tv Hearing on Fetal Tissue Donation CSPAN April 24, 2016 11:40am-2:32pm EDT
we need to build up a sanctioning state in libya which is anything but easy. that is why we are working so hard and trying to cooperate internationally in order to bring about this goal. so basically, let's look ahead at what we want to achieve. let's try and stabilize this country. it is not easy, not at all, because they have a tribal structure in libya. they have a very -- a history very much their own. they have never had a national army, never had a functioning state. so all of these things coming -- come into the equation we have to think about when we are trying to stabilize the country and money try to strengthen the
population. and when we try to strengthen the population. respect tobama: with libya, i want to be very clear, i continue to believe that it was the right thing to do for us to intervene as part of a u.n. mandated international coalition to prevent some of the behaviorly murderous that gadhafi was talking about. that it was important for us to properly plan, prepare, and resource what came next. was possible for us to do that effectively, i think that we didn't do it as effectively as we should have. negate theot importance of us all now investing in making sure that there is a functioning libyan government. the fact that we now have a court,ent and national
fragile as it is, requires us to do everything we can to encourage it. and this is a conversation i have had throughout my meetings during this trip, whether in london or now here. the partnership negotiations, what you are saying is differences continually narrowing, and i think it is up to the try to findto compromises and solutions on all of these issues. settlementf dispute is something that has gained a lot of attention and attraction among those who generally oppose trade agreements. keep in mind that the vast majority of trade agreements already contain such dispute resolution mechanisms. the terrible scenarios that
are painted in which from the cooperations are going around are going around suin. none of these things have happened with the many trade agreements that currently exist. and that germany and the united states, and the eu, and others are already a part of. i think it is important for us a look at the facts and not bunch of hypothetical pronouncements. and the fact is, that for example in the transpacific partnership that we've negotiated, you have countries that right now have very few labor rights, but now are
required to have labor rights and by the way can be enforced by workers the same way that corporations that. you have environmental provisions that now are fully enforceable and that raise standards in countries that may not have even had up until this point any serious environmental laws in place. so if you look point by point at t, the issue is not whether another we trade, the issue is under what terms. i believe that countries like the united states, like germany that already have high standards, that already make sure that how businesses operate are not completely based on profit but are also based on the common good, that that improves rather than detracts from the that of progressive goals
brought me into office in the first place. otherwise i would not support these laws. with respect to your last question, i do not envy on the angela merkel for not having terminus. i have said this before. i love this job. it is an extraordinary privilege. i wake up every day knowing that what i do matters and that i can help somebody somewhere, both inside the united states and around the world. make the world a little safer, a little prosperous, help sometime get an education, held some anease get cured, it is extra ordinary privilege, but i have come to appreciate at least in the united states the wisdom of our founders. a bigk it is healthy for
diverse country like ours to have some turnover. to use a phrase from basketball, some fresh like to come in -- fresh legs to come in. phrase,e another sports i run my leg of the race and i passed the baton to the other person. will will be sure that when i leave my office the desk will be clean and it will be better off in the way i found it. now having said that, i'm glad angela is still sticking around because i think the world benefits from her steady presence. admired for her remarkable endurance.
and as a private citizen, i will andinue to admire her appreciate the work that she is doing. by the way, what is happening with respect to her position on refugees here, in europe, she is on the right side of history on this. and for her to take on some very in order tocs just a humanitarian concern but also practical concern, that in this globalized world it is very difficult for us to safely build walls. she is giving voice to the kinds of principles that bring people together, rather than divide them. i'm very proud of her for that. and i'm proud of the german people for that.
thank you very much. >> coming up at 6 p.m. eastern withspan, newsmakers veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald. he talks about efforts to reduce wait times at va hospital's, private medical care for veterans, and issues at va hospital. q&a, historian talks about the hit broadway musical hamilton that is based on his biography of alexander hamilton and the confronting work you did on the musical. i was reading your book on vacation in mexico and as i was reading it, hip-hop song started rising up the page, and i said really? >> and then we started talking
and he was saying that hamilton's life is a hip-hop narrative then i started thinking what is the skype talking about -- what is this guy talking about. my first question to him, was ken hip hop be the vehicle for telling this kind of very large and complex story? going to educate you about hip-hop. he did it on the spot. he started pointing out that hip-hop you can pack more information in the the lyrics in any other form because it is very dense. and he started talking about the fact that hip-hop not only has rhyme endings, it has internal rhymes, so he started educating me on all these different devices that are very very important to the success of the show. ontonight at eight eastern c-span's q&a. on wednesday, the house
investigative panel on the issue of fetal tissue research. whetherl determine abortion clinics are illegally making profits from fetal tissue and organs. the panel will investigate policies regarding fetal tissue, its cost, and how it is obtained. this is just under three hours. >> the select investigative panel will come to order and before we begin i would like to take a moment to adjust to guess who are in our audience today.
all, we thank each of you for taking the time to come. we think it engages citizens are able welcome and valuable part of the political process. i only wish every hearing through the amount of interest that this hearing has drawn. for the purpose of this hearing, we are going to be examining the pricing of fetal tissue. it is an opportunity to -- for the select investigative panel to ask questions and have a thoughtful discussion. the number of people in the audience this morning demonstrates the strong interest in the topic and we welcome you. i do want to remind our guests in the audience that this chair is obligated under the rules of the house and the rules of the committee to maintain order and preserve the corpsman the committee room. i know that we can all have deep feelings on the issue, but we appreciate the audience's cooperation in maintaining order as we have a full discussion
that we would like to have this morning on this important issue. i also want to welcome each of our witnesses who are here today. and at this time, i'm going to yield 10 minutes for an opening statement. regretfully i, need to bring up an issue packet ofto the materials, the so-called exhibits that was provided to your staff yesterday. before the opening statements and their reason is because we have just received your opening statement which was released to i just thought for the first time, and in your opening statement you make extensive reference to this package of so-called exhibits. make yourore you opening statements, maybe we can resolve the issues otherwise we are going to have to even object
to the documents referenced in your opening statement, and if i may matter chair, i will go over what our issues were -- are with those so-called exhibits. that you andld us other republican members intended to use the materials to question witnesses today and it is my understanding that these documents have been given to the witnesses. in fact, several of the witnesses mentioned the documents in their written statement. i reviewed the documents yesterday, some of them were created wholesale by republican staff, there was no explanation of the underlying factual foundation for this material, the methodology that was used in forng up with these charts some of the graph that we had. and frankly, i believe them to be misleading. and moreover, the conclusion
that are drawn and frankly stated as fact and the staff created and an dated -- annotated index is false. whichare other documents also have nothing to do with the topic of this hearing, although they were presented as if they did. they don't distinguish between the various services of the varietywhich provide a of different specimens including adult blood and bone marrow were used in biomedical research. just to add to this, madam chair, yesterday the company who we believe these so-called exhibits came from sent a letter to you and a copy to us about problemsus, serious with the so-called exhibits. i would ask you madam to put that into the record, but i
guess my point is, i'm concerned ,ecause the so-called exhibits i don't think they are really designed to find the facts about fetal tissue research, if they were we would've caused some expressing her he would have taken that position, and i don't believe that they are to remain as required by rule 16, class seven of the house, because they don't reflect creditability, credibility, but instead they cast this honor on the house. but you know in addition, if i may, because we discussed these exhibits yesterday and we got the letter, it also raises troubling questions about where this material came from. if you look at the letter, and i hope you read them an chair, believesays is they that the panel may have received
material directly from mr. david delight and that have not been authenticated and that were obtained unlawfully. this is part of the whole issue of the investigation in texas and some of these may have been created by him himself. ,nd what the company did was they asked that we withdraw these documents until the general counsel of the house of representatives has an opportunity to review them and approve them. so madam chair, given the concerns about the factual foundation of these exhibits and also given the further concerns about how they were created, what they're saying, i would just ask if we can withdraw these exhibits until these things are figured out. i think the gentlelady for inquiry.
in receipt of the letter, i don't know anything about the attorney or how truthful their letter is. we do intend and well except your request. and we will you see that letter into the record. and for the hearing today. the document me speak to that for a moment. the documents have all been obtained through our regular investigatory work. we have had things that had come subpoenas, from former employees, citizens, that have filed request. searcho an internet archive search engine. that is the way these documents have come to us. arehe documents that we going to use for the hearing are the documents that we intend to use for the hearing, we will
accept and you see the letter into the record. chair, this is a parliamentary and creep. you have just stated that all of the data forms the basis of these exhibits was received from a variety of sources by the committee including whistleblowers, have all of those documents been provided to the minority staff of this committee? >> we have provided documents to the minority staff. >> have you provided all of the documents madam chair? >> i think all of those documents have been provided to you. >> madam chair, i would ask a further parliamentary inquiry continue, might i be asked to inquire the
appropriate staff member of the foundational basis for these exhibits? particularly exhibit b-1, b-2, there is a chart exhibit b for which you intend to use. 6.ere is an exhibit b- i would like to be able to ask the staff how these documents were created and what -- >> what do you mean by foundational basis? >> for example madam chair if you take a look at exhibit b-1, exhibit b-1 appears to be a chart and it has three boxes, abortion clinic, put germany, business researcher, and between
the three boxes there are dollar signs and arrows going back and forth, there are questions and so on. i don't know what information this is based on, i don't know i would like to know how this was created. or if you look at exhibit b to for example, exhibit b to in some document, it doesn't say where it is from, it appears to have been taken from some website, but this is one of the documents that some express is saying that they think might have been taken not from their company, but from someplace else and not talking about fetal tissue. but i don't know where that comes from. the exhibit has not identified where comes from. but i suspect that they witnesses today and that the majority attending somehow try to use this to talk about the so-called sale of fetal tissue. is just again something taken off of a
website, we don't know the source of that. exhibit four appears to be a bar graph, and what it says is procurement business, number of partnerships with abortion clinics than it has a bar graph, then exhibit five, procurement business revenue growth, that it has another bargraph, but we and wenow who made those don't know where the information came from. so if you are the witnesses are relying on this, this is being presented as if it is a fact, but in fact it is not. and then b-6, this is one that particularly disturbs me, it says excerpt of a draft contract between the pb and the abortion clinic. >> as the b-1 graph that you are referencing was created by staff for discussion purposes it was created by material that but has
been submitted to us, to the committee. to so the document be thatit is something again was something submitted to us. and before was something created by staff. now does the gentlelady have a motion? yes just to finish my statement madam secretary. i would like to be able to question the staff member who created all of these documents. >> if you would like to include in your questioning and your time -- > >> madam chair i think that if youxhibits were -- won't let me find out what the basis of these are then i will object. >> i would make a point of order
that these materials are against the rule 16 cost seven of the house and i would ask for their inclusion -- exclusion. has gentlelady's motion been made. and the motion is table. d. >> that was the motion are dismayed madam. >> you made the motion to exclude. uled, and iu r moved to appeal. >> we will rule on the motion to table first. and the motion is tabled. i appealed the ruling of the chair. and the appeal is denied.
?> madam chair, may i du >> i want to ask at this point that your words be taken down regarding the assertion that staff quote leak documents to the entity. these documents had already been given to witnesses, and then reposted to your website. so i think your words need to be taken down. accusing our staff of making that is not true and that is what should be taken down. -- those words should be taken down. the soft had asked -- the staff had asked for the documents be shared before they went to the website and then they were released to the entity
and then in order to take the comments down, the comments have to be personal in nature. so with that, let's begin with our opening statement. and then we will receive our first panel of witnesses. earlier, iginning want to welcome all of our witnesses you are here today. i'm going to introduce each of as we move forward with our testimony on the pricing of fetal tissue. as part of my opening state ment, i will present a narrative about the exhibit that today's hearing will discuss. i have said many times my hope is that those parties can work together on some things and today's subject matter should be an opportunity to do so for a couple of reasons. first, at our initial hearing on bioethics and fetal tissue, all witnesses from both sides agreed that no one should profit from the sale of baby body parts.
nobody. second, the democrats overwhelmingly supported a prohibition on profiting from fetal tissue cells during the 1993 passage of the national institute of health revitalization act. passescongressman legislation out of the energy and commerce committee and amended theessman nih bill on the floor to make clear that profiting from the sale of baby body parts was a crime. these
>> i ask my colleagues on the in theide to join discussion about a statute that your side pass. toant to call your attention five posters that will provisionally call the discussion. the first chart presents three entities involved in the business of selling the body parts. that chart depicts just the
middlemen, they procurement business, pays the abortion clinic for fetal tissue. he second chart is a websites bring grabbed from the procurement business of how to buy baby parts online. and the a new website baby body parts for care of business has been spun off to a new entity. that chart shows the drop-down box for every part imaginable. hands.iver, then you click on the next box and you click the gestation. than you click and you proceed to checkout you select your format shipping. the third chart shows the daily task affirmed by the procurement business employee inside the abortion clinic. once the order is communicated, the procurement staff starts to work. getting consent, procuring tishri, and sending to the customer.
colleagues have voiced concerns over privacy throughout the investigation. amongd hope that a man -- them, they will join us in condemning obvious violations. bych was signed into law president clinton on august 21 of 1996. the fourth chart summarizes actual payments from the procurement business to the abortion clinic and from the customer to the procurement business. these are just samples for our discussion today. they do not present the entire financial picture and if it's chart shows who bears the responsibility for the reasonable costs involved in the procurement and sale. want to walk the witnesses through the business. many want to focus on every detail, but it is also important to understand the big picture of what the procurement business is trying to do,
especially in light of the waxman prohibitions against profiting from the sale of baby parts. please turn to the be exhibits beginning with the two. the procurement company brochure that is handed out on national conferences for managers areic tender. notice it says financially profitable, fiscally rewards, benefits your planning. look at exhibit b three which is a websites bring grabbed of the procurement business. once again, financially profitable while also providing a financial benefit to your own clinic. evidently the procurement business is not familiar with the waxman prohibition. a look athe page and exhibits before and b five. the perfect camera business started in 2010 with three but clinics. it had nearly a hundred and three more years. further, they were negotiating a
contract to have over 250 clinics by this year. but the pro marketing negotiations with the national abortion trade organization fell apart just about the time the videos came out last year. now you do not have to be a lawyer to see what is going on here. you put up a website that offers the part imaginable and why on earth would anybody ever need a baby. then you pick the gestation. and you checkout. to offer that service, you need abortion clinics. a lot of abortion clinics. so you grow your number of clinics and you offer the clicks money to sign up. you offer them financial benefits to join. you tell the clinic that you will do all the work that all the items on the chart will show the work flow. this is not sent to me like tissue donation for research. this sounds like someone who wants to make money. a lot of money. selling the baby body parts.
i think i witnesses for their generous time today. i welcome them and at this time i yield 10 minutes. from the outset, this investigation has not been objective or a fact-based search for the truth, but a political weapon to attack women's health care and life-saving research, and harass and intimidate those who provide the services. this was clear during our first hearing where one of the witnesses invited by the republicans drew comparisons between researchers who read use field kitchen -- fetal tissues. a comparison i provide chair blackburn and her opening statement. another republican witness testified that women who have abortions are quote morally disqualified" from choosing to donate tissue for research purposes.
hearing, republicans have again invited witnesses who believe that abortion should be illegal, that women should not be permitted or trusted to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, some continue to declare that planned parenthood is selling fetal tissue as you just heard thatrofit despite the fact three house committees, 12 states, and a texas grand jury have already cleared the organization of wrongdoing. like our public and collings and doors and rely upon the video allegations of antiabortion extremists who support their inflammatory claims. anyone who has been following the facts knows the truth. the videos are not accurate or reliable. and they do not show the unlawful sale of fetal tissue and we will argue today that the so-called exhibits do not make
that case either. a grand jury in texas already put mr. delight into the test under oath and he failed. instructed by the republican governor to investigate planned parenthood foread indicted delight in breaking the law for his efforts to attract planned parenthood. the district attorney battling the case refuse to be presented to another grand jury explaining that quote we must go where the evidence leads us". anyonen she explained, who pays attention knows anyone -- that i am pro-life. i believe abortion is wrong, but my personal belief does not relieve me of my obligation to follow the law. that standard should apply with equal force here. reason to believe that the leiden, a proven liar when it comes to planned parenthood would be any more truthful about anyone else involved in reproductive health
care or fetal tissue research. of correcting the record on the delight of videos, the chair continues to invoke them. today my republican colleagues likely will claim that it is not just videos, actually she has already claim that. they may assured that documents that this panel has received or the republicans that have created show the need for further investigation and this is also false. 16 years ago, the subcommittee on health and environment of the house commerce committee considered similar materials. 16 years ago. that hearing titled, "fetal tissue: is it being sold in violation of federal law" amounts charged for types of tissue transaction logs
with charges per tissue on particular dates and agreements between providers and procurement organizations. that hearing also featured an had worked at to tissue procurement organizations, the antiabortion group had found and released a where albertiw claimed to have witnessed stratasys born alive. doctors change in procedures for fetal tissue, exactly the type of claims made in the delight of video. his statements on their own however, he contradicted his inflammatory claims and it didn't during the 2000 hearing that his sworn statement, not the remarks on the heavily edited video made by antiabortion extremist with the truth.
the department of justice also ofestigated the allegations unlawful process hearing. the house at the heart of that hearing and included that no laws have been broken. one believes that companies should be allowed to profit by selling fetal tissue. and we firmly support their prohibition. as it does for adult organ donation, the law expressly allows reimbursement for costs. the provision we are focusing on today is modeled on the national organ trance and act similarly prohibits valuable consideration that allows reimbursement for costs associated with organ donations which can be considered. allegations regarding possible unlawful profit from adult organ in aplant would not result call to ban all our donations.
yet republican lawmakers in the house want to ban fetal tissue donation and research altogether. something that some states have already done. florida for example recently enacted a sweeping bill attacking women's health and banning the donation of fetal tissue. tragic for women and families on the golf course as summer approaches and researchers race to understand and solve the zika virus. despite chair blackburn's claim, the democrats are exaggerating it's a morton's, key studies have relied heavily on fetal tissue to increase our understanding of the zika virus. these bands have been proposed despite the fact that there still is no evidence of wrongdoing related to fetal tissue donation. instead, the documents received by the end of actually show the health care providers are losing money through programs to allow women to donate fetal tissue for research purposes. this was not what congress
intended when they voted on a bipartisan basis to allow reimbursement of costs. it is absurd that even when they are losing money, providers are still attacked those who appear to be motivated by their opposition to abortion, not the fetal facts regarding tissue donation. this panel is a perfect example. course of the investigation the chair has targeted one clinic, one tissue procurement organization all of whom were cooperating folk -- voluntarily before the chairs serve them with unilateral subpoenas. the panel has known since january the southwestern women's options does not take any money for ensuring that women who want to donate tissue to the university can do so. let me underscore that fact, no money is exchanged in connection with a woman sure it's a donate fetal tissue to researchers at the university of new mexico. already knowing this, the share
-- chairs serve subpoenas. as a result, the university and clinic have been subject to unwarranted accusations from , and and federal officials additional harassment from antiabortion extremist. is it any work wonder that universities are reluctant to hand over the names of students and doctors so that the chair can amass a dangerous database of their names. policysue procurement already offered to have its procurement director explain its product -- its structure. the chair ignore that offer an extent -- and instead called this public hearing.
on its own initiatives, some express has now submitted a letter to ensure that the panel has the information needed to bring this investigation to an end. this investigation has never been and has no promise of becoming fair or fact-based. i'mpublican colleague -- republican colleagues sustain for the fact and for women and their doctors is putting researchers, doctors, and women at risk. it is time for republican leadership to bring this end.stigation to in i ask unanimous consent to have the april 18 letter included as part of the record for this hearing. i yield the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady leads -- yields back. at this time i want to welcome our first panel. jeanne shaheen is a u.s. senator from new hampshire
peaches the only woman in u.s. history to be elected both a governor and a u.s. senator. just said the letter in the record is a different matter. that we received from yesterday. sen. shaheen: served in the u.s. senate since then 2009 and is a member of it senate committee on foreign relations and is a member of the small business and entrepreneurship committee. senator shaheen is a former small business owner and formerly served as a director of harvard university's institute of politics kennedy school governor. welcome. sasse is an u.s. senator from nebraska. years as a college president heard one of the youngest in the nation. during the first and second terms of president george w. bush, he worked in the department of justice and the department of homeland security
before becoming assistant secretary for planning and evaluating at the u.s. department of health and human services. welcome to you senator says. at this time we will begin with senator shaheen for your five-minute remark. >> thank you very much chairwoman blackburn and members of the committee. i very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning, but i do so with great concern. i know you will hear from my colleagues from the brass got and i respect his deeply held but if we want, to have a civil discussion on this issue, we should begin with the facts. already news articles today have called into question the validity of the exhibits that will be presented to the panel. this committee is very existence was founded on the basis of highly deceptive edited videos. these videos have since been
proven to be misleading and false by multiple independent investigations across the country. after thorough investigations into the videos, a texas grand jury cleared planned parenthood of any wrongdoing and indicted the individuals responsible for the creation. in fact, 12 other states have also cleared planned parenthood of any wrongdoing, and eight additional states have declined to investigate citing a lack of effort. a lack of evidence. i believe it is not time for this investigation to end. i would also like to point out that fetal tissue research has long had bipartisan support. passed thengress national institute of health revitalization act which permits fetal tissue research. that bill passed with overwhelming support. 94-4 in the senate.
in the house. i think it is important to note that that bill was passed on recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel convened under president withn which was passed studying the fetal tissue research. many people have benefited -- benefited from fetal tissue research. vaccines for polio were developed based on research on fetal tissue. and research on health issues that have so many of us. diabetes,s disease, hiv aids i disorders, and spinal cord injuries have also benefited from the 1993 law. it is the panel's desire to change the law, obviously u.s. legislators are able to do that. but i believe it would be a grave error. sadly is my belief of this panel motivation.
and said i believe that this panel serves as an opportunity once again attacked the health care providers to millions of women and families depend on. in february i join with colleagues in the chambers to house and senate leadership to disband the panel and all of the congressional investigations that would undermine women's access to health care. not only do believe that this panel has had missed the -- inappropriate and misuse of resources. but i'm also concerned that it also puts researchers, providers, and patients across the country at risk. unfortunately as a result of the political rhetoric surrounding this issue, we have seen filofax and threats against women's health providers and researchers across the country. and i'm very sad to report that this is all the same month of this panel was formed, a women's health clinic in new hampshire
was vandalized not once, but twice. so muchnd attack us damage at the clinic was forced to close for nearly six weeks and this was a real disservice to the men women in service of the clinic provides. and unfortunately new hampshire is not alone. firstthe release of their act of highly edited videos, incidents of harassment against somehow centers increased ninefold in just one month. i don't believe that today's hearing is a fact-based objective investigation. but rather, it is a taxpayer-funded political attack based on this credited evident. i hope it will finally be time to move on and madam chair if i can apologize for the need to leave early and go back to a hearing, i appreciate again the opportunity to be here. thank you. you so much.
i know that you do have to leave and get back. thank you for the courtesy of your time and for waiting for a spirit sen. sasse: recognized. e you are recognized. including me.or many of us in the senate like many view you the house and more importantly like millions of americans watch with grief of the video footage of abortion doctors and others discussing the sale of baby body parts for profit. a legislator, but more importantly as a father, i have three little kids, three precious ones, one of my little girls traveled with me from nebraska to d.c. this week and she's here with us today. more important as a father i support the investigation and your commitment to get to the bottom of what is going on here. let's be getting rested and clearly that we should not have to be here today. the 1993 nih revitalization act includes a testimony with a california democrat henry waxman said this amendment that i'm
what an active important safeguards of any sale for fetal issue for any purpose not just for the purpose of recent. any sale for any purpose. it would be important to allow for the sale of fetal tissue. words are important. the report language in the floor debate created a very clear legislative intent that no one should profit, no one from the sale of fetal tissue. in today's documents and exhibits, we see a business pressure and a website encouraging partner without -- with us and improve the profitability of your clinic. that procurement business offers to abortion clinics and offer subdue do all the work that would appear to mean that the abortion clinic has no cost and it would thus appear to be precisely about profit as their
marketing literature says. questions of profit and legality matter because we are talking about people. it matters whether or not procurement businesses of and broke the law. it matters whether in a abortion clinics are lining their pockets of children. all while receiving tax dollars. it matters because we're talking about the tiny lands of little babies that have dignity. they are broken, yet still precious children of actual mothers and fathers. as the committee's exhibit indicates what -- websites exist for a customer can listen a drop-down box of any organ for sale. then you select gestation. , then you proceed to checkout, then you decide your method of shipping. we should positively to linger here. our humidity should be with paul's. we should all be sad by this. community, women across
the country while passionate disagreements and discussions about the legality, the justice, and the implications of abortion policy. room, like athis majority of nebraskans, and i go jordan americans, i believe that every baby is precious and worthy of legal protection even early phases of development. i'm unashamedly pro-bike. that many understand disagree on abortion policy. our disagreements on abortion will sometimes be heated, but wherever possible, we should be looking for consensus. here on this basic reality, we can and should agree babies are not the sum of their body parts. babies are not want to be bought and they are not meant to be sold. that, they are babies. they're meant to be welcomed and rejoiced over. outside of our congressional responsibilities here, many of us do in fact welcome, hold, and nurture little children.
we offer hope, support, and encouragement to their parents. matt am your work can and does transcend politics. concerniate also your with children born alive inside abortion clinics and with the treatment of they received. when i think of all the survivors of abortion, and i think about your investigation into the sale of baby body parts for profit, it makes born again, born alive legislation all the more important. the born alive abortion survivors protection act has already passed the house by thertisan vote and i've had privilege of introducing the companion legislation in the senate and i invite my senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be working together to pass this bill and our chamber. would simply ensure that babies who survive abortions get a fighting chance by requiring little attention that is equivalent to what would be offered to any other premature baby born of the same stage. no life is disposable, no child deserves to have a life and in
cold and alone, struggling for breath outside the womb and an abortion clinic. fightricans frequently for the minority, we protect the powerless against the powerful, and baby girls and boys are fighting for their lives. i encourage my colleagues to fight for them and to support alive 2066 the born survivors protection act. madame chairman, we look forward to monitoring the progress of the investigation and thank you for including me in this hearing. thank you senator schatz, we appreciate your time. we are sci-fi delay and we know that you have to scoot back across to the senate for votes. thank you for your time. at this time i would like to call forward our second panel. as they move forward to be withd, i will move forward to ourcing this panel audience.
ted clayton is an attorney with robinson and clayton. practices a wide range of places involving fraud, commercial matters, contract disputes, officer and director liability, and shareholder partnership. germobert braden -- attorney general janet reno's legislative initiative and hand of the political challenges of congressional oversight of the department. .e founded the rayburn group to serve asues president. he is a graduate of the wharton school and the new york university law school.
mr. brian lyman served as a federal prosecutor in michigan and virginia for 15 years and a trial attorney for the u.s. department of justice. as a deputy chief of the criminal division for the u.s. attorney's office in the western district of michigan, he supervised the health care fraud and computer-related crimes unit among others. he also spent four and a half years as a judge advocate for the u.s. marine corps. . he in private practice, specializes in criminal defense particularly health care fraud and other white-collar and drug offenses. norton served as u.s. attorney for colored water from 1988. he was appointed by president reagan and reappointed by president george a w bush.
mr. norton has been practicing law since 1976 and is admitted to the bar is in the states of colorado and virginia as well as washington dc. catherine glen fosters an associate scholar with the institute where she offers research papers on science, research and medicine. she was formerly an attorney with alliance defending freedom and is a graduate of georgetown university law center. mr. sick i has also served as law clerk at the florida supreme court and the u.s. court of appeals and is a senior partner in one of florida's oldest and largest date wine firms he began his own firm in the forest a capital in 2008.
are aware that the selected investigative panel is holding an investigative hearing and that we will take your testimony under a. do you have any objection to testifying under its? oath? the chair then advises you that you are entitled to be advised by counsel, do you desire to be advised by counsel for today's hearing? case, will you please rise and raise your hand, and i will swear you in. do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. you are now under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in title eight teen section 1001 of the u.s. code. you will each give a five minute summary of your written
statement, ms. clayton, we'll begin the testimony with you and you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. been a corporate litigator since 1978 and i'm here today despite a family medical situation for two reasons. one is that women's reproductive health and medical research are being written by these hearings. that iond reason is haven't shocked of experience to share this panel on the topic that you are considering here. minears ago a client of and nonprofit corporation that tissue toonated medical researchers in hopes of scaring the diseases including the one senator shaheen mentioned earlier, that
nonprofit was falsely accused by an antiabortion group accused of selling fetal tissue. these baseless charges were made in a videotape sent to congress and in that video, the person making the accusations was anonymous. employee ofed, and my client had gone to work for another company in violation of the contract. they hired me to see. that man's name is dean alberti. alberti's deposition which was under oath like all of us today, but unlike what he said in the alberti admitted that he was the person in that video and he admitted that what he had said in that video was fictional. he testified that he told his life because life dynamics had paid him two and he said i needed the money.
he had repeated those falsehoods on tvs 2020. but he knew better than to liner at. when i deposed in with penalties of perjury as the chair acknowledged. there is a view her here in the call the0 every humiliation that certain members of the house committee suffered by their star witness now bertie -- dean alberti went up in flames and admitted that that much touted deal had been fabricated. establishe hearings that my client had done nothing wrong, that feels issue is not for sale at all, and that foisted aon zealots false witness on congress. what was for sale is not fetal tissue, it was a phony witness statement. if it had been bought and paid for by anti-abortion extremist. curious that this panel has not demanded sworn
testimony of the accusers. the latest batch of the antiabortion accusers as you best of us. you have not asked for that, you have not asked them to go under earth and -- under oath and that seems strange to me. this suggests to me that someone has failed to put them under oath because as we saw with the now bertie, when penalties of perjury attached, sometimes instead of fiction the actual truth comes out. the federal judge blocked release of further case because they were fraudulent. another fact we know comes from , theys angeles times showed him coaching and manipulating the testimony of
holly o'donnell's video interview by the way looks more acting than -- clay any general motion. without cross-examination under oath, we have no way of knowing what he offered her said to ms. o'donnell when his camera was not running. he wentexas, when before a grand jury convened for the express purpose of prosecuting planned parenthood, the grand jury did something very different. plannedot indict the parenthood, it indicted the leiden for false hoods. founde texas granite jury that planned parenthood has done nothing wrong. for nearly four decades, i've been representing corporations and individuals in business litigation. biggerto say there is no towel about the veracity of an accusation then when the person who is making the accusation will not stand by his or her accusation under a.
oath. the house told committee, when i was under earth i told the truth. anything i said in the video that -- when i was not under or through the different story. so i have to ask, is this panel looking for the truth or for another story? i really inquiry would start with sworn testimony. list panel's failure to allow cross-examination sends a message loud and clear that those stories would not hold up under penalty of perjury anymore is alberti square made back in the year 2000 when life's dynamic and paid for his testimony. it just makes me is
inexcusable that the panel has been using a subpoena power to demand testimony from health care providers and medical research is have far better things to do with their time like writing health care, working to cure disease. i just ask that until and unless this panel puts to leiden and o'donnell under oath and gets down and tries to get to the bottom of what they did, that proceedings be terminated and our elected officials allowed to return to doing the people's business. thank you. >> good morning share blackboard. -- chair blackburn. thank you so much for having me this morning. i'm in private practice. over the years i served as counsel to the house judiciary committee and was confirmed as assistant attorney general for the office of legislative affairs and the department of
justice. in 1999 as i was walking you -- watching you this morning that reminded that the chair of our committee henry hyde walked across the capital andestify for my nomination what a wonderful day that wasn't how much i miss him. i have taught law, practice at a deeply appreciate the law and this committee's attention to. for over 20 years my work has involved the representation of people and organizations before the congressional executive branch. testimony today as someone who's experienced both sides of advocacy and representation around it investigations of all forms. this committee has asked to opine on the questions of whether the current legislative language adequately prevent profiteering in the fan -- in the sale of fetal tissue and the parameters around what constitutes the sale of profit. capacity i was
almostupon to respond to identical concerns expressed by members of the congress regarding the alleged transfer of fetal tissue for profit. on march 9, 2000, i communicated with congress by signed letter, a willingness to investigate and learn further about incredible -- credible claims and allegations. while i don't have specific regulation -- regulation -- recollection, i know from the oflic record that in july 2000 acting candidacy's attorney jim carrey decided after a thorough review of the issues involved that there were no violations of federal statute, thereby announcing the closure of a thorough investigation into related facts. that is a matter of public record. i also recall yesterday a second investigation from the colorado u.s. attorney in fdi that was
similarly close. we are today witnessing virtually identical allegations. while i am unaware of whether or not there's ongoing inquiries, to know that 12 states have affirmed that he looked into related matters and declined to pursue any charge, an additional eight states have declined even investigate, given the importance of some people have about deferring to the state, i would like to do is read into the record this 12 states that have affirmatively said they have investigated and decided not to pursue charges around related allegations. florida, georgia, indiana, kansas, massachusetts, michigan, missouri, pennsylvania, south dakota, texas, and washington. innumerable reasons exist as to why federal enforcement has little record of indictment under the new language which may include the birth of actual
profiteering at factory deference to state law enforcement authorities, which are certainly capable of determining the same predicate. pass failed attempts to establish wrongdoing, or paramount in this area, and lack of credibility of those presenting asked to law enforcement officials. the ultimate question of what this committee is presently engaged, whether night is a statue merits either change, i believe that the statute is sound and fully addresses its intended aims. the statute considered bipartisan by congress. there is that any'm confident act of intentional misbehavior would be investigated and punished by law enforcement. both federal and state. reiki for having me. -- thank you for having me. >> mr. lennon, you are recognized for five minutes. blackburn, distinguish
rivers of this panel, thank you for the opportunity to speak you today about the pricing of fetal tissue. currently a partner at the law firm in grand rapids michigan, but before entering private practice i was assistant u.s. attorney in the west district of michigan. i do not represent any advocacy group on either side of the life versus reproductive rights debate. and i'm not here to advocate for any change in federal legislation. but as a former federal prosecutor now criminal defense counsel, i hope to provide some value to this panel to objective legal analysis of the exhibit to determine whether the abortion clinics and/or the procurement business identified in the exhibit violated the statute. of then my review exhibits, and i look at this as if an agent had showed up at my office on any working day with music limits and asked me to
examine them, based on that review, i believe an ethical federal prosecutor could establish probable cause that both the abortion clinics and the procurement businesses andated the statute, aided abetted one another in violating the statute, and likely conspired together to violate the statute. in fact, in my opinion, there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. the only element where investigation is needed, and that would include forensic accounting and analysis thereof, is whether the payments made by thatesearch institutions ultimately receive the human tissue, two of the procurement businesses were viable consideration or alternatively reasonable payments associated with specific, allowable services in the statute. with respect to the abortion , thecs, in my opinion
compensation they receive from the procurement business is indeed valuable consideration. of the identified services excluded from the definition were provided by the next. jurors clearlynd preferred the final establish elements of the offense. five of the six elements of that offense arbors clearly defined and established to the exhibits. final element, viable consideration, that element and those priests are admittedly more nuanced. the statute itself to find viable consideration by describing what it is not. it it does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human feel tissue. is hadle consideration for something other than these exhausted services, this element is also established. as for the abortion clinic, the
marketing materials that are reviewed clearly states that there is a financial profit from this partnership. several of the exhibits indicate the procurement business case for her tissue, not a reasonable payment for this services. indicate, it exhibits in my opinion, that the services provided by the procurement business through the embedded technicians and not the abortion clinics, therefore these payments appear to be valuable consideration, and do they could be prophets. procurement business, it is my opinion that a much deeper analysis of the company's in orders of necessary to establish the viable consideration elements beyond reasonable doubt. because the business is due in incur costs associated with these of the needed services, a forensic accounting would be essential to breaking down the company's financials. just looking at the growth and looking at their revenue doesn't tell you whether they are
profiting, if they are profiting in my opinion, they violated the law. some otherre are theories here, although i think the prosecutor would pursue, int may be more important looking at the potential of the procurement businesses. those are aiding and abetting and based on my limited review of the limits reviewed, and the strength of the substantive case , pursuing an abating and may be a stronger theory of probability. i believe federal prosecutors take pride in protecting the most honorable among us. the ones i probably served with the new western district of michigan did not shy away from the tough cases. and they put their personal politics aside when asked to evaluate cases for prosecution.
evidence for or the lack thereof, not politics, should the grand juryer should investigate. i thank you chairman blackburn for allowing me to testify today. and i welcome your questions. >> mr. norton, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair and ranking members and esteemed members of the committee. my name is michael j norton. i'm an attorney of her private practice in denver colorado. i've had the privilege of serving for state district of colorado first appointed by president ronald reagan and then re-appointed by first president bush. i have a written statement which i respectfully request be incorporated on record and i simply just want to summarize my remarks in the time is available. first of all, i would say to the committee that this is not about women's health, it is not about
abortion, it is whether or not there is probable cause to believe the crimes of been committed, and if so, what to do about that. to do nothing about the crimesal of the criminal is indeed flouting the criminal justice system of this nation and i think preferring there is those who are low connection of those places you are not. i suggest you at the outset about an chair members of this committee that is committee is about is highly important and very critical to the criminal and to thetem sanctity of that system in the united states of america. it is really not about the issue of abortion because potential infiteering and trafficking fetal tissue is a great concern. not only on a federal level but also many states including my own state of colorado.
which has adopted a law similar to the federal law that is being looked at by this committee today. that are many, many people are concerned that not only this federal statute, but also the state statute at issue have been violated and are being flouted by the abortion industry. revealed by one of these undercover videos that denver's planned parenthood of the rocky mountains was indeed making a profit by harvesting and trafficking the hearts, the brains, the lungs, the eyes, the livers, and other body parts of babies whose lives planned parenthood had ended by abortion i. thesevolutions -- revelations came from a series of videos. it was clear from the videos that planned parenthood had been actively engaged in harvesting and trafficking for-profit body parts of babies.
those videos have not created a general queasiness about surgery blood, no matter how one stands on the issue of abortion, no one who has used these videos can come away thinking that planned harvesting and selling of these body parts is consistent with our values or consistent with the law. if wrongdoing has occurred, and i concur with the assessment mr. lennon has made of the facts and circumstances as to the commission of crimes in this case, and i would add that it appears to be quite frankly, that criminal violations of the health insurance act have also been committed by the embedding of the procurement business technician in the abortion , and the review by criminal records of what body sold had wanted to be
also been committed. there are some fact that need to be determined in a competent criminal investigation could determine his facts. but to do nothing is simply wrong madam chair and members of this committee. i think the committee for its moving into this area, investigating this area, i urge you to complete its investigation and to me for this matter to the u.s. department of justice for appropriate action. thank you out of chair. >> thank you mr. norton. ms. foster you are to foster: i am privileged resent this testimony concerning the pricing of human fetal tissue. with theare consistent -- which is dedicated to advancing science, medicine and research in the service of human life and to promoting a culture and follow -- and quality of life.
as an attorney, i have dedicated my career to the right of every human being to be protected. i am troubled by those in the abortion and fetal tissue industry. learned aboutc these back alley transactions last year, when undercover surfaced the brokers online, indeed, the trade in field body parts is a business. -- they are by the getting away with charging far more than the allowed cost for harvesting, trans wording and warehousing body arts as they customers. they have violated the intent and letter of section 289 g 2,
which bars, among other things, the transfer of human fetal tissue for valuable consideration. statute definition is straightforward. payment is not reasonable or associated with the transplantation, implantation, obsessing, preservation, quality control or storage of human fetal tissue, it is not omitted. we can all agree on the statute supporthas bipartisan and was signed into law by president denton. the panel's revealed that abortion clinics are being promised a profit and are paid, even when they have no apparent reimbursed. tissue procurement companies are likewise paid exorbitantly by their customers.
demonstrates a flagrant and repeated disregard to the rule of law. it was no surprise when america's biggest abortion --iness, facing prosecutor facing prosecution relented. and yet, in my years of work in this field and in the 23 years that section 289 g 2 has been law, i am not aware of a single entrance in that it has been enforced. human clinical sanitized link which, we become desensitized. a head is a calvarium. recognition that counts body parts is a product of conception, or poc worker.
by converting to minimize into a --converting human lives into a bulk commodity, conversation has been stifled. we're talking about real and unique canadians whose lives -- unique human beings whose lives were snufffed out. we are affording them the minimal negative that comes with not having there remains further through to be bought and sold like chattel. i know that the abortion industry and its allies are waging a campaign against any effort at transparency or accountability. it is what we can expect from a big business with an emphasis on maximizing profit, and a lot of money to lose. big abortion is fighting back with all its financial and political might, investing its political and monetary stockpiles to buy public sanction, and weighgining its tb down on scales of justice. with politicians, pr firms, and
sold out media. with these allies, until now, the abortion industry has succeeded in shutting down the voices acknowledging the public evidenceo of guilt. but no more. we the people are not afraid of confronting the truth. we encourage this panel and those in law enforcement to pursue it. common sense and common decency demand enforcement of section 289g2. mr. sukhia, your recognized for 5 minutes. >> members of this committee, i was honored to serve as the u.s. attorney for the northern district of florida. before that, was an assistant u.s. attorney for 10 years. expertise that i could lend to the committee area of determining
whether a grand jury should be impaneled. whether a case should proceed, whether investigation should be pursued. and i've heard it said today that this is a committee that has the same for the truth -- that has disdain for the truth, that this is not a fact-based inquiry. when i look at the exhibits that were submitted, but also of course when i looked at the videos that were presented, it that thereas odd would not be an aggressive and meaningful investigation into indeed,gation that, human baby parts are being sold for profit. u.s.le 2, section 3 of our
constitution requires of the executive branch that it faithfully executes the laws of the country. by not faithfully executing those laws, you are in fact taking specific affirmative action to defy what is required by the constitution. in this situation, it is beyond my assessment and belief that when you have a procurement industry that is actually the abortion clinics that they can gain more profits by this method, and when they are feeding their own employees in the clinic to do those jobs that would indeed indeed be the
services that would comprise the legitimate cost or payment for those services. then the question clearly arises, have these clinics profited from this process? it's a very simple basic issue. and so we are not saying as a prosecutor, when someone comes in the door with this evidence, oh this is absolutely positively a fact. we're saying no, this justifies a full and complete investigation. i think there seems to be a pattern when, oh, this can't possibly have any basis. let's see, 16 years ago, someone lied. so we can't take this. this is the same sort of thing that has happened before, and we should also stop the prosecution of all murders, because there
have been cases where persons have lied and people have been wrongly convicted. the whole argument is nonsense. in fact, this whole notion that oh, lets follow liver ourselves to insist -- lets fall all over ourselves to insist this is another -- this is nothing but an effort to attack the reproductive rights of our citizens. when effect is an effort to enforce the law of our constitution. thank you. >> at this time we will begin questioning. >> madam chair. >> yes, the gentleman is recognized. state your inquiry. >> madam chair, the witnesses appeared to have her life heavily -- have to relied heavily that clinics incur no cost due to fetal tissue. that premise is captured in exhibit g, which you previously had up on the screened.could you put that up on the screen for a moment
? let's bring up exhibit g. please state the inquiry. not exhibit g. that is it. thank you. madam chair, district says that the clinic has "no cost to the payments of your profit to the clinic." this is contradicted by exhibits c6 and c19, which showed that some clinics are paying for blood and others related to fetal tissue. these are questions the government accountability recognized 16 years ago as reimbursable. madam chair, can you explain how this document, exhibit g, was created and its actual foundation, including the discrepancy between what this staff created chart says, mainly that there are no costs, and information on other documents
in a packet, exhibit c6 and c19, which detail such costs. >> i thank the gentleman for the inquiry. we discussed this previously before you arrived. today comedocuments from the investigative work that took place by submissions, whistleblower information. the charts for discussion, of which g is one, were compiled from that work from our staff/ at this time, we begin our questioning. thank you for the inquiry. >> i don't believe this was discussed when i was on the judiciary committee. how can you this plane the discrepancy -- you explain the discrepancy between exhibit g and the information on these other exhibits, which lists some of those costs? that didn't happen. >> there is no discover and see.
-- no discrepancy. i thank the gentleman. >> of course there is a discrepancy. >> do you have a motion? >> i have a further inquiry, which is being sidestepped and not answered. this exhibit g says abortion clinics have no cost for the prince -- for the payments for pure profit. all caps are borne by the customer. ys, an exhibit of clinic procedures and policy -- it says "you must inform the assistant manager when you have completed your work. this one short that they do not continue to draw unnecessary blood samples." >> if the gentleman will yield,
you are citing a procurement business procedure. one is the clinic, one is the procurement business. >> the procurement business has to tell the clinic staff, and that takes time, and there is a direct cost. they have to tell the abortion clinic that they are done, that the abortion clinic does not continue to take more samples, etc. which is a direct cost to the clinic, not procurement business. that is a direct contradiction. >> the document are separate. it is not a direct contradiction. the documents are separate. one relates to abortion. >> this is not a direct connection, why is the methodology to determine there are no costs for the abortion g,nic as asserted in exhibit which apparently has no basis? >> it's all based on the investigatory work. i thank you for the
parliamentary inquiry. at this time we are going to-- >> further and final parliamentary inquiry. can you explain how using a chart that draws conclusions with no objective basis in fact other than your statement that summary of estimated, does not violate house rules that's not reflect creditably or may discredit the house in this panel? is that staffng people derived this information somehow, we are not told how. >> this is not a parliamentary inquiry, basically you are trying to debate the documents. we need to move on with their questions. pitts.ning to mr. mr. pitts: thank you madam chair for calling this issue.
this is caused me considerable concern. one of the underpinnings and safeguards of the statute that allowed for the donation of fetal tissue for transplantation and research was that this tissue would not be sold. the author of the statute, river senator waxman, stated in 1993 "it would be abhorrent to allow for the sale of fetal tissue in a market to be created for that sale." and yet this is what is happening, as one of the witnesses said, in the back alleys today. as seen on exhibit b2 and b3, the procurement business markets itself on its pressure as a way for clinics to make additional income by allowing the
procurement business, procurement technicians to take fetal tissues and organs from aborted babies immediately after the abortion was completed, financiallyords " profitable", financial rewards on its brochure. the select panel investigation reveals that every conceivable harvesting test is performed by the technician employed bride the predicament business. -- by the procurement businesses. they are essentially the middlemen, paying fees to abortion clinics, but the abortion clinics are incurring no cost. exhibit d shows payment from the procurement business to abortion clicks for aborted babies and baby blood. exhibit d1, the abortion clinic charged the middlemen with a in august 20105
for baby parts and blood that the middleman's technicians harvested. another invoice in january 2011 charged $9,006 for harvested baby parts and blood. the middleman even makes it easy for the researcher to purchase baby body parts. exhibit c3, the procurement business order form, or the drop-down menu for baby organs shows just how easy this is. side it asks "what type of tissue would you like to order?" respond toyou could this, i would like to order brains. and then it says, number of
specimens. well, 6 let's say baby brains. 1618 weeks. left have another question. add another tissue type? you can say yes, another tissue type listed, female reproductive system and ovaries. you could say i will take 5 of those at 15 weeks. tongues. add, 5 baby shipping or options. you could respond yes i wanted rush ordered. for crying out loud, this is the amazon.com foof baby body parts. there is a market for baby body parts and you get what you pay for. this is absolutely repulsive. we must not forget it as was
justified here. each one of these little baby brains or tongues represents a baby. how can anyone defend this practice? all this shows that in both intent and practice, these organizations were making money well above the actual cost. 3,ing back to exhibit b2 and b the company brochure and website show intent. my question for the former whatcutors for doj, communications or information would you seek to learn whether the intent of procurement business and the abortion clinic was to profit from selling baby auto-parts? -- baby body parts? >> well, some of that evidence
in this record. again heard everyone quickly rushing to insist that these videotapes are just deceptively prepared. in other words, do what we are extremely deft at doing in this industry, which is deflecting. everyone else is at fault, let's shift focus so everyone is focused on these videos and what in the video.id those videos were posted, all of them. there are some things that, when people say them on tape, it doesn't matter what what they didn't say or said elsewhere. if someone is saying, that would be good, and we are talking
about profiting, and they are talking about that, that is corroborative evidence. it corroborates the evidence, as you are identifying, which is very strong evidence when someone is actually marketing for it. i also want to know what communications occurred between those people. we would seek those items as well, and of course the accounting records. thank you. yield back.i rep. czajkowski: the majority has refused to bring in the one-party that could actually answer these questions. say, as lawyers, the fact that you keep referring back to these completely
discredited, by can3 congressional panels -- by 3 congressional panels, by 12 states that looked into this, by a grand jury. you talk about the center for and yet one ofs, them were actually indicted as a consequence. that is a common, it is not a question, it is a fact that that has been looked into. askother thing, i want to ms. clayton a question. but i also want to go back to a letter. documents presented by stem express that would clearly discredit the exhibits mentioned. as far as d2, the majority's use
of this brochure is leading -- is misleading at best. it was used with hospitals and clicks involved -- and clinics involved in a broad spectrum of work related to adult blood, etc.,tissue, biopsies, not fetal tissue donation. expressb3, the stem website screenshot makes absolutely no reference to fetal tissue. in fact, it pertains to the overwhelming majority of stem express' work with adult blood and tissue that has nothing to do with fetal tissue, which accounted for less than 1% of the company's revenue in 2014 before losses. they have repeatedly offered to come in and provide exact the specific information that is raised in these exhibits, and that has been turned down. i think it is shameful for an
investigation that seeks to get supposedly to the truth. i want ask ms. clayton a question. i think that this parallel is worth examining. because the facts are the same. discredited video which led to an investigation that found no guilt. i want to skip part of this. there were accusations made against your client that impacted him. the client that was found to have done nothing wrong. i wonder how it affected his business repetition, his own safety, and that of his family. >> yes congressman. by company was threatened terrorists on the anti-choice side, including the army of god, the group that shot dr. tiller, the time he was shot before his
murder. army of god is one of the most anti-choice outrageous violent groups around. my client received threats about. as soon as the outrageously fallacious videotapes were sent to congress and got circulated, when they were on 2020. everybody believed they were true, it must be true, we saw it on a videotape. not under of, i would comment that anyone that wants to look at a defense of any of this, get mr. delight in under a. sees what happens when the penalty of perjury is attached. in my the position, he suddenly started telling the truth. when he said was everything else was a lie. meanwhile, these threats endangered the life and safety of people at clinics all over the world, as in colorado. murdered threer people because he thought it was true about these tapes. even though 12 states, the texas grand jury, have found that is
completely fallacious. letter sentovided a by an antiabortion group to your client's wife. in that letter, the group referenced baby parts and warned her that it was "watching you and her husband" and that "this is only the beginning." i take unanimous consent to enter this march 9, 2000 letter. i believe there is a connection between the murders at the clinic in colorado springs following these deceptive videos, where the murderer said arts.ore baby body " the repeat of that language and false accusations, and the collection of names, a database
of names of people involved in research and in clinics is dangerous. it is dangerous. we should not be doing that in the united states of america. i yield back. >> i yield to ms. black for 5 minutes. >> thank you madam chair. g, on to focus on exhibit who bears the responsibility for the tissue procurement chart. as a nurse i am well aware of how important it is to follow procedures, especially performing the duties when caring for a patient that has trusted you. in's walk through the day the life of a procurement tech. if you will please turn to exhibit c for the question. thathibit c4, you'll see an tech gets an e-mail from
partsuncertain baby body and knows what she needs to harvest for that day. i want to reckon -- to reference the bottom line. she will need a brain, 16-18 weeks, and complete, but can be in pieces. sure she has a very specific tissue that she is looking for. if we can turn to exhibit c9. then she informs the abortion clinic staff of what she will be procuring on that day. we actually see on the first line where she communicates with the assistant manager, upon arrival, informed the staff clearly of what you are procuring for the day. c5.s follow on with exhibit the procurement tech then reviews the medical files, which
is another subject of whether this is a have a violation, to learn patient names and gestation times of the baby. she records this in a gestation tracking log, essentially matching the patient with her needs. not the patient's needs, her been givenat she's for the day. next, to procurement tech approaches the patient waiting for the abortion. many times, this is a young woman who is afraid, not always certain about what she is doing. and needs advice and counseling. but that's not we see ehr getting. this tech doesn't have much time and much master orders with patient at the right gestation time. she asks for the patient by name. she consents with them to
donate, by saying that her baby tissue is about curing potential diseases such as diabetes, and parkinson's, and heart disease. i want to also referenced the second paragraph here, where she actually says that the law in california requires that the besue from the child incinerated. she could offer to his mother to actually bury this baby. put that is left out. she is given decisions that are very difficult. either you are going to incinerate this baby, for your going to give it up for research. i think you should certainly be counseling and giving all options to the some woman who is in a very difficult situation. c12 andrn to exhibit c13. after the abortion, the procurement tech collects the tissues and printers the parts
needed. she carries all of her supplies with her. has a very detailed instruction about what she is putting these body parts into. this is not coming from the abortion clinic, this is coming, the procurement agency she is working for. the tissue tek then arranges for the delivery. clear on thedex, first exhibit about who is paying for the delivery. she willthe test tubes put the specimen in. let's go back to exhibit g. blank where the expenses are for the abortion
clinic. as i walked you through her day, there's nothing to indicate that the abortion clinic has incurred any expenses. me ask ask you -- let you mr. lennon, how does this comprehensiveness inform your thinking about whether the abortion clinic is profiting from the sale of baby body parts ? >> thank you. i did consider that in my analysis. earlier inn raised the parliamentary representative from new york was that maybe there was a conversation. in this case, there was a conversation. that the payment should be for that conversation in the processing. that is the only thing i see where the abortion clinic would have any cost incurred. not a per tissue payment.
that informs me we're talking about the sale of a part and not some reasonable cost. are also involved in processing because the patient is there. the abortion itself is not the processing of the tissue, it's the creation of the tissue and destruction of a human life. there is no argument i saw from any of this that the abortion clinic had any other cost. they are getting a per tissue payment. >> as a former litigator myself, there's nothing i like better than a panel of lawyers. i have a series of questions that i would prefer a yes or no answer. if i may, first question for the
panel -- we received the packet of documents from the majority. believe i've seen you refer to it during this hearing in a binder/ have you seen these documents before today's hearing? ms. clayton, yes or no? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> thank you. offer anyu personally of these documents, ms. clayton? >> no. >>no.. >> no. >> have you spoken with anyone who authored any of the documents about the information that the documents contain? >> not to my knowledge. >> no. >> not to my knowledge. >> not to my knowledge. >> maybe. i don't know. >> who have you spoken with then? do you have names? that is from majority staff? thank you. for the documents listed in the index that accompanied the
packet, as coming from "a procurement business," have you spoken with about procurement business about the documents? is clayton? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. that is why there needs to be an investigation. >> excuse me, do you have any firsthand knowledge of how the procurement business in question created the document used in today's exhibit? >> no. >> absolutely not. >> no. >> no. >> for the documents that are listed as staff created, for example exhibits b4 and b5 did the public and staff, discussed those documents with you? -- the the republican staff discussed those documents with you? >> no. >> remind me what those are. >> charts that were staff created. >> no. >> i think we did discuss that. i think the staff member indicated-- >> did they tell you the
document that formed the foundation of those? >> no. >> thank you very much. my last question, do you have any firsthand knowledge of what documents the majority staffer light upon in these -- lied upon in these staff treated documents? >> absolutely no idea. >> yes. >> okay, and how do you know that if you didn't talk to the staff? >> the exhibits provided to me of easily support. >> take a look at exhibit-- about the, talking staff created documents like the chart. did they tell you what data they used in creating the staff created document? >> that is not what they asked. >> that is what i asked. >> no. degette: given that no witness has firsthand knowledge of how these exhibits were created or the underlying facts
captured in any of them, do you think it's appropriate for the witnesses to speculate about possible criminal misconduct based on those documents? >> i think calling it speculation is entirely accurate. it would be pure speculation. degette: you heard mr. lennon testified that not based on his experience, that he believes these documents in and of themselves not only establish probable cause, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. what is your opinion of that analysis? >> i would be a little frightened if that were the regime in which we live. rep. degette: why? >> several reasons. the context in which all of these facts come, and i don't have to come back to 200 although i think that is0, illustrative. rep. degette: if you could be brief. >> there has been a volume of inaccurate and deceptive
information from committees and the media about this issue. if i were an investigator or prosecutor, i would be extremely skeptical and would want to know more. ette: do you want to bring in people that actually created those documents and put them under of? --undergrowth? >> yes. rep. degette: if people are selling fetal tissue in violation of the law, we need to get to the bottom of it. but we can't just have some witchhunt based on things taken off of screenshots and documents created by staff. i will tell you, even though 12 states, including my home state of colorado, by attorney general, who is a republican, who investigated these claims mr. norton was talking about against planned parenthood and found no cost of action to investigate. even though 12 states have investigated and found there was nothing, if you want to send it
to the department of justice for investigation, i will guarantee you they won't make a little charts with their staff. they will get to the bottom of it with original documents. i suggest that is what you should do if you think there is a committal violation. i yield back. >> dr. buschon, you are recognized. >> attorney general kaufman has not investigated the allegations of recommended planned -- of rocky mountain planned parenthood in trafficking baby parts of bodies. she has taken the position she has no authority to investigate the matter whatsoever. >> will gentlemen yield? then i guess we won't get to the truth of it. the indictment in texas was
for using a fake i.d. i can tell you have the college campus is would be indicted over that. it was stated researchers were losing money on this fetal tissue. howhey are losing money, are they losing money if there is not a financial transaction? i agree the past investigations are completely irrelevant to today's discussion. if that was the case, we would never investigate anything. the other thing, the person in colorado who tragically murdered people have very severe mental illness, and that was what was impacted. i was a doctor before i came to congress. unfortunately that didn't work out. in reference to this particular
procurement agency, mentioned multiple times by the minority, this section of the act was to reverse the ban on fetal tissue. that applies to tradition, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human tissue. i know about this because i was a doctor. it appears these are upstream activities from the abortion clinic in reference to this full-service procurement agency. assuming thats, , do you see any language in the statute that forms the basis to reimburse the abortion clinic for any cost at all? doesn'ttatute itself delineate between the two. i want to quickly respond.
my written testimony submitted makes it clear there were assumptions made, that this evidence is admissible in court, and that unethical prosecutor would have storytellers either credible insiders, or people were compelled to testify to support this. my analysis, my written testimony points out that this evidence needs to be corroborated. the clinic can show there are regional cost delineated, that would be complying with the statute. but i do not see that on any of the exhibits i was asked to review. that's the basis of my opinion. >> i would agree with that. say in our system of kernel justice, each and every individual is determined
innocent until determined guilty. that would be the case here. there are a number of unanswered issues that competent investigation should presume. for example, how much does the abortion click receive for an an abortion? was the source from that? from a patient, from medicaid or other sources? what if any of the services purported to the abortion client are unbundled? what is the actual cost of the abortion? what are the amounts above that cost, and how are they accounted for? what is happening to this profits? how the the abortion clinic notify the procurement business of the fact of abortion. it appears from the materials we provided that the procurement technician is embedded in the
abortion clinic, and is given access to covenant shall look records -- to confidential medical records for the patient shows up on scene, so that the tech can select organs the company wants at the time. >> you want to comment on something earlier. >> thank you very much. federaleral position -- provision, talking about states having looked at this. the services were provided -- weren't provided in the first place. nothing was done wrong because that wasn't even part of the equation. >> so they are different to restrict which. -- different jurisdictions. a prosecutor will not be swayed by what some states decided was or wasn't a violation of their state statutes. >> fair enough. i yield back.
speier, you are recognized for 5 minutes. >> this hearing belongs in a bad episode of "house of card.s." i'm sure frank underwood is lurking somewhere in the room. this hearing is literally based on "house of cards" and the exhibits being used as a foundation are in all likelihood the product of staff carried out by someone now under indictment in texas and whose home has been the subject of a court order search in california. is this hearing really going to proceed based on stolen and misleading documents? even frank underwood would be blushing at this point. this committee's for purpose is to hold fake trials of citizens and companies that comply with the law, but not with the political agenda of republicans who want to restrict women's health care. 12 states and 4 congressional
committees, 1 senate, 3 house, have already investigated the videos released by the so-called center for medical progress and found absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. the same cannot be said for david and his associates. this so-called committee is the very definition of a kangaroo court. a mock court that disregards the rule of law and justice to validate a predetermined conclusion. this mock court has real consequences. while arewe are focusing what gs on inside a woman's uterus, we are completely ignoring what happens to babies and children outside of them. hello stephen sling why this panel is holding this hearing whil children go hungrye and research on pediatric cancer is this really in need of more dollars. what about the health implications for our children if we stifle fetal tissue research? after all, fetal tissue research was key to the cdc's recent
confirmation of the link between zika and micro and subtly. --microcephaly. this is the first step to stop the spread of zika. considering zika suffer from brain-damaged, severe seizures, and other medical problems, why aren't we talking about protecting those infant lives? if this committee succeeds in abusing medical professionals so severely that they abandon promising research, not a single life will be saved. but many many will be lost. perhaps we should proposed a new name for this committee, to select investigative panel on stopping research and letting people die. , given thatr. raben no witnesses have firsthand knowledge of how these exhibits were created, or the underlying facts captured in any of them, do you think it's appropriate for the witnesses to speculate?
>> i take personal offense for it being said as a physician that i'm here to allow people to die. i would like his words stricken from the record. >> you are not referenced by name. you have to be referenced by name. >> if the gentlelady will yield. you would have to be referenced by name. and i appreciate the inquiry, but you would need to be referenced by name. >> i would like the record that offended by the comment. >> so noted. i
>> the madam chair referenced videos. they said 10 times planned parenthood does not profit from tissue donations. proposedht in sent a agreement with a clause to planned parenthood when he was trying to negotiate a contract. planned parenthood struck that particular clause and then he did not pursue it. impressioneputable on which to base an entire hearing? correctly have never met the gentleman you are referring to. in fact i don't know what "house
of cards" or frank are -- frank underwood is either. there is a difference between what a discredited whistleblower had to deal with, as opposed to admissions made by an agent of a potential target. those are apples and oranges. i am not saying i have seen all of the videos. i have seen excerpts. there is a huge difference between a whistleblower, who is discredited and an agent, or director, or employee of a targeted industry. those are admissions that could be admissible in court. i have not looked at all of the videos. back --entlelady yells yields back. dr. harris. dr. harris: i am not a lawyer, i am a doctor.
i have worked at johns hopkins. about, not about profits, i think the record speaks for itself. two the brochure says these are certified consents. ask a legalll question here, that approval is important in human research. if you are looking at whether somebody is out to make a profit they will cut corners and save a dollar. i went to ask about this company bio med. two letters regarding the 2012ny one from march 29, and the other one from january 2013. letters asked for a cease-and-desist for anything
being obtained under one of their approvals because of the shoddy work. apparently it is a one room, mill -- rib are iv mill. ibsubmitted things to a r they guarantee, if you have it in tuesday before noon, you will have it that week. have its more you can submit it later and have it approved the same week. it is unbelievable. k a specific legal question because if in fact the company continued to obtain approvalunder that irb , who is liable? if in fact when the fda said you cannot obtain specimens that is true. who would be responsible?
>> i don't have the foundation to answer that. to: is it a valid question ask. if the fda said you could not obtain anything until you have written -- responded in the letter came back almost a year later. if in fact the procurement company was obtaining tissue in that time, would that be a problem? title 45 of the regulations part 46 make it pretty clear you need irb approval. where and irb further downstream depended on that to be accurate -- in other words, doing research on a tissue from this company my irb assumes the previous approval is valid. -- representsest
they have the approval, if they don't, is it valid to look downstream and see whether those irb's were notified downstream? if these had been suspended? is that something we should look into. mr. norton: i think that is a valid question. as i look to the exhibits in preparation for this hearing, that was the question i had. what was the effect of and the date of and integrity of the irb approval process. 15, isderstand exhibit c a document provided to the woman whose obtaining the abortion. dr.: let me go further to a false statement. on a video, pretty clearly a doctor says, we modify the procedure to get better body part. -- parts.
clearly. you look at it, i urge anyone go look it up. the doctor says they don't want to crush the alvarion -- calvar iam. the federal regulations say you have to tell the patient if you're going to change a procedure. -- it at consent forms says specifically your abortion procedure will not change in any way. if you look at the record from last time, it says the procedure will not do changed. -- be changed. if in fact it is changed, is that a violation of the irb approved consent which is necessary for federal research. it is necessary for any research to be conducted downstream. is that a violation of that? if you in fact modify the procedure after a patient signed a consent that said procedure
will not be modified. >> yes, i think so. >> yield back. >> may i get in there to question -- >> my time is expired. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ok. mr. raven, go ahead. mr. raven: i'm going to question premise that- your this part of the video is not distorted is not accurate. every aspect of the videos that were put out in a public or heavily edited, deceptive, and distorted. independent analysis finds that. i don't think there is a sane prosecutor in the country that would feel comfortable putting those people that created the videos on the witness stand in a case because they would be impeached. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair.
this hearing and entire investigation is nothing more than an attempt to limit a woman's right to choose under the false guise of illegal tissue sales. this is not a first time we have seen this. years ago the house held a hearing on nearly identical allegations. those claims, also based on secretly rid of -- recorded videos by anti-choice extremist were found to be fabricated and patently false. much of the so-called evidence that was used back then mirrors what we're seeing today. the majorityng relied upon a whistleblower who claimed the entities were profiting from illegal tissue sales. thever, while testifying was a lower acknowledged he had fabricated his statement and lacks any knowledge of legal act -- illegal activity. the -- the department of justice still investigated dr. miles jones, the person in question, and found that after a thorough
review, no violations of federal statutes were found. the death -- justice department had uncovered information that he had violated federal laws, the statute would have permitted the department of justice to prosecute. is that correct? >> yes. >> the majority appears to be saying the term valuable consideration is not defined as a result the doj is incapable of foreseeing -- enforcing the law. in your opinion is the department of justice lacking the clarity they need to enforce the law? >> no. >> if the department had actual evidence of federal violations in those cases, the doj would enforce the law. would it not? >> i have complete confidence the men and women of the department just as no they are doing. >> is it fair to say then there is not really a problem with the
statute in the 2000 case regarding the miles jones investigation, but rather a lack of facts to support the prosecution. >> yes. do you think it is possible be lack of prosecutions that others referred to over the years under both republican and democratic administrations there is not widespread violations of the law as we have heard today? >> that is right. >> once again, this hearing is another recycled attempt to show wrongdoing when there is none, or there is no evidence. we are once again watching history repeat itself. i would like to point out after the investigation in 2000 women's health care providers were also subjected to false seven separate ,ccasions between 2000 and 2013
all based on so-called evidence by anti-choice extremist. i don't know if you have any comments you would like to make about those allegations? >> i would be glad to. the false allegations in the attempt to stare up crazy people like robert deer have been ongoing. anyone who saw mark crutcher talking at the cleveland right to life last month saw him brag about stirring up people to do his business by any means necessary. how crutcher has avoided prosecution, i don't know. i think it is because he gets others to lie for him. these other groups like army of god have been endless. they threaten the lives of everyone who uses a clinic -- the clinics by the way do not provide just abortions, they divide a host of health services. people in colorado that were murdered were not getting
abortions. it is a threat to the health and safety of the nation when people are allowed to get away with that. >> the majority seems determined to use a taxpayer-funded panel to continue pursuing the latest series of false, unsubstantiated allegations, even though they have been debunked by everyone who has looked at them, including state attorneys general as well as committees right here in congress. investigation,e and this particular investigation is not really about -- we have not had witnesses who had -- can't be to the facts. these are baseless allegations made by daniel. it is another attempt to smear women. women deserve better. >> i think the gentlelady. mr. duffy. mr. duffy: is it fair to say the whole panel today thinks we should look for the truth?
raise your hand if you disagree. we should actually enforce the law. does anyone disagree with that? great. starting off really well. i have heard conversation about how the department of justice and investigations -- just to be clear, mrs. clayton has there been an investigation? mrs. clayton: i have no idea. there a lead doj attorney who has been assigned to lead this investigation? mrs. clayton: i am a civil litigator. i have no knowledge on that. i don't think it is allowed to be shared with people like me. mr. duffy: does anyone on a panel know of a lead attorney of the department of justice leading this? >> i have not heard nothing -- i have heard nothing.
duffy: i would like the panel to refer to exhibit b 2 and b3. i believe this is a document provided by a national abortion provider. it seems to indicate there could be financial positive -- plausibility for an abortion provider if they engage with the blocked out middle person. if we look at the statute, it prohibits valuable consideration to be paid for the transfer of body parts. right? >> absolutely. mr. duffy: if somebody is getting reimbursed for a body part, it is tough to make a profit. am i missing something? >> agree. mr. duffy: if you are getting more than reimbursement, you could make a profit. is that concerning anyone?
maybe the doj and the fbi is not looking into this? mr. norton: i think that is highly concerning. that is why we are here. to encourage the panel to do that. mr. duffy: mrs. foster, i have heard my friends talking about how this is an issue of women's health care. section 289, this is a section that cap about valuable consideration for fetal body parts. is there anything in there that relates to women's health care? woman, as a as a post aborted woman, i am deeply offended that abortion clinics are committing improper acts by procurement businesses to exploit us. to potentially place us under duress and put our children on display for sale. it is the way that chicken livers are in the grocery store. it deeply offensive may.
-- offends me. testimony is it your that this document has been altered? >> i have no knowledge of any of these documents. if these documents are like the videotape i would start with the assumption they probably have been altered. i don't have any personal knowledge one way or the other. i never saw them until they were sent by e-mail yesterday. mr. duffy: you have had a chance to look at them yesterday. you are an impartial witness today who is making assertions they are probably doctored. start with theld assumption they might be because i have no knowledge of them, nor has anyone in this room given any indication of the source of the document. as far as i know they may have been invented like the videos. mr. duffy: what has been doctored in exhibit b 2.
this is the document that shows an abortion provider can have financial profitability. >> it doesn't say that at all. this obviously refers -- it is not limited. i looked at that, it is clear it is talking about adult tissue, far differently regulated. >> that is not true. it is talking about fetal tissue. it was not doctored enough. >> it has been rejected in certain ways that i cannot tell. >> right here, fetal -- >> will be gentleman yield? mr. duffy: no, i won't. it also talks about raw materials -- does anyone know what that is referring to? >> adult tissue. it applies to both. >> even if it does apply to both, it is still an offense because it does apply to fetal.
mr. duffy: if this document is being sent out during the national abortion provider conference, and they're talking about adult tissue -- is that your testimony today? that this document is referring to adult tissue? >> i have no idea. all i can tell you is it is clear from reading this document, it is not limited to fetal tissue. and sir, if i may finish answering, the results are entirely different. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> has anyone made a contribution to anyone on the panel. mrs. watson coleman, your recognized for five minutes. mrs. watson coleman: thank you very much. it is often said that congress writes their laws in the
executive -- and the executive branch enforces them. in 2000, we had very similar allegations made by video interviews the justice department was asked to investigate. generalstant attorney responded to a request to an inquiry about the potential criminal violations of the federal statute against fetal tissue sales. in that letter, the department noted that based on a preliminary review of the records it appeared the department had not received information meeting our to trigger a formal investigation that fetal tissue had been sold for a profit. i ask unanimous consent a copy be submitted. mr. raven. mr. raven, can you explain the
standards for triggering a formal investigation are within the doj and why they are necessary and have these standards been met in this instance that we are debating? mr. raven: if these standards have not been met? mrs. watson coleman: are we there now? what triggers it? raben: there is an initial investigation which can be begun .ith any credible data there is formal investigation which requires a supervisor to sign off on their use of resources. then it is up to the prosecutor to figure out if the sustainability of a conviction, are there other jurisdictions. i can refer you to the guidelines and get that to you subsequently. to answer question, it could
agency is- be the involved in the investigation. we have on the record 12 states involved in a investigation. eight states said they would not open an investigation based on their evidence. i would not be surprised if the department has looked at it and declined. as stated before, the central problem is there is so much deception around how so much of this evidence was created that i think it would give most prosecutors pause to go forward with the case. coleman: as in the deceptively edited videos and out of context, would they be enough to trigger a doj investigation? : they would be an investigator and prosecutor going with a caution. they would have to find evidence other than that source. watson: would it also
include the validity of the allegations? it would be important to at least have a conversation with individuals with actual knowledge of the facts in any documents under review. askedoday you have been by my republican colleagues to inquire about possible criminal this conduct sent to you late monday afternoon without any indication of the author, underlying source of information the document contained, and without the benefit of speaking to anyone with knowledge on that information. is this, and your opinion, affair or legitimate way to determine if there has any violation of federal law? mr. raben: no. mrs. watson: i would like to submit the doj must base investigations on real facts.
this panel has based this investigation on an indicted extremist and his discredited videos. it is certainly a time for the majority to rely on facts, not inflammatory allegations of antiabortion extremist. with that, i would like to ask mrs. clayton one question, that has to do with adult versus fetal tissue. you wanted to say something with regard to that. i want to give you that opportunity. it is clear that wherever that particular slide comes from, it refers to vote. -- both. clayton: from my experience, i know a little bit, my knowledge is out of date. among the things i know is that fetal tissue donations are highly regulated as our donations of fetal or adult for
transplant. when it comes to adult tissue for research, there are still regulations, but far fewer. exhibit, ied at that immediately saw the exhibit, assuming it is a real document, was conflating more things than one. it was not just about fetal. if i die on the train and my liver goes to someone, they can do a lot of things with that. not highly regulated. >> the gentlelady yield back. your recognized for five minutes. >> no one should make a profit from the sale of baby body parts . that is something shared by the majority party as well as the minority problem -- party. in 1993,inded of a one when this was first introduced in congress, henry waxman, who introduced the amendment, a democrat, said it would be a to
allow for sales of fetal tissue in a market. today we have seen the procurement organization in exhibit 1, 2, 3, and four are receiving $700 to $850 per brain. i want to focus on the abortion clinics part. could we look at exhibit b 1. here are the payments we have obtained to various abortion clinics for these baby body parts. we have fresno, 38 specimens. they received $2090. sacramento abortion clinic received $3740. san jose received $3750. nationwide of panels of investigation found many more of these organizations. there are hundreds of abortion clinics.
ira #of the abortion clinic doctors on the video referenced talking about -- i remember in the video some of the abortion clinic doctors referring -- i want to know how they would investigate the accounting record. anything else should document whether the clinics profited. >> thank you. i have some experience both on the prosecutor side of this -- not just being a former prosecutor for 13 years and a few years as a u.s. attorney. also in my spirits fighting planned parenthood in a very grueling eight-day trial. one of the few in the country on the defense of florida's parental notice of abortion act. i will tell you that follow the money is a concept that that
applies -- that applies with special force in that area. it was astounding what i learned about how money motivates that an history -- industry. when i look at these figures. one of the doctors that testified acknowledged that he had performed over 100,000 abortions. we -- based on the amount of time that he -- the only way we could do it because i continue to try to find out how much are they making. they fought tooth and nail to prevent that information from coming out. to answer your question i would say, yes, it is extremely important to find out where the money goes. >> what specific documents would you look for? >> i would ask for bank records. >> thank you.
mr. norton: i would do the same. i would start by looking at the videos. i would read the forensic accounting report. i would read the investigations made up by former fbi agents that found the videos were credible and the redacted version say what the longer one say. i would obtain financial records of the abortion clinic, the procurement business, and frankly i would obtain the records of the end-user. i would subpoena records and witnesses from all of those entities to get effects. -- the facts. ms. foster, turn to please explain a little more about what you think about the possible violations mr. norton raised. where after receiving the order three e-mail in the morning,
they have a right to review the medical records of the patients without her knowledge. think hipa has been violated. >> i am very concerned it has been violated. planned parenthood has gone to court time and time again to keep secrets and confidential the records of the women who have had abortions. same abortion clinics are allowing procurement businesses into their doors, sharing records, and allowing them to find out some of the most personal health care information of national -- information unimaginable. that is an extreme concern for me. it is something i definitely want investigated. >> thank you for sharing that. we are here because we care about the women too. i yield back. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.
republican think my colleagues cannot find a way to make this investigation more of a farce, we have a hearing like this. none of the documents the republicans are showing today contain evidence of wrongdoing. in fact these misleading documents, many of which the republicans have brought themselves, have no basis in pasting sections of draft contracts that were never signed or from allowance, -- formalized,or does not meet the standard of any form of law. i would think the republicans should have learned this lesson after the hearing in 2000 and eight tissue procurement organization stood accused of profiting from the sale of fetal tissue research. the source of these accusations, heavily edited videos produced by antiabortion extremists. some of the documents we are looking at today were tossed
around in 2000 with the same misrepresentation of the facts. that hearing fell apart when the key witness accusing admitted that he had lied in the video. suddenly, those invoices and schedules didn't seem like such a smoking gun. here we are again. this hearing is another example of the republican majority going to extreme lengths to advanced dual agendas of sneering organizations against him investigations have found no evidence of any violations of law, knowing that the smears will endanger the lives of people were for these organizations. that's why i said this committee is worth -- worse than mccarthy investigations. peoples endangered jobs. this committee is knowingly endangering people's lives. and their other goal of eliminating women's choices and degrading their doctors.
mr. raben, i would like to ask you a couple questions. just yesterday, we received a letter from the council who informed us, and i quote, it appears the majority staff may have repurposed inauthentic stolen documents illegally obtained and that some of the majority exhibits have never appeared publicly, suggesting that perhaps a select panel may .e receiving so-called evidence does that not call into question the validity of the entire investigation? mr. raben: it sounds like bad form, yes. >> more than bad form, i would think. what do you think about the refusal of republicans to test the credibility and objectivity of the allegations? what should that tell us at this investigation? mr. raben: i'm not going to comment on my good friends
across the aisle's motivation. what i am concerned about whether the point of this hearing is to politicize an investigation into press be oj to do its job in a way different than they think they ought to do it. i think there is a set history of that and it is also dangerous. it is one thing to refer information and have comity between the branches. it is another to use politics to pressure a particular agent or investigator into doing his or her job. >> in that connection, this entire hearing having no purpose other than to suggest that since it is obvious these organizations are guilty, the doj and the state investigating agencies have not done their job properly if they haven't brought indictments. mr. raben: that is the indication. >> thank you. and let me ask you this. we've heard that mr. delayed in
was indicted only for a false identification and every -- not every, but half the college kids have false identification, so big deal. [indiscernible] i would like your comment. from what we've seen and heard, that does seem to be a serious den and, that mr. dalei the center for medical progress were submitted false information to congress. that is a serious problem. ms. clayton, would you comment on that? ms. clayton: i agree completely. i've always wondered why they didn't get prosecuted for it. it was an admitted fact by the guy they hired. that is who the doj should we going after. in summary, we have the
refusal by the committee, making all sorts of accusations, the refusal by the committee to talk to them, to ask them for explanations, then we have the committee apparently taking directly or indirectly material , stolen fromaleiden the stem express website, all to say that stem express and other similar organizations are doing illegal activities, but you don't want to talk to them and see if they have an explanation and you do take apparently false material stolen for that purpose in order to pressure the doj. is that a fair summary of what seems to be going on? mr. raben: yes. >> is that a legitimate function of congress? mr. raben: the concern that i ofe after 20 some years being on both sides of it is when a congressional gavel is used to intimidate or pressure
an agency to take action that they think it ought to the taking, particularly in the face of now 20 state officials, nonpartisan, have said on the record they've looked into this all related facts and declined to go forward with prosecutions. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> ms. love, you are recognized for five minutes. love: thank you, and thank you to the panel for being here. i want to focus on two different things, organ donations and evil tissue donations. many say that organ donation is a gift that one can give, a beautiful thing when you think about somebody donating their organs, and organ donations are done with dignity, disclosure of where and how the organs will be used, and in every hospital in counselors there are
to help with the process, and no money is made from the organ donation. the process is transparent and seen as ethical. on the other hand, when it comes to fetal tissue donation, it is different. a scared, vulnerable woman, including a minor, can come into a clinic on the morning of her surgery and first she needs to give consent to the procedure without any parental guidance or anyone there. then, before the event, before this invasive procedure, a tissue technician comes to her and gets her to donate her baby body parts. instead of an unbalanced counselor, the tissue -- it is not transparent how the fetal organs will be used more by one organization. to me, the contrast is astounding. for thisthical
procedure to happen this way. my question is, who protects the woman's interest in each case? who protects the miners' interest in each case? there are no existing laws related to consent for fetal tissue donation. how many organs are needed? how much will be paid out for each body part, and as a mother of two teenage girls, i'm astounded and outraged that we don't have laws in place to protect our minors. mr. lennon, why is there uniform law for organ donation in every hospital in this donation and a different practice for donations of fetal organs? i don't know and i would have to speculate. that is a good question. sukhia -- mr.
mr. sukhia: my father was persian and came here -- he was actually from india, but his people were from persia. sukhia. rep. love: is there any evidence -- if there is any evidence that a law is being broken or suggestions of profiteering from baby organs, should there be investigations to ensure this -- that this is not the case? mr. sukhia: i thought that was the focus of this hearing, which is to ask of a federal prosecutor, if you have this information, what it justify a thorough investigation to ascertain those facts? rep. love: at the end of your comments, you noted that it is the duty to investigate, to make sure laws aren't being broken. thank you. ms. foster, i want to point out
five immediate differences when it comes to organ donation and fetal tissue donation. and ask why there would be such a gross difference. i want to ask your thoughts after you hear these. first, organ donation is done with protections and advocates for the donor and/or person giving consent for the donation of the organs. of a loved one, sometimes that is already deceased, there's no profit being made more money exchanged with organ donation. furthermore, if there was any evidence of such, there would be great cause to investigate. minor there is never a under duress having to make these decisions alone, without the consent or advocate of an adult or for any operation procedure, let alone an invasive procedure. furthermore, a minor would never be in the position to make the
decision to donate the organs of another person. there is no contact when it comes to organ donation between the recipient of the organ, the physician procuring the organs, or the transfer team, with the consent giver, the transfer team of the consent giver, before the consent is being given, and the hipaa violations would never be allowed when it comes to organ donation. i want to ask you this. if you were ever in a clinic, sitting in that room, understanding that those protections are different, is there advocating for you? ms. foster: in an abortion clinic, no one. rep. love: who is advocating for a minor who this country would not let behind the wheel of a vehicle, would not allow to
vote, would not allow to join the military, would not be allowed to smoke, would not even be allowed to join a gym because there is a financially binding contract? ms. foster: no one. >> the gentlelady yields back. i recognize myself five minutes for questioning. as a reminder to my colleagues, i leave myself to last in the questions. i want to just go back to a couple of comments that were made, and i do have a couple questions for you all. the pricing document, exhibit d, we looked at some of those on the pricing's of items, brains, things of this nature. if you are looking at a customer