i think this is a worthy an important discussion. this came about after the government missed the key opportunity to backup and potentially recover information from the device by resetting the iphone password the days following the shooting. the congress has appropriated just shy of $9 billion for the fbi. 's now, of that 9 billion, how those dollars are spread across the agency, how is it that the fbi did not know what to do? how can that be? >> if i may, in the aftermath of san bernardino we are looking for any way to identify. >> did you ask apple? would you call apple right away and say, we have this

in our possession. this is what we need to get. how can we do it because we don't know how. >> we did have discussions with apple. >> after it was essentially destroyed? 's. >> am not sure. i'll have to take that for the record. >> i would like to know, i serve from austin decade on the house intelligence committee and during my tenure michael hayden was cia director. now former director of the cia, unbreakable and send encryption. tell me what your responses to that. 's cybercrime, i might add.

embedded if i might use that word. former director of the cia. 's. >> what i have read and heard, he certainly i believe emphasizes and capturescaptures what was occurring at the time it was in charge of those agencies. his thinking has stopped, and he does not understand encryption a longer. 's technology at such a rapid pace. >> let me ask you about this. once criminals note american encryption products comeau

what we will stop them from using encrypted products and applications the fall outside of the jurisdiction of american law enforcement? if the stops in our border's that does include others. law enforcement. >> yes men. >> some kind of natural body.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. the full committee is asked to supplement their questions. >> second panel uses able. thank you. 's. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] 's. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. let's start the 2nd panel. i would like to introduce the witnesses, 2nd panel for today's hearing. senior vice president of legal and global security. it's all legal matters including governance, security of property. alec forward to his comments. i would also like to welcome an american computer network security company next we

welcome doctor matthew blaze doctor blaze is a researcher in the area of security systems. we appreciate his being here and offering testimony on this important issue. finally i like to introduce doctor daniel wisner director principal research scientist the computer science and artificial intelligence laboratory. the centralized information group at the massachusetts institute of technology. technology. previously served the united states deputy chief technological officer in the white house. we thank you for being here with us today. 's i thank youthank you for being here and look forward to the discussion.

>> you are aware this committee is holding an investigative hearing and doing so with the practice of taking testimony under oath. to any of you have objection to testify under oath? seeing none, thenone, the chair that advises you under the rules of the housing committee you're entitled to be advised by counsel. did any of you desire to be represented or advised by counsel during a testimony today? seeing none, in that case if you would please rise and raise your right hand i will spare you in. >> to use with a testimony you are about to give is the truth kemal truth, and nothing but the truth. 's in our five-minute summary.

starting with mr. stool. >> better. great. thank you. we appreciate the opportunity to be part of the discussion. some of you might have a smart phone in your pocket right now. 's photo album, a wallet. the command central. many people use this might want to authenticate and gain access.

we feel a great deal of responsibility. for all these reasons digital devices are increasingly and persistently under siege from attackers. attacks from more sophisticated every day. 's we are aware of some of the recent large-scale attacks. hundreds of thousands hundreds of thousands of social security numbers were stolen from the irs. the us office of personnel management has had as many as 21 million records compromised in as many as 78 million affected by an attack methods sell insurance records. 's the best way to protect your information is to the use of strong encryption. strong encryption is a good and necessary thing, and the

government agrees, encryption is the backbone of our cyber security infrastructure. the united states has spent tens of millions of dollars to fund strong encryption. the administration's review group urged the us government's cannot subvert undermine, or we can. with every release of hardware and software we address the safety, security, and data protection features and work hard's to assist law enforcement because we share their goal of creating a safer world managing a team of dedicated professionals on call 24 hours a day 365 days a year. not a day goes by where someone is not working with law enforcement. we know from our interaction

the information we're providing is extremely useful in helping to solve crimes. keep in mind, the people subject to law enforcement inquiries represent far less than one 10th of 1 percent of our hundreds of millions of users. but all of those users, 100 percent of them, would be made more vulnerable if we were forced to build a backdoor. our colleagues have the perception that encryption holds off information from them, but technologists and national security expert still see the world that way. we see a data rich world that is full of information that law enforcement can use to solve and prevent crimes. this difference in perspective, this is where we should be focused. to suggest the american people must choose between privacy and security is to present a false choice.

the issue is not about privacy at the expense of security of maximizing safety and security. we feel strongly that americans would better off its. that is where i was going to conclude my comments. we have not provided source code to the chinese government. we did not have the key 19 months ago, have not announced we will pipe -- apply pascoe encryption to the next generation of icloud. 's want to be very clear on that because we heard allegations, and they have no merit. thank you. >> and we turn now to the 2nd panelist. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on data encryption.

this is a complex and nuanced issue and i applaud your efforts to better understand all aspects. 's -- i am president of the security division of rsa. i assure you, she is much tougher than she looks. i have spent over 20 years and cyber security and strive to ensure they apply industry-leading cyber security solutions. a cyber security industry leader from 130 years. more than 30,000 and we represent every sector of the economy. fundamental to the understanding is encryption and the basis for cyber security technology. products are found in government agencies, utilities, retailers as well as hospitals and schools. we believe in the power of digital technology's men at

the pervasiveness of our technology. let me take a moment's. i commend the men and women of law enforcement who dedicate their lives to serving justice. private industry has long partnered to advance and protect. many companies is it is in our best interest for loss to be enforced. 's this is no place for rushed decisions. the line is as delicate to national security is it is.

second, law enforcement has access to a lot of valuable information needed to do their job. 's i encourage you to ensure the resources are available to keep up with the evolution of technology. 's 3rd, strong encryption is foundational to get cyber security. as you know recent and heinous terrorist attacks reinvigorate calls for access mechanisms. exceptional access increases complexity and introduces new vulnerabilities undermining the integrity that introduces more risk, not less.

putting a backdoor and encryption is creating opportunity for more people. they would not knowingly use something accessible part law enforcement. any perceived gains to security is greatly overestimated. 's this is a principle of economics. make the information less secure. manufacturers exceptional access and then so ii like

to thank the members of the committee for their dedication. 's. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee the encryption issue's come as you know, i have been involved for over two decades now. it has been characterized as a question of whether we can build systems and keep the good guys and bad guys out.

much of the debate's is focused on questions of whether we can trust the government, but's before we can ask that question and talk about that issue, there is an underlying technical question of whether we can get a system that does that. and unfortunately we simply do not know how to do that safely and securely at any scale and in general across the wide range of systems that exist today. it would be wonderful if we could. if we could build systems that would solve some many of the problems of computer security and systems that have been with us since the beginning.

unfortunately, many of the problems are deeply fundamental. the state of computer and network security today can really only be characterized 's as a matter of prices. we hear about large-scale data breaches, compromises, personal information, financial information, and national security information literally on a daily basis today, and as systems become more interconnected's and relied upon, the functional fabric of our society in critical infrastructure, the frequency of the breaches and their consequences have been increasing. if computer science had a

good solution for making large-scale robust software we would be deploying it enormous enthusiasm today. but we are fighting a battle against complexity and scale that we are barely able to keep up with. i wish my field had simpler and better solutions to offer, but it simply does not. 's we have only two good tools, tried-and-truetools, tried-and-true tools that work for building reliable, but robust systems. build the systems to be as simple as possible, include us few functions as possible unfortunately we want more complex which becomes harder

and harder to do. the 2nd is photography which allows us to trust fewer components and manage the inevitable insecurity that we have. unfortunately proposals, exceptional access methods have been advocated by members of the panel and work against the only two tools that we have for building more robust systems command we need all the help we can get to secure our national infrastructure across the board. there is overwhelming consensus in the technical community that these requirements are incompatible with good security engineering practice. i can refer you to a paper i collaborated on.

this drives the expenses of the technical community pretty well here. it is unfortunate this debate has been so focused on this narrow and potentially dangerous solution of mandates are backdoors and exceptional access because it seems unexplored potentially viable to making quite fruitful's. one of -- there is no single magic bullet that will solve problems here or anywhere, but a sustained and committed understanding of things like the exportation of data in the cloud, data available in the hands of 3rd parties requiring significant resources that

has the potential to address many of the problems, and we owe it to them to explore them as fully as possible. >> thank you, vice chairman. chairman murphy, ranking member, this comes at an important time. commented the real needs of law enforcement and digital age. i don't think there's any sense that law enforcement is exaggerating or overstating. we think about the introduction. throws everyone through loop they should not expect this problem to be solved overnight.

a growing consensus i think we can move forward because back to the safety deposit box analogy we heard. it is reasonable. but the problem here is that we are all using the same safe. so for make the safe deposit boxes a little too easy to trail into when everyone is at risk, not just a couple thousand. that's why you see them rejecting the idea of mandatory backdoors. i don't think it's

realistic. they said in a talk he delivered last month, mandatory backdoors are not the solution. encryption should not be weakened, let alone band. 's when not in favor of banning encryption. and the vice president of the european commission, prime minister of estonia is in favor of digitizing almost the entire country. people no that there are backdoors have the people vote and trust the results of the election. two very quick steps plan than a few suggestions about how to approach a challenge you face.

i think you have heard us say we have to avoid introducing new vulnerabilities into the already quite vulnerable infrastructure. i think we understand that is simply not possible. you have heard reference, calls to address the difficult question by simply extending. but if you look closely it shows just how hard it will be to solve the problem. targeted to atargeted to a small group of telecommunications companies that provided the same product of regulated in a stable way. the internet and mobile apps and devices the street is incredibly diverse and there is no single regulatory agency that governs the

services and products. that is very much by design. 's trying to impose a top-down regulatory solution simply won't work. but we need to do going forward, and the efforts of the encryption work i think it is important to look closely at the specific situations that law enforcement faces which have been successfully satisfied in which haven't. introducing systemwide vulnerabilities. there isthere is a lot to be learned, both law enforcement and technology companies. there are some i could up their game a little bit. ..

both in the context of government surveillance and private sector use that we will move forward with this issue more constructively. thanks very much. >> thank you very much for your testimony. if i might recognize myself for the first five minutes with some questions. you made quite a point that you have not provided the source code to china. that was interesting. it had come up in our from the earlier panel. were you ever asked to provide

by anyone? >> by the chinese government or by anyone speak with yes. >> we have been asked by the chinese government. we refused. >> how reason were you asked? >> within the past two years. >> okay. mr. yoran, i've got a couple of questions. first i was taken back, you said don't rush on the solution. as i said, it has been five and a half years i've been hearing everyone talk about and not getting anything done. i think we are, i don't know what we are waiting for. there's got to be a solution. on just one of three licensed engineers in congress have by now we would have the solution to it it through more engineersd must attorneys here perhaps. but if i might, your question, i understand your company was founded by the original creators of critical algorithm and the public topography. needless to say encryption is

your companies dna. if anyone understands the important protecting encryption keys, it's your company. yet there are several years ago someone stole your peace. these are the keys that generate keys that are used for remote access, much like those used by members and their staff. if a company like yours this is a scared as it is an with all the security you have to lose control of encryption keys, how could we have confidence in others, especially smaller companies, the ability to do the same? >> mr. chairman, i think you bring up to great point. the first state that i would make is that i would like to highlight the fact tremendous amount of cooperation have been screwed between law enforcement and the tech community. characterization we've made no progress over the past five years understate the level of effort put forth by the tech community to reply to and

support the efforts of law enforcement. i think what's occurring, and i won't call it a line in the sand, but i think the current requests of law enforcement have now gotten to the point where they are requesting a mandate that are products the less secure and have a tremendous and profound negative impact on our society and public safety as has already been made the point earlier. the second point regarding -- that highlights the very critical role that encryption plays in the entire cybersecurity puzzle or the fact that sophisticated threat actors, nation state or cybercriminals are going to target the supply chain, and where strong encryption and strong subsidy capabilities come from. we are dealing with an incredibly sophisticated

adversary and one that would put forth a tremendous effort to find any backdoors if they were embedded in our security systems. it highlights the value of encryption to society in general and i think it also highlights the importance of transparency around cyber breaches in cybersecurity issues. >> thank you. in the first testimony, first they'll, stay with you, mr. yoran come and talk a little bit about the security of our infrastructure. and i think the response was along the lines of it's not at encryption process. it's a firewall problem. i'm not sure that the american public understand the difference between that. i'm going to go back, how comfortable should we be or can we be that we have proper protection on our security firms like yours that are energy our

transportation system, particularly our grid? as i said we had been, we're subject to it. we know we have been attacked once. so what more should we be doing? >> mr. chairman, i think the point made by, or the response provided by the earliest panel was over i think encryption plays an incredibly important protecting critical infrastructure. this is a firewall solution or this is an encryption solution. most organizations that truly understand cybersecurity have a diverse set of products, applications, and many layers of defenses, believe it adversaries are going to get in through firewalls. not only adversaries but important openings are created in firewalls so that the appropriate parties can communicate through them as well. those paths are frequently leveraged by adversaries to do

nefarious things. >> are you acknowledging we still are very vulnerable to someone shutting down our electric grid? >> i think we are extremely global in infrastructure that leverages technology. how much of it is the entire grid, how much is localized, ma i believe utilities are exposed. >> let me in closin closing to r a few, a few dozen suggestions how we might be able to address this, i'm hearing time and time in the district with a great system, i would like to back from you what we might do that. with that, yield the next question from the ranking member from colorado, ms. degette. >> thank you so much. following up on the last question, i'd like to stipulate him that i believe as most members of this panel believe that strong encryption is really article ii our national security and everything else. but as i said in my opening statement, i also recognize that

we need to try to give law enforcement the ability to apprehend criminals when criminals are utilizing this technology to be able to commit the crimes and to cover up after the crimes. first of all, mr. sewell, i believe you testified that your company works with law enforcement now, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> thanks. and i think that you also acknowledge that while encryption really does provide benefit both for consumers and for society for security and privacy, we also need to address this thorny issue about how we deal with criminals and terrorists who are using encrypted devices and technologies, is that correct? >> i think this is a very real problem. let me start by saying that the conversation we're engaged in now i think has become something of a conflict, apple versus the

fbi -- >> right. and you don't agree with that, i would hope. >> i absolutely do not. >> mr. yoran company don't agree with that, that it is technology versus law enforcement, do you? yes or no will work. >> no, i don't agree. >> i'm assuming that you, dr. blaze -- >> no. >> that's good. so i just come here's another question. i asked the last panel that, do you think it's a good idea for the fbi and other law enforcement agencies to have to go to third party hackers to get access to data for which they have court orders to get? >> i don't think that's a good idea. >> do you think so, mr. yoran? >> no. >> dr. blaze? >> no. if i could just clarify. the fact that the fbi had to go to a third party indicates that the fbi either had or devoted

insufficient resources to finding a solution. >> right. and they couldn't do it on their own. i'm going to get to that in a second. so it's really just not a good model. so here's my question. mr. yoran, do you think that the government should enhance its own capabilities to penetrate encrypted systems and pursue work around when legally entitled to information they cannot attain either from the user directly or service providers? do you think that they should develop that? >> yes. >> do you think have the ability? >> yes. >> professor kempton do you think they have the ability? >> it requires enormous resources and with the resources they currently have i think it's likely they don't have the ability. >> what congress has come we may not be internet experts but we have resources. >> i think this is a soluble problem. >> mr. weitzner?

>> i think they certainly should have the resources. i think really the key question is whether they have the personnel and i think it will take some time to build up a set of -- >> i understand it will take time but do you think they can develop those resources speak what i think so, absolutely. >> so mr. yoran, i want to ask you another question. do you think that all of us supporting the development of increased capability within the conflict can be every suitable path forward, as opposed to either relying on third parties or making companies write new software? >> yes. >> do you think that's a better approach? okay. mr. sewell, you agree with that, to? >> i agree we are to spend more time, money, resources on fbi and local law enforcement. >> would apple be willing to help in? >> we do participate in helping to. >> so your answer would be yes. >> we would participate in

training. >> antraining. >> and helping them develop those new capabilities? >> what we can do to help them understand our ecosystem. that's what i do on a daily basis. basis. >> right. i'm not trying to trick you. so i guess, i guess in your answer would be yes, you are willing to help us in conjunction with law enforcement and congress to solve this problem, is that correct, mr. silvers? >> i want to solve the problem just like everyone else. >> are you willing to work with us to do it come yes or no? >> we work with them every day. of course we are. >> thank you. mr. yoran? >> yes. >> dr. blaze? >> absolutely. >> mr. weitzner? >> yes. >> thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. that recognize mr. griffith from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i greatly appreciate that. my background, just a small college history major who then

went into law. and as a part of that, mr. sewell, i would have to ask would you agree with me that it took in the history of mankind, it took us thousands of years to come up with the concept of civil liberties and then perhaps five and half years isn't such a long time to try to find a solution to this current issue? and likewise the answer was in the affirmative for those who may not have heard that. >> yes. >> and it was lawyers who created the concept of individual liberty and want our country has been proud to be the leader in the world in promoting the without also be to? >> that's very true come yes. >> i was pleased to hear intentions to ms. degette that all if you're willing to solve this problem because there is no easy answer. i like the safety deposit box analogy. mr. weitzner, thank you for ruining that for me come in your analysis. but i would ask mr. sewell if

there isn't some way, and again i can do what you all do so have to supply it to my terms. is there some way that we can create the vault at the banks have with the safety deposit box in it? once you're inside, if you want about security, because not everybody has a safety deposit box but if you want that security, that been there's a system of a dual but separate key with companies like yours or others holding one of the two keys and then the individual holding the other key, and then having the ability with a proper search warrant, have law-enforcement be able to get in? i'm trying to break it down into a concept i can understand, where i can then apply what we have determined over the course of the last several hundred years as the appropriate way to get at information. it's difficult in this electronic age. age. >> it is very difficult i agree.

we haven't figured out a way that we can create an access point and then create a set of locks that are reliable to protect access to the access point. that's what we struggle with. we can create an access point and we can create locks, but the problem is that the keys to that lot will ultimately be a table somewhere. if they are available anywhere, they can be accessed by both good guys and bad guys. >> you would agree with mr. weitzner's position or his analysis which i thought was accurate as of the problem is we are not giving a key and they drew 21 safety deposit box. it's everybody in the bank who suddenly would have the information then open. i saw that you want to make a comment. >> i just wanted, since this analogy seems to be working, we don't put much stock in our safe deposit boxes, right? i actually don't have one to be

honest. and i think that there's this core concern, back to your civil liberties framework, that somehow we have a warrant freezer let's go to take over the world. i think that -- free zone. if you follow the safety deposit box analogy, what we know is that the information that's important law enforcement exists in many places. and i don't question that there will be sometimes of law enforcement can't get some piece of information it wants. i think what you're hearing from a number of us and from the technical community is that this information is very widely distributed and much of it is accessible in one way or the other or convertible from information that is produced by other third parties. i think part of the path forward is to understand how to exploit that to the best extent possible in investigations so that we are not all focus on the hardest part of the problem. where the hardest part is what

do you do if you very strongly encrypted data, can you ever get it? it may not be the best place to look all the time because it may not always be available. >> historically you were never able to get hold of everything. dr. blaze, you wanted to win. >> the split key design as attractive as it sounds was also at the core of the nsa decide clipper chip which was where we started over two decades ago. >> i appreciate that. mr. yoran, i did think it testimony and written test plan in particular was enlightening in regard to the fact that if we do a shutdown of u.s. companies, then there may even be safe havens created by this compass that are not our friends and are specifically our enemies. unfortunately, i want to ask a series of questions on that but i see my time has expired and so i'm required to yield back, mr. chairman. >> welcome, looking at other

panel members, we have his books in indiana. your five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to start out with a comment that was made on the first to advocate his basis to mr. sewell, whether that you can share with us, does apple plan to use encryption in the cloud? >> we've made no such announcement. i'm not sure where that statement come from the we made no such announcement. >> i understand you have made so -- you have made no such announcement but is that being export? >> i think would be irresponsible for me to come in and tell you where not even look at that but we have made no announcement. no decision has been made. >> are these discussions helping to form apples decisions and is apple communicate with any law enforcement about the possibility speak with these discussions are enormously helpful. i would be going to go further into the. i've learned something today that i didn't know before.

we are considering, talking to people, being very mindful of the environment in which we are operating. >> i have certainly seen and i know that apple and many companies have a whole set of policies and procedures on compliance with legal processes and so forth. and so i assume that you have regular conversations with policymakers, law enforcement, where the fbi or other agencies on his policy issues, correct? >> that's very true. i interact with law enforcement at two different levels. one is a very operational level. my team supports daily activities it response to lawful process. we work closely on actual investigations. i can make in at least two where we have recently found children who have been abducted. we have been able to save lives working directly with our colleagues in law enforcement. so at that level we have a very good relationship and that gets lost in the debate sometimes. at the other side i work at

perhaps a developer i worked directly with my counterpart at the fbi. i work correctly with the most senior people in the department of justice and to work with senior people in local on fourth and on exactly this policy issues. >> i thank you and all the others will cooperate with law enforcement working on these issues but it seems most recently there've not been enough of the discussions, hence that's why we're having to sit at why we to continue to have these hearings but i think that we have to continue to have a dialogue on the policy while continuing to work on the actual cases and recognize that obviously technology companies have been tremendously helpful and we need them to be tremendously helpful in solving crimes and in preventing future crimes. it's not just solving crimes already perpetrated but it's always particularly with respect to terrorism how do we ensure we're keeping the country safe. i'm curious with respect to a

couple of questions with respect to legal hacking. and the types of costs that are associated with legal hacking as well as the personnel needed. and since the newer designs of iphones prevent the bypassing of the built-in encryption, does apple believe that awful acting as an appropriate method for investigators to use to assess the evidence in investigations? >> i don't think we have a firm position on the. i think there are questions that would have to be answered with respect to what the outcome of the lawful hacking is, what happens to the product of the lawful hacking. i don't have a formal corporate decision on that. >> because that has been promoted, so to speak, as far as a way around this difficult issue, are you having those policy discussions about apples view and the technology sector

do on lawful hacking? are those discussions happening with law enforcement? >> i think this is a very nascent area but particularly the question is what happens to the result. does it get this close or not? that i think is an issue that has not been well explored. >> mr. yoran, do you have an opinion on lawful hacking? >> not on lawful hacking into specific but i point out doing encryption properly is very, very hard. trying to keep information secret envy incredibly interconnected world we live in is very, very hard. and i would suggest that it is getting harder, not easy. easier. so the information, the data that law enforcement has access to, is certainly much more than the metadata that they've had over the past several years. but now as applications go into the cloud, those providers need to access the data. the sensitive information is not just on your iphone or other

device. it's sitting in the cloud and law enforcement has access because it cannot be encrypted. it needs to be accessed by the cloud provider in order to do the sophisticated processing and power pashtun and provide the insight. >> my time is expired. >> thank you. i see no of the members of the subcommittee that are with us, we condemn -- >> mr. chairman? >> i'm sorry. you're on the subcommittee speak was no. >> we are going, not on the subcommittee so now we're going to members who have been given privilege to speak. i was advised i was to go to the other side, like a ping pong game, ms. eshoo, your five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all to mr. yoran. i love your suit and tie. [laughter] it brings a little of the flavor of my district into this big old

hearing room, and warm welcome to your mother. i don't know where she is but it's great to have your mother here. great, wonderful. i know that associate professor blaise talked about the crisis of the vulnerability in our country relative to how our system, how foldable our systems or. i would just like to add for the record that up to 90% of the breaches in our system in our country are due to two major factors. one is systems that are less than hygiene, unhygienic systems. number two, very poor security management. i think the congress should come up with a least a floor relative to standards. and, so that we can move the word crisis away from this but

we really can do something about that. i know it costs money to keep systems up, and there are some that don't invest in it. but that can be addressed. the word conversation has been used and i think very appropriately. this is a very healthy hearing. unfortunately, the first thing the american people heard was a very powerful federal agency on, you know, within moments of the tragedy in san bernardino, demand of a private company that they must do this, otherwise we will be for ever pitted against one another, and there is the other resolution except what i call a swinging door that people can go in and out of. what i see people, in this case

it's the government. the american people have a healthy suspicion of big brother. they also have a healthy suspicion of big corporations. they just do. it's in our dna and i don't think that's an unhealthy thing. but that first snapshot, i think, we need to move to the next set of pictures on this. and i'm heartened that the panel seems to be unanimous that this weakening of our overall system by having a backdoor, by having a swinging door is not the way to go. so in going past that, i would like to ask mr. sewell the following. whether introducing a third party access, and that's been talked about, i think that would fundamentally weaken our

security. how does third party access impact security? how likely do you think it is that law enforcement could design a system to address encrypted data that would not carry with it the unanticipated weaknesses of its own? i'm worried about law enforcement in this. i want to put this on the record as well. i think that this is something that the fbi didn't know what it was doing when he got a hold of that phone, and that's not good for us. it's not going to attract smart, young people to come into a federal agency because what it says to them is they don't know, it doesn't seem to us they know what they're doing. so can you address this third party access and what kind of effect it would have on over all security? >> thank you very much for the question. a few of our third party access, you have to give the third party

a portal in which to exercise that access. this is fundamentally a definition of a backdoor, or a swinging door as you i think very aptly described it. there is no way that we know of to create that vulnerability, she created the access point. and more particularly, to maintain a. this was the issue in san bernardino, was not just give us an access point, but maintained that access point in perpetuity so we can get him over and over and over again. that for us, we have no way of doing that without undermining and endangering the entire encryption infrastructure. we believe that strong ubiquitous encryption is the best way that we can maintain the safety, security and privacy of all of our users. so that with a fundamental problem. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman for your legislative courtesy again and thank you to the witnesses. you have been i think most helpful. >> thanking the witnesses.

i apologize i do run out for a while but ask a few questions year. mr. sewell, we can all understand the benefits of strong encryption, whether it's keeping someone's own bank statement, financial records encrypted so we don't have to worry about hackers. we also heard compelling testimony about law enforcement, criminal activity, child predators, homicide, et cetera. based on your experience what we heard today, can you acknowledge that this default encryption does present a challenge for law enforcement? >> i think it actually does and i would not suggest for a moment that law enforcement is overstating this, this inkling that has been made by other panelists. i think the problem is that there's a fundamental disconnect between the way we see the world and the way law enforcement sees the world and that's what think we ought to be focusing. >> wishes of that disconnect?

>> that disconnect has to do with evolution of technology in society. and the impact of that. what you inferred from our colleagues in law enforcement is that the context in which encryption occurs reduces the scope of useful data that they have access to. is going dark problem. but if you talk to technologists we see the world in a different way. we see the impact of technology is actually a burgeoning information do we see there's an abundance of information, and this will only increase exponentially as we move into a world where the internet of things becomes part of our reality. so you on one side we are going dark, and you're on the other side there's an abundance of inat

that circle needs to be squared and the only way that i think we can that is by cooperating and talking and engaging in the kind of activity that ms. degette was suggesting. we need to work together. >> let me bring this up. i appreciate that but it's a very complete argument but have no idea what you just said. so let me put this into terms we can all talk about. we heard testily from the first panel of child predators who are able to hide behind this invisible cloak of a murder scene or they could have perhaps contradict this. we know when it comes to crimes there are those who just will not commit crimes because they have a good moral compass. we are those who commit them anyways because the olympic we have those who can be deterred because they think they might get caught. when it comes to other issues such as terrorist acts where you can get into a cell phone or something from someone who has committed an act, you know you can find out their plan will and save other lives. so what do you tell a family member who has had their child abuse and assaulted in unspeakable forms? what do you tell them about the burgeoning technology? tell me what comfort we can get someone about the future. ..

we deal with cases where children have been abducted and we work directly with law enforcement to try to solve those crimes. we had a 14-year-old girl abducted by her captor and we worked with the fbi to identify the location where she had been stashed and we were able to get feet on the ground within a matter of hours, find her, rescue her and apprehend. >> that's good and i appreciate that. but i look at this case as it was presented and if there were child predators or if it's a terrorist where we could prevent more harm. >> we are missing the point of technology. the problems we are trying to

solve don't have an easy fix. ia cynic but we need to know tht you are working in a direction. so that when the images move across the internet we can identify them and track them. the work that we do with operational railroad is exactly that, an example of taking technology, taking seats o feete ground law-enforcement techniques and marrying them together in a way that changes. >> and there's people tha the pe encrypted sources by default or intention to hide their data and their intention to but they plan on hurting more. what did he tell the public about the? >> that fundamentally we are working on the problem and we believe that encryption provides the safest -- stomach that means apple will be working on this problem? you are looking at the

commission oversight and we want to work with you and we don't think there is right or wrong absolute. we are all in this together and we need to know about your commitment to. >> i sat opposite my counterpart in the fbi. we don't talk frequently but regularly on a first name basis. i sat opposite him and i said why don't we set aside a day we will send some smart people to washington or you send some people and what we will do is talk about what the world looks like from our perspective. what is this explosion of data thathat we can see and why is io important and you talk about the world that come that combines yr investigators from the moment

they wake up in the morning how do they think about technology and the problems they are trying to solve and we are going to sit together for a day. we were planning that at the time the case was filed and it was puwasput on hold the offersl exists. >> i'm sure the chairman and i would be happy to do that and we have some very lovely conference rooms painted the same color courtesy of the chairman and we will have you there. >> that would be great. >> we have too many lives at stake and the concerns of many this is central. i know i'm out of time but you are recognized for five minutes. >> i wan

>> i want to thank everyone on the panel for your technology leadership that helps keeps us safe because that's where the top priority areas and at least i know many others on the panel. we are here to find a balance between security and privacy and not continue to put themgainst each other. how quickly does one cycle lasts until they are found and exploited lax wealth is continually be a game of cat and mouse or are we at a level now where software and the process is strong enough to make encryption a stable system packs syndicate almost instantaneously once the computer systems and mobile devices are put on the internet. once the methods are published, there is an entire community

that goes to work depending on the strength of the encryption. the vulnerability is made to be discovered immediately or they may be discovered decades down the road in which case all the information may have been at risk while the system was in use infrequently, the exposure and exploitatioexploitation isn't ny based on the strength of the algorithms themselves but on how they are implemented in all the systems are interconnected. i might not have the key to get information off a particular device but because i can break into the system because i have access and i can read the chips and do all sorts of things i can still get information or it's just a very complex system that all has to work perfectly for the information to be protected. >> the next question is for the entire panel. we've known the past few years any significant threats to the

homeland would likely include a cyber attack. would you agree? can you elaborate on the role that it plays in the process of continuing national security at the military has used forms of encryption for decades but can you give us a contemporary snapshot of how encryption used by government or nongovernment protects us against cyber attacks today? >> i will answer the question but i'm not the expert i think the others are more expert than i am in the notion of encryption and protecting the infrastructure. the one thing i will try to say that i emphasized in my opening statement is we shouldn't forget about some of the changes happening in terms of the way that infrastructure can be accessed. i think we sometimes lose sight of the fact phones themselves are being used as authentication devices. if you can break the encryption and get into the phone, that may

be a very easy way to get into the power grid and transport systems so it's not just a question of the firewalls and access but it's the instrumentality that you used to get into those things we also have to be concerned about. i believe fundamentally security is on the same side as privacy in our economic interest. its fundamental in the national security community but it also mandated by law to protect all sorts of other dat data and infrastructures in the systems such as financial services, healthcare records such that even folks who might not gain an advantage by having strong encryption available like the genital i'm sorry to admiral roger is the director of the nsa and the director of national dil intelligence are on the record saying that they believe that it's not in the u.s. best

interest. >> anyone else wish to comment? >> encryption is used and protecting critical infrastructure the way that it's used in protecting other aspects of our society. it protects sensitive data when it is being transmitted and stored including on mobile devices and over the internet and so on. i just want to add that critical infrastructure is largely based and built upon the same components that were using in the consumer and business devices as well. critical infrastructure systems depend on mobile phones and operating systems that you and i are using in our daily life seems so when the wee plainly wr meals a week in the critical infrastructure systems. >> naiad very briefly that i actually thought the answer was pretty good. what's critical about the systems that we rely on to

protect the infrastructure is when we find flaws in them we have to patch them quickly. the systems are constantly being looked at and i am concerned if we end up imposing requirements on the security infrastructure on the encryption tools and if we impose these requirements, the process of identifying with walls and fixing them and putting out new versions rapidly is going to be slowed down to figure out whether those comply with whatever the surveillance requirements are and that is the wrong direction we want to go to to make the tools as adoptive as possible and fixed as quickly as possible not the rules about what they have to do and not do to accommodate the surveillance needs. >> thank you mr. chairman for allowing me to participate. i ask unanimous consent that the

letter be admitted to the record without objection. >> i would ask unanimous consent to there's a letter from april 19 we would like to have. >> i also hav have unanimous cot the binder be entered and authorized staff to make appropriate reductions the documents entered into the record with any reductions the stamps are determined appropriate and in conclusion i want to thank the witnesses and members that participate in the hearing and remind members you have ten business days to submit and i ask the witnesses respond to the questions and thank you so much. and audible conversations [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

earlier today president obama and british prime minister david cameron held a news conference following their meeting in london. here is the president can the pn continued british membership in the european union. >> let me be clear, ultimately this is something the british voters have to decide for themselves, but as part of our special relationship, part of a basis to be honest and let you know what i think and speaking honestly, the outcome of the decision is a matter of deep interest because it affects our

process as well. the united states wants a strong united kingdom as a partner and the united kingdom is at its best when it's helping to lead a strong europe. it leverages the uk power to be part of the european union. as i wrote today, i don't believe that you moderate the british influence in the world, it magnifies it. they help spread the british values and practices across the continent with the single market brings benefits to the united kingdom and that ends up being good for america because we are more prosperous when one of our best friends and closest allies. americans want the influence to grow including within europe. the fact is in today's world of no nation is immune to the

challenges we just discussed and in today's world, solving them requires collective action. all of us cherish our sovereignty but we also recognize we strengthen our security to the prosperity through organizations like the g-7 and the g. 20 and strengthens our prosperity through the eu. it's not the nations that go it alone but the nations that team up to aggregate their power and multiply their influence, and precisely because the values and institutions are so strong and so sound we want to make sure that influence is heard and felt

a bit think about critical issues we have confidence that when the uk is involved in a problem they were hopeful that in the right way and that's why the united states cares about this and for centuries, europe was marked by more violence and the architectures that they helped build provided a foundation for decades of relative peace and prosperity on the continent. what a remarkable legacy. before we walked out i happened to see the enigma on display, and that was a reminder of the

incredible innovation and collaboration of the allies in world war ii and the fact that neither of us could have one that alone and in the same way after world war ii, we build out the international institutions to that yes occasionally constrain us, that we willingly allowed those constraints because we understood that by doing so, we were able to institutionalize the basic values of the rule of law and freedom and democracy that would benefit our citizens as well as people around the world. i think there's a british poets that said no man is an island as

a even beautiful as this. we are struggled together and if we continue to tackle other challenges together, future generations will look back on hours just as we look back on the previous generations of english and american citizens who worked so hard to make this world safer and more secure and prosperous and the entity will t we did our part, and that's important not just here, it's important in the united states as well. >> road to the white house coverage continues as donald trump campaigns in delaware. the state also holding its presidential primary this coming tuesday. live coverage this afternoon at 4 p.m. eastern. ahead of next tuesday's pennsylvania primary, hillary clinton talks to voters in a suburb of scranton pennsylvania.

live coverage starts at 7:30 next president of the political and security developments in the country as somalia works towards planned elections this year president highlights his government strategies for the future of the country. [applause] is it is a pleasure to join you today at the united states institute of peace and i'm honored to share with you some selections and insights into somalia to discuss and talk

about but i will try to be very brief and summarize the most important elements that i would like to share with you as my experience. ladies and gentlemen almost four years ago upon my appointment, i made a pledge on behalf of somalia to pursue three imperative items fro, secure somalia, democratic and progressive and prosperous. somalia agreed to pursue the political transformation by drafting and agreeing on the federal constitutio constitutiog a federal governance and nationwide election by september, 2016. we laid out this ambitious agenda knowing that we face the challenge of trying to postpone somalia which is not an easy matter.

but, we are specifically focused on the specific agenda that we prioritized is the most important element in the post country environment. somalia has been without a function in the state for some time. so in early 2015, we established the ambitious agenda or vision called the vision of 2016 that was outlining how we would move out of the corrupt status of the day to the new status in 2016. we develop the commission with the talks in the country which was an option that has already been agreed establishing federal somalia. the second was revealing the provision of the constitution that was existed and the third

approach was making somalia a democratic state or country. this was the basis for the new somalia that we are envisioning and 2015. that was going to be done in a difficult environment to have the space for doing this exercise was narrow and limited where the people are having more priority to. we move it forward and today, we have federated somalia which i can claim the federal structure has been put in place. those federal units that have been established originally lack

the capacity and enough resources to implement the real federation but they are there. somalia is a territory that is ungoverned for a long time. today we are someone who is responsible in a particular area, someone who's in charge of the territory. can implement the responsibility enough and have the capacity, all this is a question these institutions are in place and today, we have our constitution under review. recently we reviewed the constitution by technical teams.

it consists of chapters that we receive and there are certain chapters that are specific for the country in question which raises specific attention. there are chapters of the constitution that need a lot of consensusbuilding around them and those have been drafted and last time our last meeting of the national leaders discuss it and share the draft with the leaders of the states and ask them to go back home and discuss with other people and next time when we get together we will discuss about the planes. in may 25 to june, the conference has been agreed to take the place where all

different corners of somalia will get together and discuss about the importance o importanf the constitution. the national leaders will agree in the three-day session and then the seven-day session is is the public that will discuss at the national level. then it will be taken back to the cabine cabinet of the federl government and the parliament of the federal government and then the process will wait until the record and takes place. that's where the second which is the review goes up and the third is the democratization of somalia. because of so many reasons today it wasn't possible to make or achieve the goal which was one person one vote for somalia in 2016. the circumstances on the ground doesn't permit that to happen.

the challenge we have this we hd we wait and stay where we are until the next turn or do what we can do right now which was an election model that we agree this for 2016 only? we agree also on the roadmap rok from a 2016 to 2020 on which the we have explained how to get out and go to the universal one vote. the transition to the two state building started to in 2010 and the government has been established and mandated for two years. after two years then we went back outside in kenya where the

process that was going on for two years was there and it ended up in 2014 with transitional federal government and the charter agreed on somalia as a federal country. from there, and the governments were located back to somalia and then mogadishu and in 2012, the eighth parliament was formed in mogadishu by 135 members of the clan. this was a nomination selection. now what we said is there's two important things. one is the journey is to go further and take somewhere out. if it happened in mogadishu in 2016 we want it to happen in

different parts of somalia in six different corners. if 2016 the parliament was selected and nominated by 135, no larger number of citizens to participate in the election of the next parliament, not a selection. of course for the dramatic purpose, we maintain some of what was there already. the parliament that we keep the 275 seats of the parliament which is too big for somalia right now but is trying to reduce the number would mean a lot of time and energy available right now. keeping the formula for .5, we maintained for the reason being that there was no other tool readily available right now in this constitution and others are in the making.

so then what is different, the difference is taking them to different places and involving or giving them to participate in the next parliament that's what his new to this process now. almost 14,000 citizens would participate in the election although it's still using that system but this time we need to be very fast within the clan and get a number of different people to compete for the seat that represents the clan itself. so we have 14,000 citizens electing 27 275 and six differet locations in somalia. the journey that started in kenya, mogadishu coming out of the headquarters of the federal

member states in 2020's plan to go down into the lowest level which we are planning and they've put in place a roadmap that indicated what would happen and when in the next four years of the term where the government is compelled to implement that rule including the local elections and state elections and the national at the end. so, that will be the end of the journey when we reach one person and one vote in all of the distances in somalia. now it's more demographic can interact and in 2020, we are expecting there will be one person one vote. this is the new somalia that we

are working on and why i started my presentation and the public is we believe that so many good things it can do. there's only one thing they can look to can do with somalia when we were having feminine world, they brought us forces to fight against terrorism or other events. but in 25 years the world has been trying to fix the political problem of somalia. we are realizing it's only the somalis that can fix the political problems. the politics. the world still can play an important role in fixing the politics, but the world cannot do that for us and that's what we've tried. in the past fixing the political

problems of somalia, the world has been sitting in the driver's seat and they would sit in the backseat. now is the time that we would this type to take the seat and to help us do that. the agenda is too many, too big and too diverse to. one that is very important in priority number one is the security. the security in somalia as many of us know it started over the country in 2010 and 2011 whereby 17 the government was controlling and the remaining

regions were controlled. that is where the war started and they do not control any significant time or location that is known but it's about the challenge. the two greatest activitie tickf the roadside bombing target the definitions are still there but it isn't a know in the fighting force that has control of the location and one of the reasons that happened, it was a territory governed by no one. the intervention in 2007 and the establishment of the national army has created enough today

talking about elections and we are expecting that there will be further expanded to happen in 2020. on the other it isn't militant only because other facets, economic, social. there is an advanced but the sociasocialservices are still lg behind the. in terms of its strategic location but because of the politics it's never benefited the wealthy. it's time the federal government to goes towards recovering the aspect and we have made a good

start on that. today it is coming back and investing a different level. still they are struggling with reforming the public finance management and institutions so that the institutions can deal with international partners. after 22 years the last time i produced a report was 1988 we have the next report indicated 3.7% of economic growth. they've concluded that chapter for monetary fund.

it would go on for another one year to make sure that somalia has access to the financing institutions and will go into the program so that they can benefit the construction. i would like to see a little bit about the future of somalia that has a very prosperous future because the of the direction of fixing and transforming the country in terms of the politics of. we are changing almost every system that was existing in the

country. highly centralized government system now is highly decentralized. we were having systems that were put in place in the cold war now we are changing all those systems. we are getting because of the federal system almost every loan that was existing has to be reviewed. we hope that it will soon be a place that attracts the international investment. i'm afraid we do not benefit that's what this is the challenge that we have a. a. we have a lot of containers that

have been thrown out by a and we know that this is a good indicator that it has been damp and we don't know today that they explode what will happen to those areas. although thiall of this is happe they cannot afford to protect their own resources this is happening for the generations to come and it cannot happen without having a function in the state in place and this is the priority of the government.

we are in the process of healing the wounds and addressing the reasons for the grievances and building trust towards the state. this is very important. the last time they went was 1969 for seven years have passed since then. they participated in the election of 1969 and who can do this? one of the benefits of the process that happened this year is a learning process so that in 2020 we will do the mistakes and pitfalls now in 2016. thank you very much. [applause]

road to the white house coverage continues as donald trump continues into that state also holding its presidential primary. live coverage this afternoon starts at 4 p.m. eastern. and ahead of the pennsylvania primary, hillary clinton talks to voters in the suburb of scranton pennsylvania. live coverage starts at 7:30. next-day hearing on the ethics and sale of fetal tissue used for medical research. abortion clinics can receive reimbursement for the cost of donating fetal tissue to medical research companies. the house select investigative committee hearing is just under three hours. >> the panel will come to order and before we begin i would like to take a moment to address the guests were in our audience today.

first of all, we think each of f you for taking the time to come. we think that engaged citizens re: welcome valuable part of the political process. i only wish every hearing drew 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's an opportunity 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 the guests in the audience they are operated under the rules of the house into the committee to maintain order and preserve the koran and the committee room and i know that we all have deep feelings on the issue but a we appreciate the audience corp. maintaining order as we have a full discussion we would like to

have on this issue. i also want to welcome each of the witnesses who are here today and at this time i am going to yield myself ten minutes for an opening statement. >> madam chair, thank you, regretfully i need to bring up an issue regarding the packet of material, the so-called exhibits that was provided to the staff yesterday before the opening statements and the reason is because we have just received your opening statement that was released to the press. i just saw it for the first time and in your opening statement, you make extensive reference to this package of so-called exhibits. so before you make your opening statements, maybe we can resolve the issues otherwise we are going to even have to object to

the documents referenced in your opening statement. and if i may madam chair, i will go over what our issues were and are with those so-called exhibits. your staff told us that you and other republican members intended to use these materials to question witnesses today, and it's my understanding that these documents have been given to the witnesses in fact several of the witnesses mentioned the documents in their written statements. i reviewed the documents yesterday. some of them were created wholesale by republican staff. there was no explanation of the underlying factual foundation for the material, the methodology that was used in coming up with the charts were some of the graphs. and frankly i believe them to be misleading and moreover, the

conclusions that are drawn and frankly stated as fact and the staff creativity index is false. there were other documents that were sourced to a procurement business which also has nothing to do with the topic of the hearing although they were presented as if they did. they don't distinguish between the services of the company which provides a variety of different specimens including the adult blood and bone marrow for use in biomedical research. just to add to this, yesterday the company that we believe these so-called exhibits came from express sent a letter to you and a copy to us about the serious problems with the so-called exhibits and i'd ask unanimous consent to put it into the record.

but i guess my point is i'm concerned because the so-called exhibits i don't think they are designed to find the facts about people tissue research and if they were, we would have called them in or taken that position and i don't believe they are germane as required by rule 16, close number seven of the house because they don't reflect the credibility but instead cast dishonor on the house. but in addition, if i just may, because we just got the exhibits yesterday then we got the letter, it has also raised troubling questions about where this material came from. if you look at the letter, and i hope you read it, what it says is they believe that a the

paneling ipanelmay have receivel directly from mr. david but hadn't been authenticated and that were obtained by an unlawfully. this is part of the whole issue of the investigation. some of these may have even been created by himself. with the company does is ask that we withdraw the documents until the general counsel of the house of representatives as an opportunity to review them and approve their list. so given the concerns about the factual foundations of these exhibits and also given a further concern about how they were created and what they were saying i would ask if we could withdraw the exhibits until these things are figured out. >> i think the gentle lady for

her inquiry. we were in receipt of the letter. i don't know anything about the attorney or how truthful the letter is. we do intend to and accept your request and we will use the letter in the record and for the hearing today. the documents, let me speak to that for a moment. the documents have all been obtained through our regular investigatory work. we have had things that have come to us from whistleblowers, subpoenas, former employees, citizens that have filed requests. the whistleblower portal and also the internet searc intranee search engine and that is the way these documents have come to us so the documents that we are going to use are the documents that we intend to use for the hearing and we will accept the

letter into the record. may make a further parliamentary inquiry? you just stated goal of the documents that formed the basis of the exhibits were received from a variety of sources including whistleblowers. have all the documents been provided to ththenprovided to tf of the senate he? we have provided documents to the minority staff. >> have you provided all the documents you refer to that were used as a foundation for the exhibit? >> all of them have been provided and then you had staff that linked the entities. >> i would ask a further parliamentary inquiry. before we continue, might i ask

to inquire the appropriate staff member of the basis for these exhibits particularly some of them there is a chart which you intend to use it as exhibit d. six, excerpt of the contract between the abortion trade association which appears to have been created by staff. i would like to ask the staff how the documents were created. >> what d >> what do you mean by foundational basis? >> if you take a look at the exhibit, so, exhibit b. one appears to be a chart and asked three boxes, abortion clinic

researcher and between the three boxes there are dollars going back and forth and questions and so on. i don't know what information this is based on. i would like to know how this is created. if you look at the exhibit it doesn't say where it's from. it appears to have been taken from some websites but this is one of the documents that they are saying they think might have been taken not from their company but from someplace else. i don't know where that comes from. it's not identified but i suspect the witnesses today and the majority somehow use this to talk about the so-called sale of people tissue. exhibit three is just again something taken up a website. we don't know the source of that.

exhibit number four appears to be a bar graph and what it says is procurement business, clinical growth strategy, number of partnerships and it's got a bar graph and exhibit number five, procurement business revenue growth we don't know who made the charts and we don't know where that information came from. so if you were the witnesses are relying upon this come it is presented as if it is a fact that in fact it's not. then thiand this is one that particularly disturbs me. it says in parentheses, excerpt of a draft contract troy kinsey against the gentle lady will yield. the graph that you are referencing was created by staff for discussion purposes it is created by material that has

been submitted to us to the committee. so the document that you are going to was submitted to us and before if it was created by the staff in the materials submitted does the gentle lady had a motion? >> just finish my statement that's my concern i would like to be able to question the staff member that created all the documents. >> if you would like to include in the questioning in your time discussion -- >> i think that these exhibits were created from whole cloth and if you won't let me find out what the basis for these are then i object -- i woul did maka point of order that these

materials are against rule 16 of the house and i would ask for their exclusion. i would move to table the point of order. >> the motion -- >> i appealed the ruling. the motion has been made and is tabled a. i appealed the ruling of the chair. that was the motion i just made. >> you made the motion to exclude. we will rule on the motion to table first. i appealed the ruling of the chair and the appeal is denied

and we will have the clerk call the roll for the recorded vote on the motion to appeal to a. of [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report. on the vote, there were eight days and five nays. >> the motion is tabled. i will begin the oath of the statement then we will move to the first panel of witnesses who have --

>> madam chair, i want to ask at this point that your words be taken down regarding the assertion that staff leaked documents to the entity can actually do some express. these documents had already been given to witnesses and the press and then were posted to your website and so i think your words need to be taken down accusing our staff of leaking that is not true and those words should be taken down. >> madam chair. >> ms. schakowsky, the staff had asked for the documents. this was shared before they went to the website and then they were released to the entity and

in order to take the comments down they have to be personal in nature. so with that, let's begin with our opening statements and then we will receive our first panel of witnesses. as i was beginning earlier, i want to welcome all of the witnesses who are here today. i'm going to introduce each of you later as we move forward with our testimony on the pricing of fetal tissue. as part of my opening statement, i will present a narrative about the exhibits at today's hearing will discuss. i've said many times my hope is that both parties can work together on things and today's subject matter should be an opportunity to do so for a couple of reasons. first, in our initial hearing on the bioethics and feta people t, all witnesses from both sides agree no one should profit from

the sale of baby body parts, nobody. second, the democrats overwhelmingly supported a prohibition on profiting from fetal tissupeople tissue sales e 1993 passage of the national institutes of health revitalization act. former congressman dingell passed this legislation out of the energy and commerce committee and former congressman henry waxman ended the bill on the floor to make it clear profiting from the sale of baby body parts is a crime. they took the offense so seriously that they made a profiting from thprofiting frome people tissue punishable by a ten year felony. they understoo understood unburd children do indeed have constitutional rights. there's been a lot of debate about the horrible videos that came out last year but today's hearing will present the

documents and invoices marketing brochures and management documents that reveal that one for-profit procurement business and several abortion clinics may have violated the intent of the statute and the waxman prohibition passed overwhelmingly by the democratic controlled house. we've invited for u.s. attorneys and others to help us understand this conduct in light of the existing statute. we look forward to working through this material in a thoughtful way and i ask my colleagues on the other side to join in a productive discussion about the statute that your site passed. before past. before i turn to introducing the documents, i want to draw your attention to the posters that will hope to follow the discussion. the first presents three entities involved in the business of selling the body

parts. that depicts that the middleman, the procurement business pays the clinic for fetal tissue and has been paid by the researcher or the customer. the second chart is a website screen grab from the procurement business obusiness of how to buy body parts online. there's a new websitthere is a b body parts procurement business has been spun off to a new entity. that chart shows the drop-down box fodrop downbox for every pa. then you click on the next box and pick the gestational period then proceed to checkout to select the form of shipping. the third chart shows th first s performed by the business employee and inside the clinic. once the order is communicated, the procurement technician starts to work checking the station. commit getting consent from procuringiving consent, procurie

customer. these are violations. our democratic colleagues voiced concerns over privacy throughout the investigation. i would hope they would join us in condemning obvious violations which were signed into law by president clinton on augus august 211996. the fourth chart summarizes several sample payments from the procurement business to the abortion clinic and from the customer to the procurement business. these are just samples for the discussion today. they do not