>> ..

what i'm curious about is that if ths is an independent review and we are assuming that that's the way you've set it up to be most certainly there would have been a contract or documentation as to what the expectations were. is there a memorandum of agreement or documentation concerning what the dui would review and if not why would we receive copies as requested by the committee as requested by the documents including the charge questions or the scope. they haven't received the recommendation last evening. how are you send these the views of these following the conclusion of the hearing will. one was to make sure that the eta doesn't actually ourselves

controlled by scope of the investigation. they scope themselves so that they wouldn't be accused of narrowing that inappropriately. so i'm happy to follow up to see if i can be helpful getting information about how they have defined it. but they haven't seen the documentation either. hispanic you are anticipating an independent review, but you don't know if the epa has seen the document which lays out the scope of the investigation by the independent verb. hispanic they didn't dictate the scope of that investigation. >> but you would assume the copy of the independent agency. >> the independent agency is going to dictate that themselves and we are going to live with

whatever scope they believe is appropriate as an independent investigator. >> that document should exist. the reason i ask is because you already stopped work at other locations in the preliminary report but it must be based on an understanding of the review in the first place. >> they indicated that they would do the review and they understood that they were going to be established in the scope and it's my understanding they are intending to complete the review in october. >> so either the documents exist in your agency hasn't seen them, or second the documents are still being developed at which time my question would be because if not we are able to see a copy of the mandate should be very tough to get them. >> i am continuing to make sure they epa is not perceived as interfering in this investigation in any way that

would question the end dependence of the review. and that is what we are going to continue to do. >> if it is an independent review it seems to me that the independent review agency would have been provided with a copy of what you're going to be reviewing in how they would do it. >> in this case i do not believe that we have seen that type of documentation. >> you have not? >> we have seen the press release. that is what we have seen and i know that the review is going to be looking at the incident itself at the contributing factors. beyond that i haven't seen the limitation on how they are going to conduct that. >> has there been a preliminary issue from the independent dui? >> we have looked at the press release that was issued and we are hands-off to address the very issue that you are concerned about which is our

independence. >> the reason i'm asking the question is a moment ago you indicated you already shut down work at other locations based upon the information. it did not come from the dui? like that was a look from the national subgroup team at epa that has done the review of the minds that are on the list and have taken a look at what might be closely similar to this effort and they are consistently looking at those to see what would continue or not if there is any similarity or chan that we need to learn lessons here, those reviews and assessments in work is on hold pending the results of this investigation. >> what about reports that created the need to suspend the existing applications without the available for this

committee? spinnaker that was just a memo that was a directive to the agency which i thought was appropriate to do to be very cautious that there was no way in which the goldmine release would happen again at another site because i is unclear and i will remain unclear until the independent review is done about what was the real pitcher getting factor. what happened that we need to make sure will never happen again? and >> thank scenic thank you for your testimony. >> thank you mr. cardin. we do want the independent review and we want it done with the integrity of an independent review to understand what happened to prevent this from happening in the future. so we all support that and we appreciate your commitment to the independent review.

i was listening to my colleague's testimony at the hard rock mining but clearly the states that were directly impacted the most are the ones we heard from today and there are thousands of abandoned mines. all books creates some environmental challenges and some have been under control and have been pretty well controlled and others are much more problematic and we are still evaluating the risk factors as to whether the action is needed and that was put with part of the process in this particular episode. i was impressed by the senator's comments but we haven't reviewed them all for a long period of time. i understand the political environment we are operating under where it is difficult for the new environmental laws or the fundamental law but i would hope that we would get your evaluation as to whether the

current law or the clean water act were the rules for the inactive mines are adequate. we heard the -- had been accountable and we need a dedicated funding source to deal with these types of urgent needs a we are talking about the multi-billions of dollars in outstanding needs and we need to be the least understanding and have more transparent awareness that there is ongoing problems every day and yet get our feet taking appropriate actions to make sure that the communities are as safe as they need to be. how do we go about doing that? >> we are talking about 23,000

in colorado alone and more than 161,000 in the west and alaska and so clearly this is a very large challenge. i think i would point to the fact that the administration in the fiscal 16 budget proposed a fee that would be charged on the hard rock mining to actually support a fund that would allow us to do a better job of tackling these abandoned mines and the continual impact that they are having on water quality and i think that it's important to remember that many federal agencies have jobs to do that there is no leadership position that but is accountable for the entire issue and it makes it very difficult from the perspective of the track the minds which are only a small percentage of what's out there on the abandoned mines and make

it into the list to track and monitor and take action but in this case it isn't on that list and the local community didn't want on that list that the state was unable to address this challenge and we've been working for 17 to 20 years to try to figure out how to address the minds of the river and it is an incredible challenge but when they epa responded when the state wanted us to look at this issue, the pressure behind the mine which had been going on for quite some time and we went with them on the site and we developed the work plan with them and a wink to public meetings to the stakeholder

group it was completely open and completely transparent. everybody agreed on the next steps and those are the next steps we took. >> i would just ask that you would keep us advised to whether you have adequate tools. we talked talked of talked of the budget a bit about the dedicated funding source and whether they are strong enough because the bottom line is we want to protect the communities and hold those that are responsible accountable for the reclamation and it seems to me that the tools could be stronger senator sullivan. >> good morning. i want to echo what our panel mentioned at the outset. the senator talked about water is life out west and i think that's something that we agree with. we certainly all want clean water and i agree with the senator that we all want to make sure that the polluters are accountable and help make sure

we keep water clean the want the water clean the want to emphasize that the senator talked about where we also believe that the government should be held to the same standards as it requires the public and private sector. do you believe that? and the reporting requirements that the public does? >> that is the reason that the sites were on the list. >> what do you think would happen to a private company if they did what the eta had done in this with vns rivers of accidentally causing a blowout very significant pollution, some arguments saying take too long to notify. in my estimation the facts will be borne out not by the independent review but the way

in which you do an action like this which is difficult to do. as the first make sure if there is an accident -- >> we are trying to explain -- is my answer is -- >> i don't have a lot of time but what would happen if you heidi or a contractor and accidentally caused what's do you think would have been to the company? >> exactly the same thing the epa did if they took the same -- >> what penalties would have been? >> there will be no penalties unless it was against a settlement order. >> i would like to submit for the record a wall street journal article september 9, 2015 that lays out several examples of even smaller than this private sector companies where there was an accident and there was pollution and there were officials that were criminally charged and some went to jail. do you think that -- if you

think that the epa should be held to the same standards as private sector companies were higher standards do you think anyone should be held criminally liable or go to jail for what happened? >> i have exceed you to receive the review that is going to tell me what happened at that site using an independent voice and i am looking forward to that. but the sequence of events when you have a spell is to keep your people safe at the site. it is than to stop this bill as quickly as possible and then to ensure the cleanup. >> all i'm saying is that your agency has created according to this article criminally charged people for accidental spills and some have even gone to jail. still smaller. but if you are going to hold your agency to a higher standard than the private sector, you need to be aware of what you've done as an agency in the past. and i do want to mention that this is a frustration.

i think it is a frustration for the country and that's why people have focused on this and we have abandoned mines. they are still leaking right now and if you are a private sector in charge of a company like that you would be in jail. right now they allow the wells to beat all over the state of alaska. they don't clean these up. let me talk more broadly. from the last session the supreme court had utility regulators and in just a recent

case south dakota, alaska, are you familiar with those cases? >> just came out as a preliminary injunction. >> they either violated the constitution, the clean water act with the clean air act. what would happen to the private sector company if it was continually violating the law. spackled belief that we are violating the law. >> have you read the michigan versus epa case? have you read utility case? >> there is a pulmonary injunction. >> in us being court cases but said that they epa violated the clean water act and the clean

air act and the north dakota federal court recently said the waters are the u.s. rule that we've debated and a lot of us think that it violates the law. the court said that it's very likely that it did. do you think a private sector company can violate the law? >> this is the way the process works when they interpret the law. we violated the law of the constitution that is exactly -- >> i think you need to reread these cases because that is what the supreme court said. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman very much and thank you administrator mccarthy for being here today.

we've got a big mess on our hands. we are dealing with a law that was passed in 1872, ulysses s. grant was the president of the united states and it hasn't been amended since then and he did a great job by the way on winning the civil war, just a great job. i want to compliment him on that. this law may have been appropriate for 1872. we were trying to get people to go out west. colorado isn't even a state yet. we've got to get people out of their 1870 to the law passes can 1876 colorado becomes a state. so it says you get out there and we will give you access to these

mines. some people say there are 160,000 abandoned mines and some say that there are 500,000 abandoned mines. what is the revenue stream to put in place in order to ensure that we don't have a revenue stream. in 1970s began the 1970s began of the 1980s we created a superfund program that was intended to deal with the worst sites across the country. the canal in new york state and the subject of the movie a civil action in massachusetts and we put the program in place.

but the mining industry even today doesn't want to pay for the minerals that are on federal land. these are taxpayers liberals at the company's belief that they should get for free. now over in the house of representatives -- ranking member of the natural resources committee and i introduced a bill saying that they should have to pay. we need a revenue stream so that we can put programs in place that ensure that we begin to work on the worst of these sites in a much more aggressive fashion and that is something you would think that we could agree is necessary when hundred 47 years later after the law was

passed to deal with the obviousness that has been created and so do you agree that the revenue stream is completely insufficient in order to deal with the magnitude of the problem which this incident demonstrates its trust with looming. >> i think that suggests we need a revenue that is based on the principle that is exactly the same way that the coal mines are treated into those abandoned coal mines are cleaned up at the same kind of sorts that source that we need to be looking for here to be instituted by congress to begin to tackle this issue more effectively. >> i would hope that my republican friends could agree that it's time to put a fee on this. giving it away, letting them abandon and then not having a

revenue source to deal with the method is created makes no sense at all and i would hope that we could work together on this although i found in the house of representatives that it was impossible to find republican supporters for something like this that does leave kind but does leave kind of a brigade of three black hole and the alternative of course but some republicans continue to profound is that we should have a kind of good samaritan law. and i think that whatever minimal set of laws that we have on the books it just cannot be waived because that is the last one that we've got. all are potentially leaching

into the java. mexico because of those policies that now is in danger with regards to the health of the air, the water, people that live near them and it's time for us to do something about it. >> thank you senator murphy. senator barrasso. >> morning. >> it's good to see you. later today i will be chairing the committee to better understand how they epa actions are impacting the tribes downstream from the clove king side and i anticipate that we will have a summer day because of a robust discussion. before you came in he said there is no denying that they caused this disaster. he's very thoughtful and this happened in his home state. he had a big partisan concern about what happened and my question to you and isn't it true that when a private company

is accused of violating the act but the epa under your specific leadership has aggressively pursued at the civil fines against the company and individuals within the company? and is it true that if there was a 3 million-dollar toxic spill at private citizens that epa would act aggressively against those companies? how large of a fine would they be pursuing under the cases? cynically scenic we've are there to protect what would be the problem. there is no question that the actions contributed to this bill today that doesn't mean that we are another private sector person would be accused of violating intentionally the clean water act. they would be told to do exactly what we are doing which is to get their people to safety, aggressively stop and make sure that didn't happen again. >> that epa caused this disaster. that is what the senator says and i agree that they ought to be held to an even higher standard but the aggressive

nature under your direction i think says that there is a double standard between the way that epa treats itself. but on the second water management issue i would like to discuss the waters of the united states who. over and over again, the preamble to the waters of the united states rules is that it is based on, quote of the science. and the expertise and experience of the agencies. it doesn't appear to have any support for the statements and the rulemaking record in an attempt to understand the basis for the final rule to the chairman sent letters to the eta and the army corps of engineers.

they didn't identify any scientific studies to support the decisions made in the final ruling. they support all others connected. that's the best that they can do for the epa about what it is. they said when the final rule was under the review.

we did a solid science and the experience of both the epa -- >> that isn't what your staff and army corps of engineers are saying. it sounds to me like you are making it up when you go. >> but i would point to kennedy to the record on our work that we have done on the water connectivity study which does look at more than close to 2,000 studies that went through the national science advisory committee process. in fact, we also have the technical support document that is in the record that is the basis for many of the decisions in the clean water rules. so those are already available. >> that's based on -- >> to sit down with your staff again. >> it is based on the idea that all water is connected, period. and we would disagree on that. finally, in august the eta released the clean powerplant rule and the economies in many

states including the home state of wyoming are going to be devastated according to a study issued august 4 at the university of wyoming in the public policy and energy economics to face a loss of 7,211,000 to 11,000 jobs in just the coal mining transport sectors. it doesn't account for all the local businesses that are going to lose revenue as a result of the job losses. the study also found by state could lose up to 60% of its state coal revenue that goes to fund schools and roads and water treatment facilities and emergency medical services, all things that make people's lives better and keep them safer. so as your plan is taking that away from people in my state and other states that have strong energy sectors, the cost of your regulations are real and immediate and destructive. the benefits of your regulations are theoretical and unproven. my question is how does your clean powerplant that he gave the direct damage to people from

other states and how do you make those lives whole? the >> we believe that we have done this in a way that is flexible and looked at the state's concerns that provide significant time that's going to cheat to the chiefs advocate reductions that will allow us to provide leadership that we need to address that is essentially the greatest environmental challenge of the time which is the climate change. >> senator. speck ipod was mr. chairman. i just wanted to let you know that i did get the information that you were seeking on the clean powerplant when it was submitted. >> the september 4 deadline is that what you're talking about tax >> it was sent on september 4 and we expect to be published in october so i just wanted to let you know that i was reminded of that. >> thank you very much. senator. >> thank you for being here. just a quick question on the

contractor issue. it's been mentioned that they had contracted the contractors to do the work. did they have a liability issue or is that something that they released when they contracted with the epa? >> they have to follow the work plan and the data that they have been given. it is a contractor that has been working with the agency for the a number of years and has worked on the sites before. those were the direct orders that caused. >> the work plan that we developed is one of the things we would've expected the independent review to look at. stomach looking at accountability and you are all as well. >> as you know i live in a community that has had our border chemical spill causing a lot of disruption and a lot of health concerns and other concerns.

those executives have recently been sentenced and will be serving time. but one of the issues that came out of this was business interruption so senator gartner brought this up but the rafters and i think that's the senator as well. other people have lost their revenue for the year because of this and they will have a stigma attached that will be even more difficult to gain. is this part of the restitution that you could go back to the community come is that within the bounds of the eta to be able to do things like this? >> it never happens with the contractor that we are taking full responsible for the. there is a claim process in fact we've received a number of claims from small businesses exactly related to the issues that you've identified and federal law that allows those claims to be processed appropriately, and we will do

that and others are well within the boundaries of what a federal claims act is supposed to be compensating. >> i would love to have a follow-up to see how successful that has been because i see the president of the novel donation is very important for them as well. another issue was on the crisis response plan. the senator mentioned that when he was on site four days later there still was not an adequate response plan or team in place. what but you have a response to that? >> i apologize i wasn't here and i wasn't realizing that the senator was testifying. so we actually had a response team in place. we had on scene coordinators have had more than a couple hundred eta staff. we immediately put that in a motion. we have the area command center that we moved up as quickly as

we could but we've always be able to look back to see whether we could have done it better, could we have done it quicker and what are the lessons we've learned? >> you anticipate that is part of the report. >> i believe -- if they don't i know the office of inspector general will certainly be looking at that end of the epa independently will be looking at that as well because that is a huge issue in the spill that we have. and also timing wise i think that there was a national response center wasn't notified until an hour and a half later you are lucky because you were able to get to those folks with a water intake that he didn't have enough mileage but if it was right there at the source that happened in our community, you wouldn't have had the time. into the claims on the lack of self-service and area living in a rural community, i can identify with that. but certainly there would be some kind of a satellite or other way to get an immediate response. >> that's one of the things we are looking at, senator.

we agree that we could have done better on the notification. it's a process we work with and in this case wherein a remote area and we did got a hold of our state partners immediately. those partners went down and notify the national response centers and triggered all of the appropriate medications. as you said the good news is we got there before the plume into any of the areas which could have caused a problem in terms of irrigation diversions or other water infrastructures. speck i think the controversy on over 1 million as opposed to 3 million is something that we need to examine as well. other issues that come to my mind are the health issues. medical monitoring and such you don't don't do with the combination of the metals that are in this border. has that been sufficiently tested, do we know that serious effects, i'm just raising questions that i think need to be raised. i would like to see an final because i just have a couple seconds remaining on the clean powerplant, you know this is

going to impact my state great deal we have the highest unemployment rates that directly attributable in the directly attributable to a lot of things that natural gas, yes but also to the regulatory environment. everything you see with thousands that have lost their jobs. it is a concern to me every day. it is a sad affair. i wish that you would come and talk with the folks that the regulations are deeply affecting. it's difficult for the county commissioners laying off county commissioners laying off people and school systems can no longer function because of the lack of tax revenue and unemployment funding in the state is now under a serious attack. we are hurting and when the regulation goes into effect, it is great to have an even more devastating effect on us directly probably our state most correctly affected. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you very much for being

here today. i think the issue of the double standard is important. people in my state and government and your agency has a reputation of being aggressive but sometimes heavy-handed dealing with individuals that have had problems in this regard you did the right things but the initial reaction seemed to downplay the extent of the damage. that went on until literally the river turned orange and they could figure out this was a big deal. statements like the water is healing itself is in executive says things like that people would have gone ballistic. so, again we will have to wait and see what comes out of the report and wait for the department of interior and things like that.

but i do think that it's fair to say the initial reaction down playing it or appearing to downplay it in regard to the public i think we have enough information so that that was done very poorly. >> senator i appreciate your concern. there is no way that the epa should have downplayed this spill. i certainly did not. we have taken full responsibility and i will work hard to make sure we show you we are following the same standard of excellence that we demand of others. this was a devastating thing not just for those communities that the epa as well. we will learn from this but it's been a hard lesson for all of us and it will continue doing it we have long-term obligations. i've made it very clear that the epa isn't going away and the way it is going to meet those long-term responsibilities. >> you mentioned earlier that

you've got an old mine and the pressure buildup and with all of these things happening, why i believe on september 9 the committee witness testified in engineer wasn't consulted. why is that the case why would an engineer not be involved in the planning. it's about professional engineers. why would that be the case? >> i do not know why that was the state. but my understanding is the actual work plan was called in to assist for the very reason a problem happened which is that a blowout was the scene as likely inevitable to help the state take care of that at their request. we developed this plan with the

state. then we work with the stakeholder group that is filled with mining experts and local constituencies and we did public hearings on the work plan before we initiated work. we have a lot of engineering expertise on this work plan and the way this happened was as sad for us as it was for anybody and we didn't anticipate the work that we were doing but have aggravated the situation and we were there to relieve the situation as it was building up. >> we will look and see about the discrepancy. my understanding is the removal actions are classified into three categories. emergency, time critical and not time critical. can you tell us the difference in the sense of which category

to use for the particular actions? >> if it is possible and happy to respond in writing after. i'm not sure that i will get the nuances correct. thank you very much. >> senator fisher. >> thank you and welcome administrator. i would like to drill down a little bit on some of the items the senator brought up about cell phone coverage. in the omaha herald there was an article that stated there was no cell phone coverage of the at the goal line the day of the spill. and that was confirmed in an august 16 e-mail posted on your agency website but also said that over satellite phone was at the local so to clarify there wasn't a cell phone or satellite phone.

there was no way to immediately communicate to those downstream when the toxic water began rushing out. so, my question is was the epa really properly prepared to inform local communities if there was a spill that happened in which did happen? >> i cannot at this point come from the cell phone coverage. i apologize i will get back to you on that but the notification would have been beneficial to all of us and that is one of the reasons that we have asked for a review of all of this and a beating about the notification process. it is a very secluded and a difficult place to reach but we did get in touch with our colleagues in colorado and we

made sure that those diversions were protected before the plume arrived because it is quite a distance away from any populated area. >> and i would imagine that he would be looking at how the plans are developed in the future not with tractors but also. that is one of our first orders of business. >> they were the ones that were performing the work when the blowout occurred. is that correct? >> under the direction of the on scene coordinator. >> did they have an emergency action plan? >> i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt. >> did they have any urgency operation plan or any kind of a contingency plan on your own?

>> they required it from the contractor and they developed their own. and that is something the internal review looked at, but there may be broader emergency plans that are also appropriate that i can't speak to at this point. >> did i understand correctly when you said that the epa was active in developing the plan with the subcontractor is that correct? >> the work plan for the actual actions in the site was developed with the state of colorado and the epa. start with the health and safety plans. were you involved in the development? >> i don't know if there was back-and-forth with the contractor. the contractor did develop a plan that was seen by the internal review team when they looked at it as being inadequate to address a blowout situation. >> do you have copies that you could provide us with that would

outline the involvement of the epa? >> on the web already there is a request for the proposal and there is the work plan and the task order. all of those issues have been posted. i do not know if there is additional communication. >> i would like to see the health and safety plan and be able to understand the involvement of the epa. i hear a lot of confusion about the plan in just how important it could have been in the spill that we are dealing with. i have a few questions about the notifications to the jurisdictions within the state

of colorado. they didn't notify the irrigation districts and they didn't know about this until the yellow plume reached the irrigation waters. have you been made aware of any information concerning that. it was too very much rely on the state to know where the diversions are and to be able to work with us to appropriately identify and notify all of the key stakeholders. >> the epa has followed all of the noticed requirements of section 103 three in the comprehensive of the comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability act.

>> there is some discrepancy out there if the epa really did follow the requirements that you are supposed to do. >> i'm happy to get back to you on it. i don't have them at my fingertips, but we very much have said that the notification could have been better and we have to continually update these lists as does the state working hand in hand because clearly we don't want the epa wanting to know the business of every river and stream but we want to make sure that we do that as well as test to make sure that we are doing it right so people get to those issues and we are not suggesting that there isn't room for improvement here. >> if you can get back to me in a timely manner i would appreciate it. i thank you for inviting to get back sometimes it is months and

months and months. so if you could try to get me some information -- >> why don't we save by thanksgiving that would be helpful. >> i would appreciate that. thank you administrator.

do what he is the organization discussing the voluntary value of fetal tissue. this is pre- and a half hours. >> dot committee will come to order and without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at anytime. we any time. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on planned parenthood exposed examining the horrific abortion practices at

the nation's largest abortion provider. i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. recently, the nation's attention has been drawn to a series of undercover videos recorded by members of a group called the center for medical progress. these videos contain discussions with the representatives of the abortion providing organization planned parenthood regarding the exchange of money for the body parts of unborn children to be used in research. any discussion of abortion is inherently difficult as it is unquestionably the taking of a human life created that discussion becomes even more difficult when it returns to the monetary value of the body parts of more developed unborn children. and to the prospect of exposing them to potentially more painful abortions conducted in different ways without that other's consent to preserve the added value of their most holy duty to -- more fully developed parts.

this forces us to engage in discussion. one that this committee has been engaged in for some time now and which now begins its days of public hearings. there are questions regarding whether there are gaps in the law that should be filled to prevent the types of horrors described in the videos. there's questions regarding existing federal laws have been violated. the committee is aggressively seeking answers to these questions but there is no question that the videos are deeply disturbing at a human level. the director of new york university's division of medical ethics said in response to the videos that it is ethically very dangerous. to change for the purpose of collecting organs of unborn children because then you are starting to put the bombs help secondary, "-end-double-quote. one for the companies caught on tape has already claimed to have severed its business

relationship with planned parenthood. the head of planned parenthood herself has referred to her own medical services said on the video ads on acceptable and personally apologized for it and during a sitdown interview for the presidential candidates hillary clinton said of the undercover videos i've seen pictures of them and find them disturbing. when the candidate says she finds the video is obviously disturbing videos obviously disturbing i think that we could safely put to rest any allegations that the act is inappropriate. some members have questioned why the investigations focus on the conduct of planned parenthood and not on the conduct of those that obtained the undercover footage. part of the answer is planned parenthood unlike the undercover reporters is granted huge amounts of federal funds making it our business as members of congress charged with controlling federal purse

strings to do what we can to ensure federal taxpayer dollars are not contributing to the sorts of horrors reflected in the undercover videos. the conduct exposed by the undercover videos may help inform congress on how to enact other laws or see to it that the law is better and forth in force to help protect innocent life nationwide. and they've passed the pain capable which would prohibit abortions asserted limited exceptions when women are entering the sixth month of pregnancy. today america is one of only seven countries on earth including north korea and china that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks post fertilization and an overwhelming majority of just about every demographic opposes its continued practice here.

it would be generally prohibitive. in the meantime the house judiciary committee continues to examine additional ways of protecting human life and preserving the conscience of america. it is a two-part hearing on the topic and i hope that the hearing sheds light on some of the nation's darkest corners so the atrocities that some would very much like two d. human eyes can be exposed for what they really are. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today coming and it is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee the gentleman from michigan for his opening statement. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and members of the judiciary committee and friends that are here in the hearing room as the title suggests and

by the way i have a file on these titles that come up from time to time we will likely hear the allegations leveled against planned parenthood one of the most popular organizations for almost 100 years that it engaged in an awful conduct based on the series of deceptive undercover videos. it's about the accuracy and pederasty isn't here today and in addition, the majority chose not to invite planned parenthood

, the target of today's attacks. as we hear from the witnesses we should keep in mind the following points to begin with there is no all of them to be good evidence that they violated the law. the video wrongfully implied planned parenthood sells fetal tissue and organs for profit. that is not the case. the law governing the fetal tissue research that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support back in 1993 provides that no one can knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration.

similarly, federal law prohibits the for-profit sales and purchases of human organs in both cases however valuable consideration does not include reasonable payments to cover certain costs associated with either fetal tissue or organ donations. the center for medical progress do not support the allegation that they saw the profit from the fetal tissue or the organ donations rather they show among other things discussions over payments for the costs associated with fetal tissue or organ donation payment. they also wrongfully suggests that the doctors of planned

parenthood violated the law by altering the procedures used to perform abortions so as to preserve fetal tissue or organs. there is no evidence that planned parenthood has altered the methods. the prohibition on changing the timing. the research hasn't been funded since 2007. no one suggests the planned parenthood that planned parenthood doctors may have violated the partial-birth

abortion act. many of the videos are immaterial. to violate the act, the physician must partially deliver a living fetus and have the intent. planned parenthood violated federal law. what is troubling about the video is the manner in which they would produce a. they created a false tissue procurement company to use as a

front in order to infiltrate planned parenthood facilities and to create the undercover videos and may have deceived authorities to do so. ..

>> >> finally we must get back to look at the hearing and how it is held. but to undermine one of the nation's leading providers of high-quality health care for women. planned parenthood serves 2.7 million americans every year.

won the three have used services by the age of 45. the organization is anyone hundred years old. opponents are attempting to use the videos as a pretext for federal funding for planned parenthood. unsuccessful it will hurt those who rely on planned parenthood services but it would not prevent abortions. is already the case said no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions with certain limited exception instead federal funding play -- pays for critical health services such as the annual bonus exams coming cancer screenings, contraception

hand as tds. surely we in the congress have better things to do than to spend our time helping to undermine the organization that provides such vital health services. thanks to the chairman. >> recognizing the chairman of the civil justice committee for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. unit is states of america is a unique nation and province behalf of the foundation that there were all created equal and each of us is an hour in - - endowed by our creator yet this committee is in a hearing titled

planned parenthood exposed exposing their horrific abortion practices at the nation's largest abortion provider because recordings have been released corporate officers casually discuss to harvest and sell the body parts from the hundreds of thousands of innocent babies they're guilty of killing their portion clinics across the nation every year. these recordings irrefutably show officers haggling over the organs embody parts and using painful method like partial birth abortion to make sure the salable organs remains undamaged. one of these videos describes an incident when

planned parenthood employs calls a younger one over to witness something that was " kind of cool''. one of the babies' hearts was still beating. the other employe said this is a really good fetus in of a sick we could procure all lot we will procure the parade. ''. then using scissors starting at the june cut to the center of a child's face to plug the brain to put it in a container where it could later be sold. i find it crushingly sad that the only time this little baby was ever held by anyone in his short life was by those who cut his face open to take his brain. have we forgotten not so

long ago authorities into the clinic. they found a torture chamber of little babies that defies construction -- description. he had a simple solution he killed them he called it insuring fetal demise the way he ensure that was by sticking scissors and the back of their neck to cut the spinal cord. he called it snipping. over the years there were hundreds of snipping is. '' one employee said she would seek babies to be long but did not have an eyesore mouth and made a screeching noise and it sounded like a little alien.

but yet the president of the united states of america and many members of congress have not uttered one single syllable against these gut wrenching atrocities. for god's sake is this to we truly are? the fact is more than 18,000 late term babies were torturously killed without anesthesia in just the last year. many cry and scream as they died because there is a amniotic fluid going over the vocal cord instead of there we could not hear them the worst atrocity in the history of the united states of america. into'' all of this in the

name of freedom of choice. what is so liberating about brutally painfully to dismember little human babies? despite the political malaise is not a republican addition -- assure democratic issue is the basic test of who we are as a family the sands of time before we ever give them another time of taxpayer money and in the name of humanity democratic senator should end their filibuster against the unborn child protection act because that would prevent the vast majority of these evil acts

that these videos have so clearly shown to the entire world. i yield back. >> i now recognize the ranking member from tennessee. >> first of its say this is an issue that divides this country and has 47 years and it divides this committee i respect republican colleagues who have a strong held position but it is not my position with a position of most of the women in this country. that is the position that women that has ben though lot of the land for many

years this year is not about the videos they have been doctored it is show business. this is about a woman's right to choose and many people for their honest believes feel it should be a litmus test for support for life and human beings. there want to outlaw abortion and there would not be happy until it is allied in the united states of america. in the testimony has been about abortion if you notice. that issue is raised again. planned parenthood is simply a group that does 3% of its work is abortion a 97% is about health, health

care, screenings, a 2.7 million women freer get health care. that is so importuned my district is pour in a lot of women get their health care from planned parenthood. to cut off federal funding -- funding would deny that of health care. that would not make a difference to many but then there is the affordable care act but no one voted for the affordable care act that helps women get health care but because some on the extreme side that have not expanded committee in -- medicaid to those who need it that they could do no cost as a fiscal benefit to their state have denied health care to women. this would further deny health care to women you

cannot get, planned parenthood cannot use because of laws, any federal funds for abortion unless the life of the mother or incest exceptions. so we are talking about this is the government takeover of health care, death panel the benghazi of health care hearings oh wait to get attention. i don't doubt their sincerity to highlight but it is wrong in 2015 we should be going forward and not backward and to a lot of people who say we want to take back our country they've been there when the country of dwight eisenhower and a fine man who offered before the rights or women's rights or civil rights.

before they had opportunity independence of physical characteristics america has moved forward and it will that go backward. you will like it that america back. i'd love ricky nelson but they are gone. this hearing is about eliminating roe v. wade am partial birth abortions and abortions period. there are 143 labor civil rights groups that say this hearing should not necessarily be held in a oppose the efforts to stop planned parenthood i will enter into the record. i value the republicans opinion they are strong felting and i understand that. but for me, and it is part of my dna one of the finest

organizations in this country women of color and poor women to give them a choice as the supreme court did to uphold the law of the land. lot of people here would not want that to be held up in a county in kentucky where no woman refused to do with the supreme court told her they made her a hero. fund planned parenthood i support roe v wade a yield back. >> all other statements are part of the record we welcome our distinguished witnesses that will begin by swearing you and. with you swallow -- somnus where you will give the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth so help you god?

thank you. let the record that the witnesses responded in the affirmative. mr. anson survived a failed apportionment she was a baby a pro-life advocate and speaker she currently lives in tennessee. in 1987 appointed by u.s. congress by the advisory committee headed by is is on the ethical issues from delivery of health care and from biomedical and behavioral research. in 1988 serving on the of fetal tissue stemed transplant for the national institutes of health. to testify before state legislative committees hearings on pro-life issues to argue before the united

states supreme court. miss smith is director from reproductive justice study from the yale law school prior to you joining smith was an attorney for the center for reproductive rights serving as u.s. rigo program director and litigated cases nationwide. and the information society. also surviving as an abortion, all written statements will be entered into the record to summarize your testimony in five minutes or less there is a light on your table.

when the light switches you have one minute. >> push the button. >> good morning. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my biological mother was seven and a half months pregnant when she went to planned parenthood in was a biased to have day late term abortions this method burns the baby to blind and suffocate the child resulting in death within 24 hours. this is what i survived.

instead of dying after 18 hours of being burned was delivered a life in the abortion clinic april 6, 1977. you can see a photo of my medical records. the state board alive during abortion. victory. thankfully he was not at work gets otherwise he would have loved me there to die but instead a nurse called an ambulance that i was rushed to a hospital. doctors to not expect me to live but i did. and was later diagnosed with servile policy with lack of oxygen to librarian for or was never supposed to hold of my head or what but i do.

and ladies and gentlemen, it is the tremendous gift to me. i was placed in foster care and later adopted. and i forgive my biological mother. within the first year of which used as an expert witness were one abortionist was caught strangling a child to death after being born alive. margaret sanger the founder of planned parent and said the following, the most merciful thing a large family does to its infant members is to kill it. planned parenthood is not ashamed to but they have done but they will have to give an account as a nation and before god for the apathy for murder of

50 million children in the womb. everytime we falter and fail to confront this evil how many lives have been lost while we make sure we are allotted among men? and we don't offend anyone. how many children have died in bin does more -- dismembered for our convenience and promiscuity? held many liberties were purchased with blood of innocent children? the blood from the ground but not one of them is forgotten by him. the last planned parenthood the following question 38 years later, if it is about women's rights then what

were mine? you continuously use the argument if the baby is disabled we need to terminate the pregnancy as if you can determine the quality of someone's life. is my life less valuable to to my servile policy? you have failed in your arrogance and greed to see one thing but it is often from the weakest among us that we learn wisdom. something sorely lacking in our nation today is our folly in shame the appliances to the beauty. planned parenthood uses deception and manipulation of language and slogans such as a woman's right to choose to achieve their monetary aims for cry will illustrate how well that technique is with the equitation the recent activity of the masses is limited the

intelligence is small but their power of forgetting is enormous. in consequence of these facts all effective propaganda must be limited and harp on the slogans until the last member for understands what you want him to, adolf hitler. we often hear if it was not funded there would be a health crisis among women without the services they provide. this is absolutely false. pregnancy research centers are located nationwide all services are free and confidential they can be reached by texting a help line 313131. there is access to vital exams other than planned parenthood.

we're not a nation without options. planned parenthood receives $500 million of taxpayer money per year to primarily destroy and dismembered babies. do not tell me these are not children a heartbeat proves that. said is the fact that they're selling human organs for profit. don't tell me this is only a woman's issue it is the man and woman to create a child and i will speak to the men. you were made for greatness. you were born to defend women and children not to use in the band bus or sit idly by while you know, we are being harmed and asking you to be brave. in conclusion let me say i am a life because of the power of jesus christ and

without him i would have nothing in with him i have all. thank you. >> ag for the compelling testimony. >> i appreciate the opportunity to speak. i have a substantial familiarity with this subject with my participation in the fetal tissue transplant research panel from nih on the question if field tissue research should be funded we recommended the moratorium be lifted for a bus dissented and we published a lengthy dissent based upon some of the arguments used the bush administration continue the moratorium on funding such research.

based on information that has come to light through the investigative reporting reporting, it is apparent planned parenthood procurement practices violate federal and state laws ethical and moral principles and their own guidelines of promises to their patients. there are reasons why this happens and frankly it is inevitable. first they agree the unborn has no human-rights and can be killed at will any time during pregnancy with the consent of the mother of a history tells us that is an issue strip human beings of all legal rights people will be treated as commodities interviews is inevitable. second they receive substantial incentives to harvest fetal tissue and that will supersede all other considerations. the videos report incidents of babies born in tact and

alive after the induced abortion. because they had a heartbeat and the fetal brain was removed by taking scissors to cut the face open to extract the brain. is prepared practice is true and if the child was alive redial and rivals any of the documented abuses of human persons and medical research throughout history but it goes beyond any individual instance they get less money from the hill tissue procurement that could equal or exceed the costs they charge for the abortion itself. it has caused planned parenthood to change all relevant aspects of the abortion procedure itself. as a physician explained explained, she would meet

with tissue procurement people before the day's schedule to find out what tissue they wanted bin she would target those particular portions that may yield a the fetal tissue that the researchers wanted to purchase. so she made clear she would change the procedure to really to -- to leave it intact only crushing those parts of the fetal body that contained tissue not being sought or trying to extract the baby feet first to encourage the impact delivery. so she starts her days and then spends the rest today trying to fill list. she said if i know what they're looking for i will keep in the back of my mind and try to released keep

that part intact so rather than be on a search and destroy mission now she is on a search and harvest mission for their own profit. these practices violate several and state laws when applicable and moral and ethical principles even from planned parenthood's the guidelines. federal and state law prohibits consideration has been mentioned have never the loophole is to allow reasonable payments for the picture may cost associate with harvesting fetal tissue. however even with this exception the evidence is clear that planned parenthood even if they comply, it creates sufficient financial incentive for substantial

abuse to occur but the evidence also demonstrates that they go beyond this broad exception to negotiate a specimen market price with no regard to price or the cost associated. planned parenthood also readily changes the procedure to gain more fetal tissue to sell that violates federal law for funding of fetal trish tissue transplantation research that has not occurred since 2007. but it violates the promise planned parenthood made to their patients not to change the procedure and that the president has admitted to congress this is exactly what they do. . .

after an induced abortion. either during or after delivery. this law passed in 2,000 is an important purpose. it is not dependent upon the desire of the mother. there is no doubt -- and finally, it is not viability

but being born alive which is a critical legal.-- critical legal point. there is no evidence that abortionists are not taking these legal protection seriously. abortion clinics have financial incentives to encourage and pachinko to have potential live born and fence they could then harvest fetal tissue. live born infants are not killed but that there is see appropriate care. >> thank you. welcome. >> great. i am an associate research scholar in law at yale law school.

i direct the program for the study of reproductive justice. i'm testifying today in my personal capacity and do not purport to represent the institutional views of yale law school. i we will make a few points and obviously am open for questioning. i do not want to repeat the important points that have already been made. i want to.out -- i want to point few things. this is part of a long campaign to discredit my planned parenthood, and attack on the right to abortion. they have been the target of nine similar smear campaigns using hidden video are the recordings full of innuendo. every single time these allegations have been thoroughly evaluated and

debunked. second, a quick comment on the videos. i am reluctant to rely on anything. given thegiven the findings of a team of forensic ends -- forensic experts which found that the tapes have been distorted and misleadingly edited and have no evidentiary value which has been recognized in aa report issued this morning by the house committee on energy and commerce which also found that there is no evidence that planned parenthood or its affiliates have violated federal or state laws after conducting a thorough investigation questioning witnesses and reviewing documents. what i can comment on is the statute as issued. specifically allows those to recoup reasonable reimbursement for cost.

these were adopted with broad bipartisan support and planned parenthood of official specifically state and numerous statements that were edited out of the videos put on the web that they are only seeking reimbursement costs and do not make profit from fetal tissue donation. there is simply nothing that indicates a violation of the fetal tissue. there are also allegations that these misleadingly edited videotapes provide probable cause to believe

planned parenthood violates the partial-birth abortion ban act. upholding the law for my objections and held that the law narrowly interpreted to apply in situations to which intact this is completely irrelevant. allegations are based on repeated statements of the word intact in an ominous manner being repeated by interviewees and interviewers line order style in the video. nor is it required to establish a violation of the act. all thatall that matters in the statute is whether at the outset of the procedure they have the intent to do two things, vaginally deliver a living fetus and then perform a step to cause

fetal demise. the reason it was limited is because interpreting it more broadly would have applied to many abortion procedures. i am not surprised that there is confusion because it was' deceptively campaigned for in this congress into this congress, and people are convinced they had something to do with banning late-term post- viability abortions to which it does not apply whatsoever. they perform procedures and away outlawed. also, there are a number of questions that have been raised generally. when similar issues were raised during the reagan administration there was a research panel convened. those on both sides, the

panel was chaired by a former judge was himself antiabortion, and a decisive majority of the panel found fetal tissue was desirable because it held great medical promise. in fact, it has done so in many medical advances have come from the research. my time is almost up, so i want to skip to what i think is the horrifying thing about this hearing. the horrifying thing is to mismatch the allegations and concerns here about abortion, fetal tissue research, and what is being considered, defunding planned parenthood not abortion related services. as judge kavanagh of the dc circuit explained recently in his dissent providing

seamless access to contraceptives which is a large portion of what planned parenthood does reduces the number of unintended pregnancies, furthering women's health, advancing the personal and protective opportunities. and helps break the cycle of poverty. the horrible irony is that defunding planned parenthood would increase the number of unintended pregnancies and drastically, i fear, increase the number of abortions necessary. thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you for your time. this is the number of

abortions that planned parenthood's to the 14 fiscal report lists is being completed that you. based upon these numbers 897 children will lose electron abortion completed by planned parenthood each and every day. why do i find this or if it? i have a lot in common with them. i was meant to be one of them. i should have been just another statistic, but i am more than that. i come here to you today is a wife, mother, daughter, sister, masters level prepared social worker and an abortion survivor. from a botched abortion to the dreaded complications, a child who lived, i have called just about everything you can imagine. if you want to turn your attention to the screen, and my medical records right there in the middle saline infusion for an abortion was done unsuccessful.

and in other times you will read statements like the complication of my birth mother's pregnancy was a saline infusion abortion. you can certainly say that saline infusion complicated the pregnancy. it has taken years to unravel the secrets surrounding my survival, to have contact with my biological fact and medical professionals the for me. my life was intended to be ended by that abortion. you would not know it by looking at me today, but in august of 1977 i survived a saline infusion abortion. that saline infusion abortion involve the toxic salt solution in the amniotic fluid. the intent is to us called

the child to death from the outside in. on the 5th day of the procedure my biological mother, 19-year-old college student delivered me after her labor was induced. i should have been delivered dead. in 2013 i learned through contact with my biological mother's family that not only was this forced upon her against her will but that it was my grandmother, my maternal grandmother a nurse who delivered me in this final step of the abortion procedure in sioux city, iowa. unfortunately, i like my grandmother realized the abortion have not succeeded, she demanded that i be left to die. i may never know how exactly to nurses on staff that they found out, but what i know is, their willingness to

fight for medical care to be provided ultimately sustained my life, and, and i know where children like me were left to die. i met a nurse there who delivered a child much like me in 1976, delivered a little boy after a failed infusion abortion, but followed her superiors orders in place they're in the utility closet and a bucket of from aldehyde to be picked up later as medical waste. a bucket of from aldehyde in the utility closet. ii wait a little less than 3 po, suffered from jaundice, severe respiratory problems and seizures command one of the 1st notations in my medical record is that ii looked like i was about 31 weeks gestational age when delivered. despite the miracle of my survivor the prognosis was

poor. i would suffer from multiple disability throughout my life, yet here i am today perfectly healthy, yet i no it is not just how abortion ends the life of children like me but not discussed what happens to children like me who live. we are your friends, neighbors, coworkers, and you would likely never guess by passing is on the street that we survival we did. in my work as a founder had contact with 203 survivors, letters have been submitted to the committee and i am here to share my story to not only highlight the horror of abortion taking place but to give a voice to other survivors and most

importantly to give a name, face, and voice to the hundreds of thousands of children will have their lives ended this year alone. as you consider the horrors of what happened, i urge you to remember my story. we may not have survived abortions, but the expectation being ended by abortion is the same as those who do, and, and i have long believed if my birth mother's abortion would have taken place, i would not be here today. completing over 300,000 completing over 300,000 abortions per year provides them with the experience to make sure failures like me to not exist. as a fellow american and human being i deserve the same right to life as each and every one of you, we live in a time were not only to such protection does not exist but my own tax dollars and yours go to fund an

organization that has perfected the very thing that was meant to and my life. >> we will begin the questioning. we will here a lot today about efforts to sanitize the discussion of what takes place with regard to late-term abortions with were the subject of the videos that have been made public, but i would like to read your statement and another statement offered by the center for reproductive rights and get your reaction to that. describes an abortion saying i'm not going to crush that part. i'm going to crush below, crush above.

planned parenthood issued an apology for the town, but a markedly more clinical tone is used in a lawsuit brought by the center for reproductive rights against a kansas law prohibiting dismemberment abortions. cr states, starting around 15 weeks physicians performing abortions may use forceps for other investments through move the product of inception from the uterus, usually decide to chelation occurs elation or evacuation. someone who has survived an abortion, tell us how these

watching him eat a salad and drink wine discussing so casually the dismemberment of children. i will never forget that. i find it appalling that we are having to conduct such a hearing in the united states of america the child was born alive in the toilet

while the mothers fought anxiously for someone to help her baby but no one would help command the baby died. are you aware of other evidence that some survivors are not rescued? >> in the example was one of those. alive born infant was born in an abortion clinic. what happened was the baby was put in them medical waste back to die rather than providing care or treatment. there have been a number of criminal and other actions taken in that instance, but the people involved at the clinic were not charged with the specific death of the child that they clearly caused.

there have been other instances when of course he was killing born infants or partially born infants using scissors overof the first amendment to the back of the neck of the child. you do not do that if the baby is dead. we don't know that was while the baby was still in the womb partially all was in fact outside the home. >> justice kennedy dissented from the decision from the partial abortion ban. >> a different version. >> that's right. the testimony provided about

the alternative method or dismemberment procedure, the fetus can be alive at the beginning of the process and can survive for a time while his limbs are being torn off. let's say an arm or leg and move it, just prior to removal the fetus is alive. he has observed the fetal heartbeat that does not always cause death because he knows the physician who removed the arm only to have the fetus to want to be born is living child with one arm at the conclusion of an abortion now intact fetus remains. left with a tray full of pieces.

justice kennedy said, the fetus in many cases died as a human adult or child would plates to death as it is torn limb from limb. dodo you believe this practice represents a humane way to die? >> let me separate something that is getting confused in this hearing again and again , procedures performed on pre- viable fetuses and this one nonviable fetuses. both of the women on this panel i here because they were viable at the time the procedures were performed. what you are talking about is pre- viability procedures performed on the fetus that cannot survive. >> maybe, maybe not. talking about a child is born alive with one arm. my question to you is, is this a humane way to die?

>> i believe yes, it is a humane procedure hypertext the woman and her health and safety more than any other procedure. >> i'm going to reclaim my time. your view of humanity and minor different. i will ask quickly, do you support because you have already answered this question, the abortion act that has passed the house of representatives. >> yes. it is necessary for a number of reasons. >> would prevent many instances i just described. >> a void,it would, and could prevent some of the instances because we do not know for sure the gestational length of a child, but it could have

prevented some of them. >> i am speechless with the reply that she thinks it is a humane way to die. >> yes, i support the pain capable act. i want abortion to be unthinkable in our country, to not even have to have a conversation about another act. >> thank you. i agree. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i think all of the witnesses for being here today. but i want to direct my discussion with ms. smith. you note in your written testimony section 289 g to a

prohibits the transfer of any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration, but that the videos do not explain that the law specifies that valuable consideration does not include reasonable payment for reimbursing cost. would an individual watching these videos have any idea that the law excludes the reimbursement of reasonable cost? >> i think that they would not and are deceptive in that regard so that they juxtapose discussions of money with the text of the ban on valuable consideration. it makes itit makes it appear that the money being discussed is a valuable consideration. there is no mention of reasonable payment provision and the allowance for

reimbursement of reasonable reimbursement for reasonable expenses which is terribly deceptive in the video. >> a very perceptive response. what are some of the examples of reasonable reimbursement costs? >> those are the things that would be appropriate. >> fetal tissue research as provided in numeral medical benefits save lives, could you please explain what these medical benefits have been? >> andin addition to the early polio vaccine in the 1930s, that was the result

of fetal tissue research. more recent examples of the department has called fetal tissue research vital to the improvements being made in some important areas such as retinal degeneration parkinson's, als, infectious diseases, autism, schizophrenia, there are many areas in which it has proven important and we are seeing lives being saved because of it and lives improved because of knew treatments. >> could you explain please, ms. smith, ramifications for women if they are access to abortion services is further restricted were ultimately denied?

>> one of the things that we are seeing recently is a new wave of attack on abortion access in particular. a number -- an unprecedented number of restrictions have been enacted by state legislatures which have been designed and have resulted in the closure of many clinics throughout the country. texas in particular has seen the number of clinics close by half. there are states that have only one abortion provider. in those states women are simply unable to get abortions. they cannot travel the distance required. the results of that is women with pregnancies that they do not wish to carry to term some of them will suffer

health impacts, some of them their lives will be endangered, and they will get sick, but abortion is important because as the supreme court has recognized it protects the ability of women to exercise freely. abortion preserves a woman's autonomy to determine her life course and to enjoy equal citizenship stature which is why i believe the supreme court got it right. the interests of the woman and her life and health and her autonomy and decided that abortion after viability must be preserved. after viability it can be banned. one interesting note is germany.

course recognized the right of the fetus to life. at the same time they recognize the woman carries the life and her uterus and carries it through, gestated until it is fully developed, the woman has a greater right in this abortions are illegal in germany. >> i want to thank you for your response to my questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. i want to make available for the record the following letters mother abortion providers -- i'm sorry, letters mother abortion survivors in a letter submitted to the american record by americans for life. and i want to clarify

something that myth smith said about the energy commerce committee. a report of the minority of the committee by no means reflective of the work of the majority of the energy and commerce committee. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> may i please introduce into the record the planned parenthood statement as well as the leadership conference on civil and human rights? >> without objection. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. you had a great deal of experience. could you please give the committee your definition of what constitutes infanticide