hard to prevent them. and one of the core missions of planned parenthood is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. and my colleagues apparently want to shut it down. we're early in the day a lot of
people said a number of things but i would emphasize a couple. we were called out as taxpayers here. and i'm a taxpayer too. and i want you to know that i appreciate what planned parenthood has done to prevent stds, to give cancer screenings to low income women and to provide contraceptive care. all those things save us money as taxpayers. and i think that should be not lost on us. people have commented that the person who made the video is not here in my experience in law that would be an important witness. but that's been covered. and i'd say too that, you know, i acknowledge and i agree that the discussion of these issues on these videos was somewhat disturbing, at least insensitive. the issue for us though in the judiciary committee is to look at what's legal. and just on that point i don't think anything today has shown
that there's been something illegal here. if you wanted to test that, you could ask the opponents if they would agree that there was a schedule of the amounts they would agree reimbursement as opposed to profit. they would never agree that 30 dollars or 50 dollars is the right number. that's not what is at issue here. the legality isn't at issue. this is an issue about abortion, a choice, contraception and everything but legality. i'd also observe that planned parenthood has not been accused of committing fraud, violating licensing laws, violating the medicaid statute. so there is a legal issue with respect to carving them out for medicaid. and that's been litigated in a number of states because any provider may provide this -- these kinds of care unless they're found to have violated these laws. planned parenthood hasn't been. and attempts to cut them off in tennessee, indiana, arizona, north carolina have all been
fruitless for those reasons. so i think it's illuminating in many ways to have this hearing. i think it hasn't really been about legality. it's been about a much broader issue, an issue i think we all thought would have been settled four years ago that these are decisions that are very, very difficult for families. and my colleague just shared his. gosh, what a thing to have to go through. but they are not decisions ultimately that should be made by our government. they are decisions that should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor and consultation with her family. and it's not for the judiciary committee or the united states government or any government to say how families should handle that very tough issue. so with respect to the issue of legality i hope we've run our course. we've certainly had enough time to discuss it. i don't think we found what the legality would justify any further discussion on this and hope we can move forward. and i yield back.
>> the chair recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for five minutes. >> thank you. and mr. chairman, you did not deserve to be called ignorant. i think you made a very informed decision when you called this hearing. and i appreciate you're doing so. and falling last as -- or near the end as i apparently have, get a chance to address some of the things that have been raised. first of all, my friend from new york, mr. nadler said the people who did these videos were liars because if they were otherwise these videos were legitimate they would have gone to the prosecutor to get these matters prosecuted. but i can answer that because i've advised people that came in as whistleblowers about things that this administration cared about as they do planned parenthood where they defend them at all cost, as they have even after the videos were made
public. unfortunately, if you go to a prosecutor as a whistleblower on an organization or group that this administration protects, they prosecute you. i have seen that over and over. and that's why at times i've advised people, you get a lawyer and we go a different route. but if you go to the justice department, you will find it's a department of injustice. because we've seen it over and over with this administration. and as far as cutting and being selective, they did take excerpts and put them online. but they also put the long video just so that people would not be able to come in here and honestly say what has been dishonestly said that they were only trying to show a portion.
they cut straight to what they felt was important but they put the whole thing up there. and then as far as the continued statement that the first hearing this chairman called after the august recess was to launch an attack on womens health. i see this as a hearing to protect the health of females. i see this fox news show "outnumbered," that's been my life for many years now. i have a wife for 37 years thanks to her. and i have three wonderful daughters. and our first was born eight to ten weeks prematurely. she got down to three pounds before she started gaining weight again. i know what it is to hold a three-pound child in my hand. and i didn't know whether to stay with my wife and tyler to
follow the ambulance, my wife said go do anything you can for our child. i followed the ambulance. the doctor says she can't see you. her eyes aren't good enough, but she hears you, she knows your voice, you talk to her, you caress her. she grabbed the end of my finger and she held it. they said i could stay for two hours at a time. after eight hours after they had noted she's pulling strength and life from you, i couldn't leave. i stayed for hour after hour. but the thought that somebody could take that little three-pound child and rip her leg off, or rip her arm off and not consider that inhumane, or the thought that if we take this little child's heart or liver or organs and use it for a productive purpose for somebody else's life, then it's okay. and what really came home was a couple of nights ago i was in
the old testament right now and was reading about a woman that came complaining to the prophet. and she was in a city that was under siege, and she complained that another woman had talked her into a deal where the first time they would boil her little baby and eat the child. and then after that they would boil the second woman's child and eat that child. well, let's face it, come on. this hearing we've heard over and over if it's to save lives it's okay. i could not believe how reprehensible that was, how immoral. and that seems to be happening. but i can tell you, i want my girls to have mammograms. and whether they have money or not, i want them to have mammograms. so doesn't it make more sense to give that money for those of us who deeply care about womens health, give it to facilities that actually do the mammograms so planned parenthood doesn't
take their cut. and when anyone says, oh, but it doesn't go to fund abortions, listen, i've been a judge, i've been a prosecutor, i've been a chief justice. and if somebody says, well, look, we paid all the rent and all the utilities for this facility knowing that a crime was being committed in there, you have aided and abetted. and you are as guilty as the principle for what happens in that facility. and i see my time's up. and i thank, mr. chairman, for your indulgence. >> chair thanks the gentleman. >> i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter from the california primary care association indicating they do not have the capacity to pick up the planned parenthood case work. >> without objection be made part of the record. this concludes today's first hearing as part of this investigation. i want to thank all of our distinguished witnesses for attending. we will soon announce the date
>> you can watch the hearing in full on c-span.org at any time. house republican leaders held a closed door meeting today. and the hill reports that planned parenthood funding will be at the top of the agenda. the hill writes, the number of house conservatives threatening a government shutdown over planned parenthood funding grew to 28 on tuesday. rank and file members have laid out several competing bills that are to defund planned parenthood, the most popular option which comes from republican diane black, would freeze all federal funding. the mandatory and discretionary, for one year until the group is investigated. a senate bill from republican senator joni ernst goes further by permanently eliminating all funding for the group though it's already failed in the chamber. more at thehill.com.
several groups opposing the iran nuclear agreement including the tea party are holding a rally at the u.s. capitol today. republican senator and presidential candidate ted cruz and gop presidential hopeful donald trump spoke a short time ago, as did "duck dynasty" patriarch phil robertson. at the microphone right now sarah palin, we join the live event in progress here on c-span3. >> you don't lift sanctions. you crack down on their assets. you cut off their oil and drill, baby, drill for our own. [ cheers and applause ] we don't retreat. we reload against any foe daring to test us. and that is what iran just did. so, congress, you got to kill the deal. the president is playing you, congress, again. he so disrespects you, congress,
and our constitution, that he won't even bring you the treaty holy. you can't this time congress got to pass it to see what's in it. not this time. the president doesn't trust you. and he doesn't trust us. he doesn't trust americans to even change our own lightbulb of our own choosing. and yet he'll trust a death cult boasting of its pals, russia's, increased dominance of the world's uranium supply that's needed for the nukes. and that has been made worse thanks to us gifting our uranium production capability. and that is a mistake, thanks a lot hillary clinton, it's a mistake so enormous on such a grand crony capitalism scale that i can only compare its enormity to alaska's mt. mckinley. it's that size. so up there in alaska across the
way, russia, you know, there's a name for this taking advantage of america, there's a russian name for that. and it's called [ speaking in a foreign language ] and that means obama's window of opportunity. so as obama leads from behind the skirt of his right hand man valerie jarrett, then it's up to congress to close that window. he may propose, you dispose, congress. you got to be in it to win it because we want peace with unapologetic mighty red, white and blue, we'll have peace. because war is hell, yet as in all other things this administration loves conflict so much that they'll take pressure off the bad guys that reward bad behavior. yeah, that's an obama world with
borders wide open, irs harassing, servers awiping, where his bad actors are rewarded, while a christian clerk goes to jail. so the call to action, friends, is take action. do not play small. it does us no good to play small. that's not why you were created. and we have not enough time to play small. you be empowered. and render a bias lap dog media powerless. hey, media, they're onto ya! your role is played out and you're rielegated to the ash hep of history. look around, friends, you're not alone. there are more of us than there are of them. take action! and don't let your praying knees get lazy! god bless you. god bless israel. god bless the united states of
america. >> thank you governor pal inn. next is a congressman from north carolina who has proven he has a backbone, is willing to stand up to leadership time after time after time. so join me in welcoming congressman mark meadows. >> thank you so much. thank you for being out here in the heat for probably the most important vote that congress will ever take in this generation. the most important. now, it boils down to just two things, attitude and ability. and when you look at it, we can't change their attitudqzt7÷
but i need to share with you e attitude of the iranian regime within the last 12 hours. within the last 12 hours this came out from the supreme ruler. said the iranian nation did expel the great satan. we barred their direct access. and now we must not allow their indirect access. shame on us if we allow that to happen. but even more troubling than that, within the last 12 hours the supreme ruler has said that you will not see in the next 25 years god willing that there will be anything of a zionist regime, meaning that he plans over the next 25 years to eradicate not only israel but jews everywhere. we cannot stand by and allow
that kind of attitude to continue. but i also want to go even further because it's not just about the attitude, it's about the ability. and congress has something to say about the ability. we're going to take a vote in just a few hours from now, perhaps just a few days where we're going to allow this regime to have intercontinental ballistic missiles. so today they can't strike here, but with our vote if we approve this in just a few short years they will be able to place a missile right where we stand. we can't have that and must say no to that particular thing. we also need to make sure that we make no mistake when everyone hollers for peace, when they're demanding peace and yet what we're seeing here is that this
very deal will allow more money to go to hezbollah and hamas and take lives of citizens across the world, not just in israel but here on our soil as well, there can be no peace with that. but lastly i would ask you this, we have a nation that is still reigned by our god, our god still reigns over the affairs of nations. we must not forget that. we will continue to stand up. we will continue to say no. i ask you when we can't change their attitude, let's change their ability and say no to this deal. god bless you. thank you for coming out. thank you for fighting the good fight. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you, congressman mark meadows. next is the president of human rights voices and the director of the torro institute of human rights and the holocaust. please join me in welcoming anne
baefs baefski. >> i'll get right to the point. we came to register our disapproval of the iran deal here at the home of the american government while our president looked first and foremost for approval from the united nations. we believe the national security interests of the united states should be decided by the democratically elected representatives of the united states, not by anti-democrats like russia and china at the security council. apparently we need to remind this president and his two secretaries of state and some members of congress why americans know better what liberty means and what freedom demands then the united nations. so here's a quick recap of what's going on at the u.n. while americans want to get in the way of the leading state sponsor of terrorism, at the united nations they cannot even
define terrorism. at the u.n., iran and every islamic u.n. member claimed killing israelis and americans who get in the way of their idea of liberation is not terrorism. americans believe stopping a country that is openly dedicated to a second holocaust and that denies the first one ever happened is a goal worth fighti fighting -- fighting for. at the united nations demonizing and delegitimizing the jewish state is a goal they're fighting for. the only country that the u.n.'s top human rights body annually condemns for violating human rights is israel. while iran is a member of the body and sudan is vice chair. so we are here to ask how dare our president put us second to this united nations? how dare he believe congress is an afterthought? how dare he think u.n. approval and congressional disapproval is
good enough? furthermore, not only did our president give the united nations the first word, his deal gives the international atomic energy agency the last word. to our president it doesn't matter what congress does. after all he promised to veto from day one to our president and his deal. what matters is the nuclear agency closing the door on iran's, and i'm quoting it, iran's past and present race for nuclear weapons come december. which the agency will do after letting iran inspect itself and answering questions in writing. in accordance with a deal that congress isn't allowed to see with a report that congress won't be able to verify. outsourcing america's national security to the united nations and the iaea is not right. it's not safe. it's not american. and our president thinks americans views on the deal don't matter and that congress
is irrelevant. prove him wrong. the world's leading state sponsor in terrorism seeks the world's most dangerous weapon. get it right. so i ask you, who should be deciding what we need to protect america, the united nations? the iaea? or the people of the united states of america? [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you. >> thank you, anne. next we have the brightbart editor at large joe apolack.
>> happy jewish new year to the tea party. five years ago i stood here with you as we protested against obamacare, but this is amazing. as a jewish american i want to thank each and every one of you for standing up for america and for standing up for israel. and now by the power vested in me as bright bart editor at large, i name you all honorary jews. [ cheers and applause ] congratulations. you now control the world. but seriously, we are here not just to stop the iran deal but to bear witness that no matter what the vote tomorrow or in the days after we the people say no.
we as a nation should not make life or death decisions on the basis of one fraction of one party's vote. there are democrats on the right side of this deal. my own congressman i learned on the way here, ted lew is voting against this deal. air force vet ted lew, democrat of california. in my old home state of illinois congressman dan lapinski is voting no on the iran deal because he's doing the right thing. and joe manchin and bob schumer, we need them to tell their colleagues that if this is a good deal, submit it as a treaty. there have been 13 treaties passed under president barack obama, two submitted this year.
it is not impossible, senator. it is not impossible, secretary of state john kerry. and hillary clinton, you know, she said this morning that she would go to war to prevent iran from going nuclear. well, we remember what she did or did not do in benghazi. and president barack obama, you said that we -- those of us here are making common cause with the iranian regime that we are making common cause with people who shout, death to america. we have not forgotten that you sat in jeremiah wright's church for 20 years and he had a lot to say about america. now, i want to leave you on a positive note because the jewish new year's a happy time. the positive note is this, the states can resist the iran deal.
call your governors. call your state representatives, state senators and tell them to keep the sanctions in place, to pass constitutional amendments in your states to prevent your tax dollars from going to the iranian regime. i want to close by blowing the ram's horn one more time. the call of the sho far reminds us as we hear it to return to our values. we should remind this congress to return to the oath they took to the constitution. happy new year. god bless you. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you, joel. all right. thank you to brightbart.com who has helped us put this event
together to conservative review, to citizens united and to for america. and thank you also to all of the supporters and donors and local coordinators of tea party patriots. you made this possible. thank you. take out your cell phone. if you have not done this already, and to the number 38470. again, 38470, text, all one word, endtheirandeal. so text that right now. it helps us so we know how many people were here today. and next our next speaker is a friend of the movement, a friend of the tea party movement, a friend of the 912 movement, has been named one of "time"'s most influential people in the world and has the network, the blaze, please join me in welcoming our
friend glenn beck. ♪ [ cheers and applause ] >> hello, america. i've solved the issue of global warming. it's not our suvs. it's that big flaming thing in the sky. i come to you today with a different message. i've stood here and i've listened, but there's a different message that i wish to deliver to you today. we live in confusing times. we live in a world that is suffering under the delusion of peace and prosperity. we are being told that the world is safer. we're being told that the world economy is stable. and that islamic killers are men
of peace. the confusion comes from the abandonment of truth, a truth that has been chased out of our public squares, out of our public buildings, out of the media, our university and quite frankly many of our churches as well. but god's timing is divine. if we fail to restore truth, god will do it for us. so today let's speak truth. god's truth. to the powers of the earth. i don't believe in coincidence. i told you when benjamin netanyahu came to congress and spoke over a year ago, nobody really heard and saw the timing of his speech. when he spoke last year, the tora portion that was studied that week in synagogues all over
the world was the story of esther. it was god's message to esther. it was benjamin netanyahu's message to america. america has a special role just like the role of esther. and we can recognize it and save lives, or we can deny it and lose our role and lose our lives. but once again, god's timing is perfect. in this week's tora portion, we are told of the story of the early israeisraelites where mos stood on the edge of the promise land and commanded god's people, choose, life or death, light or darkness, or they would be swept from their promised land. today we are faced with the
exact same choice. choose life and light or darkness and death. but i have a renewed hope because something is happening in america. something is happening all around the world. i believe we are no longer fooled by those who have made good evil and evil good. with planned parenthood and the slaughter of our police officers in the streets while we get into bed with bad guys and run guns in benghazi to people who now rape children and sell them into slavery. we realize now that we have been silent for far too long. we have been dull ed into a senseless slumber. but there are millions of people that are waking right now all around the world. they're shaking themselves.
they're shaking their families awake. they are turning back to eternal principles because there is a hunger for truth, unvarnished truth, authentic truth, eternal truth. we even have come now thank god to a point where we will accept that we may not like the truth. and we know that it will not make us comfortable. but we can deny it no longer. today, we return to eternal principles to stand with god and his chosen people. and make no mistake that is exactly what this treaty is really all about. [ cheers and applause ] this time darkness and evil comes differently. this time evil has started to quench its thirst for blood with the extermination of the
christians. just a few years ago in syria there were over 2 million christians in syria. there are now only 400,000 left. a genocide is already under way. but make no mistakes, it will kill the muslims that aren't muslim enough, the homosexual who just wants to live his life, the women and children. and evil will get around to the jew because it always does. after world war ii, the world made a promise. after we saw the slaughter of innocence in world war ii, we said never again. i testify to you today that never again is now!
[ cheers and applause ] two weeks ago 30,000 people came to the streets that gaift birth to a movement that ended segregation. many of you were there. we marched on the same streets that martin luther king marched, the city of birmingham said it was the largest civil rights march in birmingham since 1963. it was a unity march. it was people that had different backgrounds and different religions all coming together to take a stand, to stand for the victims that were being slaughtered by terrorists that are supported by iran, to rescue those christians who had been marked with the mark of the nazarene for death. our statue of liberty cries out to those people, the tired, the poor, the huddled masses
yearning to be free, the tempist tossed, but our government will not take them. we will transplant entire somali muslim communities to minneapolis, but we have closed our door and our hearts and stand silently by for the christians who are crucified, or even worse, we empower or fund iran's goal of vaporizing israel. in time, in mere minutes iran will be able to accomplish more than hitler did in over a decade. meanwhile, our own government, our representatives are giving us a false choice, a choice of treaty or war. this, make no mistake, was exactly what was said before
world war ii. the sane, the rational, were so desperate to avoid war that they sent the prime minister of england, neville chamberlain to meet with adolf hitler. and evil played the game and spoke the soothing words evil always speaks when people are eager for peace. this is the original letter that neville chamberlain brought home. this is the letter signed by neville chamberlain that he wrote to the hitler youth where he explained to the hitler youth that he had just met with their leader, and their leader wanted as much peace as neville chamberlain and the west did. upon his return the masses cheered as chamberlain stepped from his plane and announced peace in our day. but just as it was then it is
now, a lie. there cannot be peace with anyone who chants for death of the jew. there can be no peace with people who chant for death of anyone. chamberlain's accord only gave evil more time uncontested to build the nazi war machine and genocide machine. peace in our day was the lie that hitler gave to the west. and it is the lie of the ayatollahs today. and today our acceptance of this lie is made out of ignorance, out of wishful thinking, out of desperation, out of party politics, or at worst collusion. frankly, it does not matter which it is. what matters is today the world
must hear someone say this is a false premise and this is a lie. [ cheers and applause ] there is only one that can choose war. there are those who wish to cover the world with their corrupted ideology that allah is our god and allah demands death of all who will not submit, the god of abraham, isaac and jacob is a god of spirit over flesh. he is a god of love and life. he is a god of hatred of love and life over hatred and death. and today we must choose the god of life over the false god of death. we must not caught cower and we
must not compromise. it is beyond unreasonable not to take seriously the threat of death by another. when someone says they will wipe the jew off the face of the earth, you must take them seriously. they mean it. [ cheers and applause ] i've been asked to speak so you can either let me speak or we can turn the music off or i'll call it a day, which do you prefer? to all those who make good evil and evil good, to all those who excuse or worse partner with this evil, know now you will be remembered as the neville chamberlains of this day, or worse the musolinis, you will not be remembered well. those who choose to stand against this tide of insanity,
will be remembered as righteous people of children of courage. today, i want the almighty god, the god of abraham, isaac and jacob to know that i stand with his law, not those that are passed in the corrupt chambers behind me but those that come from above! [ cheers and applause ] what is more, i will no longer fight against something. let us begin here and now to fight for something. fight for life. fight for decency. fight for the women who are devalued, the homosexuals who just want to live, fight for the children that are crucified and raped up to ten times a day. fight for life. fight for light because light will conquer the darkness.
[ cheers and applause ] no matter where evil lurks, evil must be put on notice today that the mighty arm of god is rising up. and evil will be defeated. it should enjoy this season of chaos but know that it is short lived. for we know how the story ends. god does not pick sides, but he demands that we pick sides. rest assured evil's days are numbered as are those days of those who rule with fear and terror and death, back room deals and corruption, you are all put on notice today. you can play your games. you can count those votes. to those who say they will drive the jew into the sea, they may think they have won. but they should understand they
have not seen america, the real america, in over 70 years. and they have poked this bear one too many times. [ cheers and applause ] america may be delayed, but the rest of the world should know god will not be delayed. make no mistake, treaty or none, the nation of israel will stand. no jew in europe would have thought in 1944 that god would use that unending night to hold true to his promise and restore the nation of israel, but he did. and i testify to you he will do the same again today in his time and in his way. this era of confusion and error, these days of darkness will end
because our god is a god of covenance. we as his people must understand he will keep all of his promises. he has told us that he will bless those who bless israel. he will curse those, who curse israel. i make through promise and warning today, those words will be fulfilled. our action as a nation and as individuals today, the reason why i am here, is because i want to be seen by the al mighty god because our fate is being sealed. let this be the day that we all declare, we shall serve no other king but god. [ cheering and applause ]
he is a mighty and a just god and a god of miracles and i beg all with eyes to see and all with ears to hear, i beg this is our last call to return to our roots and to choose life. the hour is later than we think and the morning will come. and i warn those who wish to stand on the sidelines to claim ignorance or helplessness, not to stand, is to stand, not to speak is to speak. there will be no spectators in this struggle and god will not hold you blameless. we are told -- we are told by those in power that we must give in or the world will abandon us. first of all, i believe that is a lie. but if it were true, good. so be it. we are supposed to be the
shining city on the hill. that is who we are. that is our purpose. we have to be the light in a world of darkness. we are the ones who are supposed to stand for morality, fight for those who can't protect themselves. let the world abandon us, if that is who they are, we'll be better off alone. [ cheering and applause ] during the dark times in the civil war, it is reported that abraham lincoln overheard someone remark, i just hope the lord is on the union site. lincoln responded with a sharp rebuke. he said, i'm not at all concerned about that. for i know the lord is always on the right side, it is any constant anxiety and my con strant prayer that i and this nation should be on the lord's
side. this is the joint we have to make today, to be on the lord's side. declare now that no matter what a few in our government might decide, we, the people, do indeed stand with israel and we shall shoes principles over parties, love over hate, light over darkness, life over death. we choose these things now and we know our lives will forever be changed. and we know that the road less traveled is often fraught with difficulties, but we choose it today with confidence because the outcome has already been decided. for our god is just. our god is a god of mercy. our god is a god of power and strength. our god is a god that speaks the truth and our god is a god that
keeps and fulfills every promise. [ cheering and applause ] ♪ >> well i'm glad you all can keep that energy up. speeches like that certainly help. so among the voices that are no longer in washington, d.c. on a daily basis, but are sorely missed, is our next speaker. she is unafraid to speak truth to power, she was always unafraid to speak her mind, would you all put your hands together and join me in welcoming congressman michelle bachman. ♪ >> good afternoon. i'm so proud of you all for being here in this 93-degree heat. isn't it a blessing to be able
to stand here today and speak for literally thousands of people back home. that is what your presence does. you are sending a message across the world that you are going to stand for sanity and not instanity. it is very clear, it is painly obvious and it is simple what the legislative solution in the short-term needs to be. it is accept the victory that has already been given. you see, the federal law states that if barack obama failed to give every part of the iranian agreement to this congress, and the language actually says including side deals, if he failed to do that by july 19th, well then the sanctions stand. case closed. we won. what we need are republican leaders who will not be complicit with a lawless
president and we need them to go to the microphone today and tell the american people that president barack obama failed to deliver in the legislative short-term and therefore the sanctions stand, end of story. let's move on to the next event. okay. that is short-term. the reason why we are all here today is because of the long-term and the present reality. when you have the leading terrorist of the world stating today that within 25 years the jewish state will no longer exist, as i've said before, when a mad man speaks, you listen. four years ago i ran for president of the united states. and i will tell you this, one thing a president needs to do is to understand who you negotiate with and who you don't. after decade, after decade, ever decade of broken promise, you reach for the jar of victory.
here is victory. history has already told us what the solution is. very successfully, when a rogue nation has tried a nuclear program, it was eliminated, in iraq, in syria. when we eliminated -- when the program was eliminated by israel and iraq, within several days moammar gadhafi head of libya called our white house and said, hey, i don't want that to happen to me. come over and get my nuclear program, i surrender. that is what bad guys do. and so as president of the united states, we're i there or any sane person be president of the united states, this is not tough at all. what you do today, you go in and you take out your kinetic military means the nuclear hardware that exists in iran today. you take it out. that does not -- that does not
bring about world war iii as we've seen in the past. that ensured peace on into the future. by barack obama giving a trillion dollars over ten years to the world's leading terrorist, what he is doing is fulfilling the aims and goals of that terrorist whether the president realizes it or not, he is fulfilling islamic jihad. we will not allow that to happen. and i urge you to tell your congress, your president and your friends to ensure peace today, you start that process of bombing and taking out of the nuclear hardware. we're not going to bomb shopping centers or innocent people. we're going to take out of the death and destruction as we should have done in world war ii. take out the death camps, take out the death camps today and be done with it. that is what a president does. god bless you all.
god bless america. >> thank you, michelle. next we're joined by a congressman who is the only jewish republican member of the house. please welcome congressman lees eldon. >> love of country brought you all here today. that and being ticked off that the free world just got steam rolled. this iran nuclear agreement is american exceptionalism on an apology tour. we got played. just think of everything that wasn't even part of the agreement. iran overthrowing foreign governments, financing terror. unjustly imprisoning u.s. citizens like a marine, pastor and porter. pledging to wipe israel off the map and blowing up mock u.s. war ships and chanting death to america to name a few.
iran gets tens of billions of dollars with no strings attached, money used for financing terror, to destabilizing the middle east. this is a treaty that triggered a nuclear arms race in the region and paves the path for a nuclear arsenal for iran. we don't oppose this deal to create war. we oppose this deal to prevent it. this is a fatally flawed treaty. americans aren't even allowed to be part of the inspection teams. the verification agreement still hasn't been presented to congress. not even secretary kerry has read it and he was the lead negotiator. at least with obama care, nancy pelosi told us once we pass it we could read it. here we don't even get to read it over wards. president said that this deal is not built on trust. it is built on verification.