and handled the political challenges of congressional oversight of the department. he founded the raven group, a public policy consulting organization in 2000 continues to serve as president. is a graduate of the wharton school and new york university law school. mr. brian lennon served as a federal prosecutor in michigan and virginia for 15 years at a trial attorney in the is department of justices civil division. as deputy chief of the criminal division, he supervised the health care fraud and computer related crimes unit, among others. he spent four and half years as a judge advocate for the u.s. marine corps, handling both civil and criminal matters. now in private practice, he specialized in criminal defense, particularly health care fraud and other white-collar and drug

offenses, corporate internal investigations, and compliance matters. mr. michael norton served as u.s. attorney for colorado from 1980-93. he was appointed by president reagan and we appointed by president george h. w. bush. mr. norton has been practicing law since 1976 and is admitted to the bar's in the states of colorado and virginia. as well as washington, d.c. trenton as a scholar with the institute which offers research papers on science, medicine and research in the service of human life. she was an attorney with the alliance defending freedom and is a graduate of georgetown university law school.

mr. sukhia was appointed u.s. attorney for the northern district of florida. he has also served as law clerk at the florida supreme court and the u.s. court of appeals and as a senior partner in one of florida's oldest and largest statewide firms. he began his own firm in the florida state capital in 2008. you are aware that the select investigative panel is holding an investigative hearing and that we will take your testimony under oath. do you have any objection to testifying under oath? okay. a chair then advises you that under the rules of the house committee on energy and commerce, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel for today's hearing? okay. in that case with you please rise in racial right hand, and i was where you end.

[witnesses were sworn in] >> thank you. you are not under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in title 18, section 1001 of the u.s. code. you each get a five minute summary of your written statement. ms. clayton, we'll begin the test went with you, and you are recognized for five minutes. [inaudible] >> push your microphone. >> never go. thank you, madam chair. i've been a corporate litigator since 1978 and i'm here today despite a family medical situation for two reasons. one is women's reproductive health and medical research are being threatened by these hearings. the second reason is that i've instructed extremes to share with this panel on the topic

that you are considering. 16 years ago a client of mine a nonprofit corporation that provided donated tissue to medical researchers in hopes of curinturning the diseases inclug the ones senator shaheen mentioned, that nonprofit was falsely accused by life dynamics, the antiabortion group congresswoman schakowsky mentioned, accused of selling fetal tissue. these baseless charges were made in the videotape sent by life dynamics to congregate in that video of the person making the accusations was anonymous. as it happened, and employ of anatomical gift foundation had gone to work for another company in violation of his contract. they hired me to sue. that man's name was dean alberti. in his deposition which was under oath like all of us today,

and sent to congress, he admitted he was the person innovative and he admitted that what it said in that video was fictional. he testified that he told those lies because life dynamics have paid into, and he said i needed the money. he had repeated those falsehoods on tv 2020. but he knew better than to lie under oath. with i.t. post them. where the penalties of perjury as the chair acknowledged do arise. those of you who were here in the year 2000 maybe call this simulation of certain members of the house committee suffered when their star witness, dean alberti, went up in flames and admitted that that much touted video had been fabricated. those house hearings established that my client had done nothing wrong, that feel tissue wasn't

for sale at all, and that antiabortion zealots, life dynamics, had forced the false witness on congress. what was for sale wasn't fetal tissue. it was a phony witnesses to be. it been bought and paid for by antiabortion extremists. i find it curious given the not so different history of the strike of a similar scenario that this panel has not demanded sworn testimony of the accusers. the latest batch of antiabortion accusers as you've asked of us, chair blackburn. you haven't asked for that, haven't asked for them to go under oath and that seemed strange to me, particularly when they come up with such a similar tale about the so-called sale of fetal tissue which again is alive. this suggest to me that someone is afraid to put mr. daleiden under oath because as we saw with the dean alberti fiasco when penalties of perjury attached, sometimes instead of fiction the actual truth comes

out. we know they doctored videos to the point that the federal judge blocked the release of for the tapes because they were fraudulent. another fact we do about it comes from the "los angeles times" its examination of the unedited videos. they showed him coaching and manipulating the testimony of holly o'donnell this video interview by the way looks more like play acting to any genuine emotion. without cross-examination of him and his crew under oath we have no way of knowing what he offered or secure ms. o'donnell with his camera was not running. and in texas when he went before a grand jury convened for the express purpose of prosecuting planned parenthood, the grand jury did something very different. it didn't indict planned parenthood. it and guided mr. daleiden for falsehood. a texas grand jury found of course that planned parenthood had done nothing wrong.

for nearly four decades i have been representing corporations and individuals in business litigation. and i have to say there is no bigger tell about the veracity of an accusation and when the person who's making the accusation will not stand by his or her accusation under oath. as dean alberti told a house committee in 2000 when i was under oath i told the truth. anything i said in the video i was not under oath, that's a different story so i have to ask, is this panel looking for the truth, or for another story? a real inquiry would start with sworn testimony from them and that would be true even if they doctored videotapes didn't have so much in common with the deceitful tapes that the abortion opponents, including life dynamics, staged 16 years ago.

this panel's failure to allow cross-examination of mr. daleiden and his cohort sends a message loud and clear that the stories would not hold up under penalty of perjury any more than the baseless slurs dean alberti made back into year 2000 life dynamics bought and paid for his testimony. and by the way, you know -- it just strikes me as inexcusable that the panel has been using its subpoena power to compel testimony from health care providers and medical researchers who have far better things to do with their time, like providing health care, working to cure disease than mr. daleiden and his crew. i just ask until and unless this panel puts them under oath and gets, tries get to the bottom of what they did, that these proceedings be terminated and our elected officials be allowed to return to doing the people's business. thank you. >> thank you. mr. reagan.

>> good morning. thank you so much for having me this one. my name is robert raben and i've in private practice. over the years i served as counsel to the house judiciary committee and was confirmed as assistant attorney general for the office of legislative affairs at the department of justice. in 1999 as i was watching you this morning in the decorum, the kinds of which you run this command i was reminded that i was democratic council but the chair of our committee henry hyde walked across the capital to testify for my nomination and what a wonderful day that was, how much i miss him and appreciated him. i have taught law, practice and a large law firm and court after law school. i appreciate the law in this committee's attention to the. for over 20 is my work has involved the representation of people and organizations before the congressional executive branch.

i detest what today is what has experienced both sides of advocacy and representation about investigations. this committee has asked us to opine on the question of whether the current legislative language adequately prevents profiting in the sale of fetal tissue in the parameters around what constitutes the sale of profit. of fetal tissue. in 2000 in my capacity as assistant attorney general, i was called upon to respond to almost identical concerns expressed by members of the congress regarding the alleged transfer of fetal tissue for profit. on march 9, 2000, i communicated with congress by signed a letter of willingness to investigate and learned for the about credible claims and allegations. while i don't have specific recollection of further oral conversations within the department, subsequent to that written communication, i know from the public record that in july of 2000, acting cancers use

attorney decided after a thorough review of the issues involved that there were no violations of federal statute, thereby announcing the closure of a thorough investigation to related sites. that is a matter of public record. i also recall yesterday a second investigation of a colorado u.s. attorney and fbi that was similarly closed. we are today witnessing virtually identical allegations. while i am unaware as to whether dod or the fbi presently ongoing inquiries of allegations that it is significant to note that 12 states have looked into related matters and declined to pursue any charge. additional eight states have declined to investigate. given the importance that some people have about deferring to the states, i'd like to just read into the record the 12 states that have affirmatively said they have investigated and decided not to pursue charges around related allegation.

florida, georgia, indiana, kansas massachusetts michigan missouri ohio pennsylvania, south dakota, texas and washington. innumerable reasons exist as to why federal law enforcement have little record of indictment under the existing language which may include the dearth of actual profiteering in fact. that deference to state law enforcement authorities which are capable of determining the same predicate. past failed attempts to establish wrongdoing, or paramount in this area lack of credibility of those present facts to the law enforcement officials. the ultimate way to which this committee is engage whether the existing statute merits change are more rigorous enforcement i believe the statute is sound and addresses its intended aims, is important today as it was when it was passed with overwhelming our partisan majorities in 1993. the statute considered bipartisan judgment of congress

was meant to address profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. there is evidence of an outbreak of this behavior. i am confident in acts of intentional misbehavior would be investigated and punished by law enforcement. thank you for having me. >> thank you. mr. lennon, who recognized for five minutes. >> jenna blackburn, ranking member degette and testing which members of this panel. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the pricing of fetal tissue. currently a part of the law firm warner and no cross in grand rapids, michigan, but for 13 years before entering private practice i was an assistant u.s. attorney in the western district of michigan. i'm not a medical ethicist or theologian. i do not represent any advocacy group on either side of life first reproductive rights debate. i am not here to advocate for any change in federal legislation. but as a former prosecutor, i hope to relate -- provide value

to this panel to objective legal analysis of the exhibits. to determine whether abortion clinics and other procurement business identified in the exhibits violate the statute. based on my review and i look at this as if an agent that showed up at my office with these exhibits and asked me to examine them, but based on everything i believe competent and ethical federal prosecutor could establish probable cause that both the abortion clinics and the procurement businesses violated the statute, aided and abetted one anotherand likely conspired together to violate the statute. for five of the six elements of the substantive offense come in my opinion there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. the only element for investigation is needed that would include up with forensic accounting and analysis thereof is whether the payments made by the researchers that ultimately

received the human tissue to the procurement businesses were valuable consideration or alternatively, reasonable payments associated with specific allowable services in the statute. with respect to the abortion clinics, the proof is working to establish that the compensation they receive from the procurement business, a price per tissue payment is indeed valuable consideration. and does not have the identified services excluded from the definition were provided by the clinics. prosecutors and jurors clearly prefer to find establish a limit of the defense. five of the six elements of the offense are clearly defined and established in the exhibits. as for the final element, value for consideration, those are more nuanced. the statute itself defines valuable consideration by describing what it is not.

it does not include regional payments associated with the transportation and plantation, processing, preservatpreservat ion, ma quality control or storage of human fetal tissue. a valuable consideration is payment for something other than this exhaustive list of delineated services. this element is also established. as for the abortion clinics the marketing materials that i've reviewed clearly state there's a financial profit from this partnership. several of the exhibits indicate the procurement business pays per tissue not a regional payments were listed services. therefore, the exhibits indicate that the services provided by the procurement business through their embedded technicians and not abortion clinics, therefore that these payments appear to be valuable consideration. indeed, they could be profits. as for the procurement business it's my opinion that a much

deeper analysis of the company's financials is necessary in order to establish a valuable consideration element beyond a reasonable doubt. because the businesses to incur costs associated with these fully needed services, a forensic accounting would be essential to breakdown the company's financials. just look at the growth and their revenue doesn't tell you whether they are profiting. if they are profiting in my opinion, they have violated the law. i think there's other theories, although i think the prosecutor would pursue that may be more important in looking at the potential criminality of procurement businesses but those are aiding and abetting and conspiracy. based on my limited review of the exhibits and the strength of the substantive case against the abortion clinic, pursuing aiding and abetting or conspiracy count against the berkman business rather than the substantive count maybe a stronger theory of

culpability. as i conclude i would just say i believe federal prosecutors take part in protecting the most vulnerable among us. the ones i proudly served with in michigan did not shy away from the tough cases and to put their personal politics aside and asked tovaluate cases for prosecution. evidence or the lack thereof not politics should determine whether a u.s. attorney in panels a grand jury to investigate abortion clinics in human fetal businesses in addition. i think you for allowing me to testify today and i welcome your questions. >> thank you. mr. norton, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair and ranking member degette and esteem of the committee. my name is michael norton. i'm attorney in private practice of law in denver, colorado. i've had the privilege of serving as an estate attorney for the state and district of colorado for support by president reagan and then

reappointed by the first president bush. i have a written statement which i respectfully request incorporate into the record ethic simply want to summarize my comments in my remarks in the time that is available. first of all i would say to the committee that this is not about health but it is not about abortion to how one stands on the issue of abortion. it's whether or not there is probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed. and if so what to do about that. to do nothing about the potential of the commission of a criminal fine, crimes is indeed floating the criminal justice system of this nation. i think preferring those who are in well-connected places over those who are not. so i suggested to you at the outset, madam chair and members of this committee that with this committee is about is highly

important, very critical to the criminal justice system and to the sanctity of that system. it's really not about the issue of abortion because potential profiteering and trafficking in aborted fetal tissue is of grave concern, not only on the federal level but also in many states including i own state of colorado which has adopted a law similar to the federal law that is being looked at by this committee today. there are many people that are concerned that not only this federal statute but also a state statute at issue have been violated and are being flouted by the abortion industry. in 2015 it was revealed by one of these undercover videos that denver's planned parenthood of the rocky mountains was indeed making a profit by harvesting and trafficking the hearts, the brains, the lungs, the ice, delivers and other body parts of babies whose lives planned parenthood that ended by

abortion. these gruesome revelations came from a series of videos released by the center for medical progress that the committee has talked about. it was clear from the videos that planned parenthood been actively engaged in harvesting and trafficking for profit body parts of babies whose lives planned parenthood had ended. those videos have not created a general queasiness about surgery and blood, no matter how one stands on the issue of abortion, the wood was used these videos can come away thinking that planned parenthood's harvesting and selling of these baby body parts is consistent with our values or consistent with the law. if wrongdoing has occurred that i can go with the assessment mr. lim has made of the facts and the circumstances as to the commission of crimes in this case and i would add that it appears to be quite frankly that criminal violations of health insurance portability act have

also been committed by the embedding of the procurement business technician in the abortion facility itself and the review by the technician of privileged medical records of patients in order to determine which body parts that technician wants to harvest, have harvested and sold, has also been committed. there some facts that need to be term and a competent criminal investigation to determine those facts. but to do nothing is something wrong, madam chair and members of this committee. i thank the committee for its courage in moving into this area investigating this very. i urge it to complete its investigation and to refer this matter to yes department of justice for property action which i pray and hope is taken. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, mr. norton. ms. foster, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you. mr. chairman, ms. schakowsky can distinguish numbers of this

panel. i privileged to present his testimony concerning the pricing of human fetal tissue. my views are consistent with those of the charlotte institute where i am an associate scholar which is dedicated to advancing science, medicine and research in the service of human life and to promote a culture and policy of life. my views were consistent with those of sound legal, law firms and legal organization advocating for the universal right to life. as an attorney i have dedicated my career to advocating for the right of every innocent human being to be protected. and so i am troubled by those in the abortion and tissue procurement industry who scheme to trade in baby body parts for the own financial enrichment. the public learned of these back alley transactions last year went undercover videos of the oregon business brokers surface online. indeed, the trade and fetal body parts is a business.

estimate shared by the evidence presented by this panel, clinics and procurement companies have been getting away with charging far more than the allowed path for harvesting, transporting and warehousing body parts as they wait for customers. they have violated both the intent and the letter of section 289 which bars among other things a chance or of human fetal tissue or valuable consideration. the statute's definition of valid consideration is straightforward. if payment is not reasonable or not associated with the transplantation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue it is not permitted. we can all agree on this statute. it passed bipartisan support in a democratic congress and the signed into law by president clinton. representative waxman called the fetal corpse market upward.

and yet detailed evidence reveals abortion clinics are being promised to profit and if they didn't have no apparent cause to be reimbursed the further multiply a clinics windfall via savings on disposal services. tissue procurement companies are likewise paid exorbitantly by their customers. this market in baby organs and tissues demonstrates a flagrant and repeated disregard for the rule of all. it was no surprise when america's biggest abortion business facing public and prosecutorial exposure relented and agreed to end its long-standing practice of receiving direct payments for baby body parts. and yet in my years of work in this field and in the 23 years that section 289 has been law, i am unaware of a single instance in which it has been enforced. this panel is right to shine a light on big abortions accounted. perhaps we forget that this law

was to to protect the ethical imperative that recognizes the dignity in every human life. in the face of clinical sanitize language we may become desensitized. the abortion clinics, and human baby is called tissue or a fetus. the technician accounts body parts is a product of conception worker. and by converting human lives into a bulk commodity public discussion has been stifled. we are, in fact, talking about real and unique human beings whose lives were tragically snuffed out. we are talking about aborting them the minimum dignity that comes with not having their remains further picked through to be bought and sold like chattel. i know that the abortion industry and its allies are waging a campaign against any effort at transparency or accountability. it is what we can expect from a

big business with an emphasis on maximizing profits, and a lot of money to lose. and so big abortions is fighting back with all his financial and political might of investigates political and monetary stockpile to buy public sanctions and weighing its thumb down on the scales of justice with high profile pr firms, pocket politicians and sold out media. until now the abortion industry has succeeded in shouting down the voices acknowledging the public evidence of guilt and crying out for justice. but no more. we the people are not afraid of confronting the truth and we encourage this panel and those in law enforcement to pursue it. common sense and common decency demand enforcement of section 289. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sukhia, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. and the members of this

committee. i was privileged and honored to serve as the united states attorney for the northern district of florida. and before that was an assistant u.s. attorney for 10 years. much of my expertise that i could lend to the committee would be in of course the area of determining whether a grand jury should be impaled, whether a case should proceed, whether investigation should be pursued. and i've heard it said today that this is a committee which has disdain for the truth, that this is not a fact-based inquiry, and when i look at the exhibits that were submitted, but also of course when i looked at the videos that were

presented, it strikes me as odd that they would not be an aggressive and meaningful investigation into the allegation that indeed human baby parts are being sold for profit. article ii, section three of our united states constitution in fact requires of the executive branch that it faithfully executes the law of the country. by not faithfully executing those laws, you are, in fact, taking specific affirmative action to define what is required either constitution. and in this situation it is beyond my assessment and belief that when you have a procurement

industry that is actually marketing to the abortion clinics that they can procure or work to gain more profits by this method, and when they are feeding their own employees in the clinic to do those jobs that would indeed cost and would indeed be the services that would comprise the legitimate cost or payment for those services. then the question clearly arises, have these clinics profited from this process? it's a very simple, basic issue. and so we are not saying as a prosecutor when someone comes in the door with this evidence, this is absolutely positively a fact. we are saying no, this justifies a full and complete and a thorough investigation. and i think that does some to be

-- there seems to be a pattern win, this can't possibly have any basis because, let's see, ago someone lied. so we come we can't take, this is the same sort of thing that's happened before and we should also stop the prosecution of all murders, because there have been cases where persons have lied and people have been wrongly convicted. and the whole argument is nonsense. and, in fact, this whole notion that, let's fall all over ourselves to insist that we are being, this is nothing but an effort to attack the reproductive rights of our citizens, when it is, in fact, an effort to enforce the law, which is required of our constitution. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sukhia pic at

this time we will begin with the questioning on our side -- >> madam chair? >> parliamentary inquiry. stager inquiry. >> madam chair, the witnesses to appear to have related on the premise from your staff at clinics and to no cost route to fetal. that premise is captured in exhibit g. which give it up on the screen. could you put up on the screen for a moment while every the parliamentary inquiry? >> let's bring up that exhibit and please state the inquiry. >> that's not exhibit g. that's it. thank you. madam chair, this chart says the clinic has quote no costs to the payments of pure profit to the clinic. this is contradicted by exhibit c-17 which show some clinics updating consent to the paper, but things went to fetal tissue as a donation.

these all cost the government can to build office recommends 16 years ago as reimbursable quote direct cost. can you explain how this document exhibit g. was created and its factual foundation including the discrepancy between what the staff create a chart asserts, namely that there no costs? .. the chart for discussion of which ig is on were compiled from that work by our staff and at this time we begin our questioning and i turned to

mister pitts >> thank you, i don't believe this is what i was in the initiating committee. how can you explain the discrepancy between the information on exhibit g, namely that no costs were incurred and the information on exhibit a 69 nc-17 which list some of those costs mark that didn't happen. >> there is no discrepancy. thank you gentlemen for the inquiry. at the time we began, we began our hearing. [overlapping conversation] >> of course there's a discrepancy. >> do you have a motion? >> know, i have a parliamentary inquiry which is being sidestepped and not answered. this exhibit g says our clinic explanation the abortion clinic has no cost for the payments from the pd, the procurement business to the ac, the abortion clinic or incurred costs. the cost for by the clinic for the customer. exhibit c9 says, it's an exhibit of clinic procedures and policies and it says you

must inform, due the employee must inform the assistant manager and hss as to when you have completed your work. this will ensure they do not continue to consent and draw unnecessary blood samples. >> gentlemen will yield, you're citing a procurement procedure so one is the clinic, one is theprocurement business. i think the general and for the inquiry. >> the procurement business has to tell the clinic staff which have to be satisfied and that takes time and is a direct cost . >> they have to tell the abortion clinic there done, that the abortion clinic does not continue to take more samples etc. which is a direct cost to the clinic, not the procurement facility. that is a direct contradiction. >> the documents are separate. it is not a direct contradiction. and the documents are

separate, one relates to abortion and the other to the procurement business. >> if this is not a direct contradiction what is the methodology to determine that there are no costs for the abortion clinic as asserted in exhibit g which apparently has no basis to mark. >> it's all basedon the investigatory work and i thank you for the parliamentary inquiry. atthis time we are going to mister pitt . >> . [overlapping conversation] further and final inquiry, can you explain how using a chart that charts inclusions that have no objective basis other than a statement that somebody investigated does not bother violate house rules prohibiting conduct that may discredit or dishonor the house and this final rule 11, rule for and rule 23 plus one because what i'm hearing is that staff people somehow got this

information, we are not told how. >> mister nadler, this is not a parliamentary inquiry. basically they are trying to debate the documents and we need to move on with our questioning and i'm turning to mister pitt. mister pitt, you're recognized for five minutes for questioning. >> thank you madam chair for calling this important hearing on the pricing of fetal tissue. this issue has caused me considerable concern because one of the underpinnings and safeguards of the statute that allowed for the donation of fetal tissue for transplantation and research was that this tissue would not be sold. the author of the statute, representative waxman, stated during the floor debate in 1993 and i quote, it would be abhorrent to allow for the sale of fetal tissue in a market to be created for that sale. ". and yet, this is what is happening as one of the

witnesses said in the back alleys today. as seen on exhibit b to and b3, the procurement business markets itself on its brochure as a way for clinics to make additional income by allowing the procurement business, procurement technicians to take fetal tissue and organs from aborted babiesimmediately after the abortion was completed . using the words financially profitable. fiscally rewards, financial benefits on its brochure. the select panel investigation revealed that every conceivable hardening harvesting task is performed by the technician employed by the procurement business and so procurement businesses essentially the middleman are paying fees to abortion clinics but the abortion

clinics are incurring no-cost , exhibit b shows payments from the procurement business to abortion clinics or aborted babies and baby blood. exhibit b on, the abortion clinic charged the middleman with a bill for 11,000, $365 in august 2010 for baby parts and blood at the middleman's technicians harvested. another envoy in january, february 2011 chart, 9000 $50 or harvested baby parts and blood. the middleman even makes it easy for the researcher to purchase baby body parts, exhibit c3. the procurement business order form or the drop-down menu for baby organs shows just how easy this is. first, it asks on the left side quote, what type of

tissue would you like to order? and i suppose you could respond, anyone could respond to this. i would like to order brains and then it says, number of specimens. well, six let's say. baby brains. gestational range, start and end. well, the 16 to 18 weeks and then here's another question. add another tissue type? and say yes, another tissue type listed, female reproductive system and ovaries, you could say i take five of those at 15 weeks. you could add five baby tongs , shipping options.

you could respond yes, i want to rush ordered so for crying out loud, this is the amazon.com of baby body parts. there is a market for baby body parts and youget what you pay for. this is absolutely repulsive . and we must not forget as was testified here, each one of these little baby brains or tongs represent a baby. how can anyone defend this practice? all this shows that in both intense and in practice these organizations were making money well above the actual cost so going back to exhibit b2 and b3, the company brochure websites shows intent, the publicity, marketing materials. my question for the former prosecutors for doj will start with mister ups, mister norton. what communications or

information would you seek to learn whether the intent of the procurement business and the abortion clinic was to profit from selling baby body parts?mister sue po, let's startwith you . >> put on your mic. >> i pressed the button and then it went off. well, miss some of that evidence is already in this record. i've heard again, everyone quickly rushing to insist that these videotapes are just a safe, deceptively prepared. in other words, do what we are extremely at that doing, this industry which is deflecting and everyone else is at fault. let's shift the focus so everyone focused on hey, what these videos did and what this person said, how he

prepared the videos.but those videos were posted, all of those videos were posted and there are some things that when peoplesay them on tape , it doesn't matter what they didn't say or did say elsewhere. if someone is saying that would be good and were talking about profiting from this and they're talking about that, that's corroborative evidence. it corroborates the evidence you were identifying mister congressman which is very strong evidence when someone is actually marketing for it. >> i would quickly time his excuse. >> i would also want to know what communications occurred, email and so more for the back-and-forth between those people . we would seek those items as well and of course the accounting records. >> thank you. >> ideals that. >> thegentleman yields back, mister jackowski is recognized for five minutes . >> unfortunately we have the

majority of, has refused to even bring in the one party that actually could answer these questions and that is the stomp express and i want to say mr. sukhia and mister norton as lawyers, the fact that you keep referring back to these completely discredited by three congressional panels, by 12 states that looked into this, by a grand jury that ended up , you talk about the center for medical progress mr. sukhia, which is it ? mr. sukhia? and yet mister delighted and his partner were actually indicted as a consequence so that's a comment. it is not a question, it is a fact that has been looking too. the other thing is, i want to ask mister clayton a question

but i also want to go back to a letter and numbers of documents presented by stan express that would completely discredit the exhibits that have been mentioned and i want to, as far as b2, the majority use of this brochure is misleading at best. it was used by his systemic use by hospitals and clinics involved in a broad spectrum of work that the company reports related to adult blood, adult tissue, biopsies etc. not sealed tissue donation. exhibit b3, the stan express website screenshot makes absolutely no reference to fetal tissue. in fact it pertains to the overwhelming majority of stem expresses work with adult on an issue that has nothing to do with fetal tissue which

accounted for less than one percent of the company's revenue in 2014 before losses. they have repeatedly offered, come in and provided exactly the specific information that is raised in these exhibits and that has been turned down. i think it is shameful for an investigation that seeks to get cozily to the truth. now, i want to ask mister clayton a question and i think that this parallel is worth examining because the facts are the same. discredited video which led to an investigation that found no guilt. i want to skip part of this but there were accusations made against your client that impacted him. the client that was found to have done nothing wrong and i wonder h it affected his business reputation, his own safety and that of his family. >> congressman mrs.

schakowsky, the company and a chemical gift foundation was threatened by terrorists on the anti-choice site including the army of god, that's the group that shot doctor tiller, not the time he was murdered but the time he was shot before his murder. army of god is one of the most violent, outrageous anti-choice surround and agf, my client received threats of that as soon as these outrageously fallacious videotapes were sent to congress and got circulated, when they were on 20/20 and everybody believed they were true. it must be true, we saw it on a videotape. not under oath. i would just comment that if anyone was to look at a defense of any of this, first thing you do is get mister daleiden under oath. see what he says on penalty of perjury was attached because when when mister alberti was under oath in the deposition i took, he suddenly started telling the truth and what he told was that everything else was

alive. meanwhile these threats endangered the life and safety of people at clinics all over the country is in colorado. as crazy mister deere murdered three people because he thought it was true about these tapes, the sale of baby body parts even though 12 states, thetexas grand jury have found that completely fallacious . >> i just want to say: your client provided a letter sent by this antiabortion group to your clients wife. in that letter the group referenced baby parts, that's a quote and warned her that it was quote, watching you and yourhusband , unquote and that this is only the beginning. and i seek unanimous consent to enter this march 9, 2000 letter. >> so ordered. >> and i believe there is a connection between the murders at the clinic in colorado springs following

these deceptive videos where the murderer said no more baby body parts. it's a repeat of that language and a repeat of the false accusations and the collection of names, a database of names of people involved in research and in clinics is dangerous. it is dangerous. we should not be doing that inthe united states of america and i yield back . >> the ladies time has expired, i yield to miss black for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. i think the panel for being here today. i do want tofocus on exhibit g , on who bears the responsibility for the tissue procurement charge. as a nurse, i am well aware of how important it is to follow procedures, especially in performing your duties when you are caring for a patient that has trusted you as a care provider for their

medical treatment. so let's walk through the day in the life of a procurement tech and if you will please turn to exhibit c for this question. in exhibit c for, you will see that the tax gets an email like the one that's on c-4 and she reads the order for certain baby body parts including the gestation period and knows what she needs to harvest for that day and i want to reference the second from the bottom line, it says that she will need a brain 16, excuse me , 16 to 18 weeks and complete but can be in pieces so she has a very specific tissue that he is looking for. now if we can turn to see nine. and then she informs the abortion clinic staff of what he will be procuring on that

day. and we actually see there on the first line where she communicates with the assistant manager and says, upon arrival inform the staff clearly of what you are procuring or the day. so let's follow on then with exhibit c5. the german tech then reviews the medical files which is another subject of whether this is a hipaa violation, whether she has the right to be looking at the files of the patients to learn their names and the gestation time of their baby and she reported this in a gestation tracking log, essentially matching the patient with her needs not the patient's needs, but her needs of what she's been given as her job for the day.let's next turn to exhibit number eight. next, the procurement tech approaches the patient waiting for this abortion and many times this is a young woman who is afraid, not always certain about what she's doing and needs advice

and counseling. but that's not what we see her getting here. she doesn't have much time and she must match her orders with the patient who are at the right gestation time so she asked for the patient by name and then she consents with them to donate by saying that her baby tissue is about curing for potential diseases such as diabetes, parkinson's and heart disease and i want to also reference this second paragraph here where she actually says that the law in the state of california which is where this is being done requires that the tissue from your procedure be incinerated. if you go and look at the law there, she's leaving one thing out. she could offer to this mother to actually bury this baby. but that's left out. she is given i think decisions that are very difficult. either you are going to incinerate this daily or you're going to give this baby up for research. i think that certainly should

be counseling and getting all options to this young woman who is in a very difficult situation and making that decision. now let's turn to exhibit c 12 and then after that, see 13 because after the abortion the procurement tech collects the tissues and pretty the baby body parts needed. he carries all her supplies with her and you will see here in this particular exhibit that she has a very detailed instruction about what she is putting these bike parts into. so this is not coming from the abortion clinic, this is actually coming from the procurement agency that she is working for. then the tissue tech arranges for the delivery, we can see that is by fed ex, it's clear on the first exhibit and also on this one about who is paying for the delivery of this, not only the text and

so on she will be using to put the specimen in.so let's go back again to exhibit g. where we see here in exhibit g of blank on where the expenses are for the abortion clinic because as i walk you through her day, there's nothing to indicate that the abortion clinic has incurred any expenses. so let me ask you, mister lemon if you were to walk through this, how does this comprehensiveness of the tissue text work inform your thinking about whether the abortion clinic is profiting from the sale of baby body parts? >> thank you. i did considerthat in my analysis here . and so the question that was raised earlier in the parliamentary question by the representative from new york was that maybe there's a

conversation.in this case there was a conversation. but then the payment should be maybe for that conversation in the processing. because that's the only thing i see where the abortion clinic would have any costs incurred for that conversation, not a herd tissue price payment. that informs me that we are talking about the sale of a part and not some reasonable cost . the other i think attack that the defense counsel which i now do would say, there they are also involved in processing because the client, the patient is there but the abortion itself is not the processing of the tissue.is the creation of the tissue and disruption of human life so there's really no arguments i saw from any of this that the abortion clinic at any other costs. they are getting a per tissue payment. >> thank you mister london, i yield back mister gas, you

are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much medicare. as a former litigator there's nothing i like better than a panel of lawyers. i have a series of questions that i would prefer a yes, sir no answer if i may. first question i have for the panel is, we received a packet of documents from the majority. i believe i've seen you all referring to it during this hearing in a binder. my first question is, have you seen these documents before today's hearing mister clayton, yes, sir no? >> yes. >> yes. yes. thank you. and did you personally offer any of these documents miss clayton question mark. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> have you spoken with anyone who authored any of the documents about the information that the documents contained>> not to my knowledge. >> no. >> not to my knowledge. >> not to my knowledge .

>> maybe you. >> i don't know. >> who have you spoken with sense? it's just the folks do they have names? >> mark bell and, i think that might be it. >> and that's from majority staff? thank you. now for the documents listed in the index that the company's packet as coming from a quote procurement business, have you spoken with that procurement business about the documents miss claytonquestion mark. >> no . >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no and that's why there needs to be an investigation. >> now, you have any firsthand knowledge of howthe procurement business in question created the documents use in today's exhibit , miss clayton. >>absolutely not. >> no . >> no . >> and for the documents that are listed as staff created for example, exhibit c4 and b5, did the republican staff

discussed those documentswith you miss clayton? >> no . >> no. >> remind me what exhibits you are talking about? >> theater in the exhibits like the charts that were clearly staff created no. >> no. >> i think we did discuss that. >> you did discuss that? did they tell you the documents that form the foundation of those? thank you very much. my last question, do you have any firsthand knowledge of what documents in fact the majority staff relied upon in these staff created documents, miss clayton? >> absolutely no idea. >> no. >> yes. >> okay, and how do you know that if you didn't talk to staff? >> the exhibits that were provided to me obviously support the summary ... [overlapping conversation] i'm just trying to answer your question. >> i'm talking about the staff created documents like

the charts. did they tell you what data they use in creating a staff created documents. >> that's not what you asked but the answer to that is no. >> thank you. ms. foster? >> no. >> no. >> now mister raven i wanted to ask you a couple of questions. given that no witness on the panel has firsthand knowledge of how these exhibits were created or the underlying facts captured in any of them, do you think it's appropriate for the witnesses to speculate about possible criminal misconduct based on those documents? >> i think calling it speculation is entirely accurate. it would be per pure speculation. >> you heard in his testimony , you heard mister lemon testified that not based on his experience as a prosecutor that he believed that these documents in and of themselves not only establish probable cause but beyond a reasonable doubt. what is your opinion of that analysis? >> i be a little frightened if that were the in which we

live. >> lie question mark. >> several reasons. the context in which all of these facts, and i don't have to go back to 1000 although i think that is just in the last ... >> if you can be brief i only have five minutes. >> there's been a volume of inaccurate and deceptive information thrown at committees and the media about this issue. if i were an investigator or prosecutor looking at it, i'd be extremely skeptical and i'd want to know more. >> would you want to bring in the people that actually created those documents and put them under oath? yes. >> thank you. madam chair, the reason why i'm stuck on this is because if people are selling fetal tissue in violation of the law, we need to get to the bottom of it. we need to find out what we can't just have some witchhunts based on that were taken off of screenshots and documents created by staff

and i will tell you, even though 12 states including my home state of colorado by attorney general cynthia kaufman who is a republican who investigated these claims mister norton was talking about against planned parenthood of the rocky mountains and found no cause of action to investigate. even though 12 states have investigated and found there was nothing, if you want to send it to the department of justice for investigation i will guarantee you they won't make a little chart with their facts. they will get to the bottom of it with original documents and i suggest that's what you should do if you think there's been a criminal violation. i yield back. >> that is not correct about attorney general kaufman. >> the gentle lady yield back, her time has expired. doctor sean you are recognized. >> you want to expand on that about the attorney general? >> attorney general kaufman has not investigated the allegations of rocky mountains planned parenthood or other planned parenthood facilities around the country

in tracking and baby parts of bodies. she has taken the position she has no authority to investigate the matter whatsoever. unless asked by the governor to do so. >> will the gentleman yield? >> well i guess we won't get to the truth of it. >> a couple things, first of all the indictment in texas was for using a fake id and the data a couple college student, half the college campuses would be indicted over that. also, it was stated that researchers are losing money on this fetal tissue. if they're losing money, how are they losing money if there's not a financial transaction? the other thing is, i agree that past investigations are completely relevant to today's and discussion. if that was the case, we would never investigate anything. and the other thing is, a person in colorado who tragically murdered some people had very severe mental illnesses and that was what was impacted on that situation which is tragic.

during the time of the revitalization act, everyone had high hopes about fetal tissue transplantation.i was a doctor before i came to congress. and unfortunately, that didn't work out. so in reference to this particular procurement agency which has been mentioned multiple times by the minority, this whole section of the act was passed to reverse the ban on fetal transportation statute which applies to allfetal tissue, allows reasonable payment associated with transportation and implementation processes , quality control or storage of human fetal tissue. i know a little bit about this because i was a doctor and it appears to me that all these are upstream activities from the abortion clinic in reference to this particular full-service procurement agency. so the question is, i will start with mister lemon, assuming that that is correct

under this particular procurement agency we are discussing today, do you see any language in the statute that forms the basis to reimburse the abortion clinic for any costs at all? >> i don't, the statute itself doesn't delineate between the two. but i would quickly respond to mister raven, might written testimony submitted makes clear there were assumptions made, that all this evidence is admissible in court, that an ethical prosecutor also has storytellers, either credible insiders or people who are compelled to testify to support it so my analysis in the question i think was unfair. my written testimony points out that the evidence needs to be corroborated but i do think that if the abortion clinic was able to show that there were reasonable costs that were delineated there and i see no evidence of that then that would be compliant

with the statute but i didn't see that in any of the exhibits i was asked to review and that's the basis of my opinion. >> mister norton? >> i would agree with that. i think there are a fair number, but first let me say that in our system of criminal justice each and every individual is assumed innocent until guilty. even those clients mister get would bring to my office when i was united states attorney. they would be presumed innocent as well from the get-go. so that would be the case here and so there are a number of unanswered issues i think that a confident investigation could and should pursue. for example, how much does the abortion clinic received for an abortion client and was the source of that? is it from the patient, from insurers, from medicaid, from other sources?what if any of the servicesprovided to the abortion client , that is the woman on whom the abortion is committed are unbundled and billed to

insurers including medicaid? what is the actual cost of the abortion? what are the amounts over and above that cost and where do they go and how are they accounted for question mark in other words, what's happening to those profits question mark how does the abortion clinic notified of agreement business or procurement business technician of the fact of abortions? if your son the materials we provided that procurement business technician is actually embedded in the abortion clinic and is given access to confidential medical records before the patient even shows up on the scene so that technician can select what organs the company seems to want at that point in time i'm running out of time so i, mister sky you want to comment on something earlier quickly marked. >> thank you very much. the federal provision is a federal provision so all the talk about states having looked at this, by the way the state looked at it, the services in question were provided in the first case in indiana so obviously nothing was done wrong because that

wasn't even part of the equation. >> there are different jurisdictions and from the federal standpoint, from the standpoint of a federal prosecutor is not going to be swayed by what some states decided was or wasn't a violation of their state statutes. >> fair enough, i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. missed spirit you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam care. this hearing belongs in a bad episode of house of cards. i'm sure underwood is gloating somewhere here in the room rate in fact, this hearing is literally based on a house of cards and the exhibits being used as a foundation are in all likelihood the product of a fact carried out by someone who is now under indictment in texas and whose home has been the subject of a court-ordered search in california. is this hearing really going to proceed based on stolen and misleading documents? even frank underwood would be

blushing at this point. this committees full purpose is to hold trials of citizens and companies that comply with the law but not with a political agenda of republicans who want to restrict women's healthcare. 12 states and four congressional committees, one senate, three house have already investigated the videos released by the so-called center for medical progress last summer and found absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. the same cannot be said for david daleiden and his associates. this so-called committee is the very definition of a kangaroo court. a mock court that disregards rules of law and justice to validate a predetermined conclusion. this mock court has real consequences. while we are focusing on what goes on inside a woman's uterus, we are completely ignoring what happens to babies and children outside them.

how else can you explain why this panel is holding this hearing while children go hungry and research on pediatric cancer is desperately in need of more research dollars? what about the implications for our two children if we stifle fetal tissue research? after all, fetal tissue research was key to the cdc's recent confirmation of the link between the got and micro and separately. this is the first step in developing treatment options and vaccines to stop the spread of zika. considering zika affected infants suffer from brain damage from seizures and other medical problems, why are we talking about protecting those innocent lives? if this committee succeeds in abusing medical professionals so severely that they abandon promising research , not a single life will be safe. perhaps we should propose a new name for this committee. the selected investigative

panel on stopping research and letting children die. now, let me ask mister raven, given the no witnesses on the panel have firsthand knowledge of how these exhibits were created or the underlying fact captured in any of them, do you think it's appropriatefor the witnesses to speculate . >> the gentle lady yields. >> madam chairman, >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i take personal offense to it being said that as a physician i'm here to allow people to die. like those words stricken from the record. it's a personal attack on me as a physician. >> you were not referenced by name. mister xi jinping will you please respond. >> i wouldn't quibble with inquiry on that . >> you have to be referenced by name. >> if the gentle lady will yield. >> i will yield. >> thank you. you would have to be referenced by name and i appreciate the inquiry but

you would need to be referenced by name. >> i dislike part of the record that i'm offended by that comment, thank you. >> so noted. missed spirit, your recognized. >> thank you, i can't quibble with speculation. it's important that everybody remember that just speculation, this is not evidence of anything. we got very right experienced people speculating. >> to mister lennon, the madam chair even in her opening remarks referenced quote, horrible videos. these videos have 30 minutes missing from them. the doctor interviewed said 10 times that planned parenthood does not profit from tissue donations and mister daleiden has a proposed transfer agreement with a specific clause, a compensation clause to planned parenthood when he was trying to negotiate a contract.

planned parenthood struck that particular conversation clause and then mister daleiden didn't pursue it. is that a reputable person on which to base this entire committee hearing? >> i've never met the gentleman that you referred to. in fact i don't know what house of cards or frank underwood is either but i will tell you this. there's a difference between what a discredited whistleblower like mister clayton unfortunately had to deal with as opposed to admissions made by an agent of a potential target so those are apples and oranges. i have not reported, i'm not saying i watched all the videos. i've seen some excerpts. i'm just talking as an evidentiary matter, there's a huge difference between a whistleblower who is the discredited and an agent or director or employee or officer of a targeted industry. those are admissions that could be admissible in court

so i think again, i don't want to opine, i've not looked at all the videos. >> i think my kinds expired. >> thank you. >> the dental lady yields back. doctor harris, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. look, i'm sorry. i'm not a lawyer. i'm a doctor. i've worked in responsive research and at johns hopkins and i want to ask today not about problems. i think the record speaks for itself. all the costs were covered by the procurement companies. the record speaks for itself but in exhibit b2, the procurement companies brochure it says these are irb certified exhibits. page 2 in the bottom says biomed approved and i'm going to ask a legal question here because irb approval is very important in human research and if you are looking at whether someone is out to make a profit, you're going to cut corners . they're going to save a dollar here and there so i'm going to ask a question about specifically discount company

called biomed irb. i'm going to ask madam chair and enter into the record to records from the department of health and human services regarding the company, one from march 29 and the other from january 26. the march letter, letter to that company basically asked it to cease and desist from doing approvals or in fact anything being obtained on one of theirs approvals because of the shoddy work that there's apparently one room, single owner, irb mill. that's the best, you can go to their website and see their pricelist. i submitted things to and irb. they guarantee that if you have it in by tuesdaybefore noon, it's actually going to have it before the irb approves that we , basically. for $1900 more, you can submit afternoon on tuesday and had approved that week. it's unbelievable. i want to ask a legal question because it in fact the company continued to obtain specimens under that

irb approvalbetween march 29 and january 16, 2013, who is liable for that? if in fact when that irb, when the fda said you cannot obtain specimens , and told the irb effects through true, mister lennon, who would be responsible for that question mark i don't think i have a foundation to answer that question. let me ask you a question. isn't a valid question to ask that in fact if the fda had said you can't obtain anything under the irb approval that you had until you responded to it and go to the letter came back almost a year later, if in fact a procurement company was obtaining tissue in that period of time, would that be a problem because title 45 of the regulations part 46 makes it pretty clear you need irb approval. and in fact, downstream federal research where and

irb further downstream depended on that information and that irb to be accurate. in other words, if i was obtaining as a researcher tissue from this company, my irb assumes that the previous irb approval is valid. that the company has irb approval.if they don't, is it valid to actually look downstream and see whether those irb were notified downstream, whether those researchers were notified of this approval had been suspended by the fda question mark is that valid? is that something we should look into question mark mister morton, something we should look into? >> not a valid question frankly. as i looked at the exhibits inpreparation for this hearing, that was a question i have is exactly what was the effectof and the date of and the integrity of the irb approval process . as i understand, exhibit c 15 , it is a document that is

being provided to a woman whose obtaining abortions because essentially it's a false statement. >> let me go further to a false statement. on the videos it's pretty clearly, a doctor says we modify the procedure to get better body parts. pretty clearly. there's no doctoring going on here. you look at it and i urge anyone looking at this hearing, go look it up. the doctor says we offer it to preserve the calvary and so we don't cross the calvarium so we can get the amount of money were going to charge for it. the federal regulations say you actually have to tell the patient if you're going to change a procedure. i look at the consent forms which isexhibit c8, page 2 . it says specifically your abortion procedure will not change in any way. look at one of the consent forms entered into the record last time which says that your procedure will not be changed in any way. if in fact the procedure is changed in a way, is that a violation of the irb approved

consent which is necessary for federal research dollars, actually necessary for any research to be conducted downstream. is that a violation of that? if you in fact modify the procedure that the patient signed a consent that said the procedure will not be modified? >> yes, i thinkit's also a violation of the statute itself . >> may just get in there to question the premise? my kinds expired. >> mine is not. >> gentlemen's time has expired. okay, let's mister raben go ahead. >> i don't know a thing about the consent forms but i never work on irb but your premise that the videos were, this not part of the video was not distorted is not accurate. every aspect of the videos that were put out in the public were heavily edited,

deceptive and distorted and independent analysis finds that and i don't think there's a sane prosecutor in the country that would feel comfortable putting peoplewho created those videos on the witness stand in a case because they be impeached . >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. this hearing and frankly this entire investigation is nothing more than an attempt to limit a woman's right to choose under the false guise of illegal tissue sales. and this is the first time we've seen this as miss clayton stated. 16 years ago the house held a ring on nearly identical allegations. those claims also based on secretly recorded videos by anti-choice extremists were found to be fabricated and patently false. in fact, much of the so-called evidence that was used back then mirrors what we are seeing here today. and in that hearing the majority relied upon a whistleblower claim the entities who are profiting from illegal tissue sales,

however while testifying the whistleblower acknowledged that he had fabricated his statements and left any knowledge of illegal activity. the department of justice though, still investigated the person in question, doctor miles jones and found that after a thorough review of the issues, no violation of the federal statutes were found. so mister raben, if the justice department had uncovered evidence that doctor jones had violated the federal laws on fetal tissue donation, the statute in particular section 289 g2 would have permitted the department of justice to prosecute, is that correct? >> yes. >> and the majority appears to be saying that the term valuable consideration isn't fully defined and as a result the doj is incapable of forcing the law. in your opinion does the department of justice lack

the clarity they need to enforce the law? >> know and if the department had actual evidence of federal violations in those cases, the doj would enforce the law, would it not? >> i have complete confidence that the men and women of the department of justice know what they're doing and take issues like this seriously, yes. >> is fair to say that there really isn't a problem with the statute in the 2000 eight regarding the miles jones investigation but rather a lack of facts to support the prosecution? >> that would be my inference, yes. >> you think we are in a similar situation today yes. >> so you think it's possible that the lack of prosecutions that others have referred to over the years under both republican and democratic administrations signals that there are widespread violations of the law as we've heard alleged here today? >> that's right.>> then once again, i think this hearing is really another recycled attempt to show wrongdoing when there is

money or there's no evidence that there has been done and once again we are watching history repeat itself area you know, i'd also point out that after the investigation in 2000, women's healthcare providers were also subjected to false allegations on seven separate occasions between 2000 and 2015, all based on so-called evidence from antitrust extremists. i don't know miss clayton if you have any comments you'd want to make about those allegations that took place afterwards i'd be glad to. the false allegations and the attempts to stir up crazy people like robert dear have been ongoing. they've been ceaseless. in fact, anyone who saw mark proctor talking at the cleveland right to life last month all saw him brag about storing up people like daleiden who will go out and do his business by any means necessary. how proctor has avoided prosecution i don't know but

i think it's because he gets other people to live for him. these efforts by the radical antichoice groupslike life dynamics , army of god have been endless as far as i can tell and they threaten the lives of everyone who uses a clinic and the clinics by the way don't provide just abortions, they provide a host of health services to people who were murdered in colorado were getting abortions. it's a terrible threat to the health and safety of the nation when these people are allowed to get away with that. >> the majority seems determined to use the taxpayer-funded panel to determine continue pursuing the latest series of unsubstantiated allegations even though they been debunked everyone was what event including state attorney generals as well as committee here right here in congress so the truth is that the investigation and this particular investigation isn't really about taxing at all. as we talked about we haven't had witnesses who can speak for the facts here so these are just baseless allegations made by daniel daleiden and it's just another attempt i

would say to smear women's health providers with fabrications. women definitely deserve better. i yelled back, madam chair. >> i thank the gentle lady, mister duffy you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. i got say the whole panel today thinks that we should lookfor the truth . raise your hand if you disagree with that. and we should actually enforce the law. does anybody disagree with the fact that we should enforce the law? great, we are starting off very well. i've heard some conversation about how the department of justice and investigations and for just be clear on this, mister clayton has there been an investigation into this issue? >> i'm not privy to that, i have no idea. >> how about this: is there a lead doj attorney spent aside to lead the investigation into this matter? >> mister duffy on the civil litigator. i have no knowledge or access to that information.

i don't think it's allowed to be shared with people like me. >> so you are not aware of any lead attorney at the department. does anybody on the panel know of the lead attorney on the department of justice who is leading this investigation. >> know, i've heard nothing. >> i wanted to have the panel referred to exhibit b2 and b3. starting with b2. i believe this was a document that was received from the national abortion provider conference and it seems to indicate that there could be financial profitability for an abortion provider if they engage with the blocked out middle person. so if we look at the statute, it prohibits valuable consideration to be paid for the transfer of body parts, is that right? >> absolutely. >> so if someone is getting reimbursed for a body part,

it's pretty tough to make a profit, infinite but you're just getting reimbursed coming can't make money. am i missing something? >> i agree. >> but if you're getting more than just reimbursements, you can make a profit. does that concern anybody in the panel that if the doj and the fbi isn't looking into this, mister norton? i think that's highly concerning, that's why we are here to encourage this planet to do that. >> i would agree with you. miss foster, i've heard from my friends across the aisle talk about this being an issue of women's healthcare. in regards to the section usc, 43 usc section 289, this is a section i believe that talked about valuable consideration for body parts. is there anything in that section you are aware of that relates to women's healthcare? >> there isn't and i would add that as a woman and in fact as a post-abortive woman i am deeply offended that abortion clinics are

permitting improper access by businesses to really exploit us. to potentially place us under duress and to put our children on display for sale. in the way that chicken livers are in a grocery store. it deeply offends me.>> thank you. miss clayton, i'm sure you had a chance look at exhibit b2. is it your testimony that this document has been altered in any way? >> i have no knowledge of any of these documents and if these documents are anything like the videotape, i would start with the assumption that they probably have been altered but i don't have any personal knowledge one way or the other . never saw them until they were sent to me by email and i think it was yesterday. >> so you had a chance look at them since yesterday. you're an impartial witness today was making assertions that there they are probably doctor. >> i would start with the assumption that they might be just because i have no knowledge of them, nor has anyone in this room given any

indication of the document so as far as i know they might have been invented just like the videotapes. >> i would love to have you tell the panel what has been doctor in exhibit b2? >> exhibit b2. >> this is the document that shows an abortion provider can have financial profitability. >> actually, no. it doesn't say that at all. this obviously refers to adult tissue as well as any other kind. it is not limited. i looked at the two sir and it's clear that this is talking about adult tissue which is far differently regulated . >> that is not true. it's talking about fetal tissue. clearly. it says fetal tissue. >> right on face, it wasn't doctor not. >> stem cell rich blood. >> it's been redacted in certain ways. [overlapping conversation]

>> right here, fetal dna. >> will be gentleman yield? >> it also talks about stem cell rich blood and wall materials. does anybody know when they say what materials what's that referring to? >> adult tissue. it certainlyapplies to both adult and fetal tissue and i can't tell from the blackout. >> even if it doesn't apply to both , it's still an offense because it does apply to fetal. >> if this document is being out during the national abortion provider conference and they are talking about adult tissue, is that your testimony thing is clayton? we are not talking about the issue . >> is what my testimony?

made any contribution to any of the members on the panel if so please raise your hand if you've made a contribution to anybody on the panel. >> the time is expired. >> ms. watson coleman you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. it is often said that congress writes their laws in the executive branch enforces them. in 2007 with similar allegations about the organizations they were made based on explosive video interviews the justice department would investigate. assistant attorney general robert, you sir thank you for being here responded to the request about the potential violations of the federal statute against fetal tissue sales. the department noted based upon their preliminary review of the records it appears the department had not received any information meeting our

standards for triggering a formal investigation that the tissue has been sold for a profit, and i would ask unanimous consent a copy of that be entered into the record. mr. raben, can you explain what the standards for the formal investigation are and why the standards are necessary, and have the standards they met in this instance that we are debating now? with the standards are, why they should be met and are we there now. >> briefly, there's different levels that all agencies go through. there's an initial investigation, which can be any credible data. there is a formal investigation that requires a supervisor to

sign off on the resources and then is working with a prosecutor to figure out with a whole range of criteria including sustainability of a conviction or other jurisdictions that can take it so i can refer you to the guidelines and the fbi guidelines and get that to you subsequently. but to answer your question, it could well be that an agency is involved in an investigation we have on the record 12 states that have closed and we have on the record eight state officials saying they wouldn't open up based on the evidence they have, so i wouldn't be surprised if the department has looked at it and declined and as i stated before the problem is there is so much deception around how much of the evidence was created that but i think it would give t prosecutors paused to go forward in the case. >> so in tha in the videos, the

deceptively edited videos be out of contact voices, would they be enough to trigger an investigation? >> it would be an investigator in a prosecutor going with incredible caution. he or she would have to sign in credible evidence, other than that source. >> would involve determining the validity of the investigation or allegations? it would be important to at least have a conversation with individuals on the facts and any documents under review and requests for the investigation. here today you've been asked by my republican colleagues to opine on the criminal misconduct based on documents that were sent to you late monday afternoon without identification of any document underlining the source of information and

documents contained without the benefit of speaking with knowledge of that information. is this in your opinion a fair or legitimate way to determine if there's been a violation of federal law. this panel has instead based its investigations. it is certainly a time for the majority to rely on the facts not inflammatornoninflammatory f antiabortion extremists. i would like to ask one question that has to do with adult tissue versus fetal tissue you wanted to say something with regards to that and i want to give you that opportunity because it is clear that wherever that particular slide comes from it does refer

to both. >> from my experience representing a foundation that provided both fetal and adult tissue for medical research i know a little bit about it. my knowledge is out of date but out of the things i know, fetal tissue donations are highly regulated as our donations of fetal or adult for transplant very highly regulated. when it comes to adult tissue that is just for research there are still regulations but far fewer. when i looked at the exhibit i saw assuming it is a real document and was contemplating more things than one it wasn't just about fetal. so if you talk about if my liver goes to somebody they can do a lot of things with that not highly regulated.

>> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. nobody should make a profit on the sale of baby body parts. that is something that is shared by the majority party and minority party and i want to remind everyone that back in 1993 when this was introduced in congress the idea, henry waxman who introduced the amendment, a democrat said that it would be a poorer and to allow for the feel of the fetal tissue market to be created for the sale and yet today we have seen the procurement organizations in exhibit one, two, three and four are receiving a 700 to $850 per brain that i want to focus on the abortion clinics part of this because we look at exhibit d. one. here are the payments that we've obtained to the various abortion clinics for these parts. we have fresno having 38

specimens and he received $2,090, sacramento clinic received 3,740. san jose, $3,575. now the panel of investigations found that there are many more of these middlemen organizations and hundreds of abortion clinics. i remember some of the doctors on the video talked about making money from the sale of baby body parts and even joking about it, so i want to hear from the former u.s. attorneys given their experience how they would investigate the accounting records and anything else to document whether the abortion clinics profited for the sale of the body parts. >> i have some experience with asome of prosecuting side of ths month just being a former prosecutor and then a few years as the u.s. attorney that also

in my experience in fighting planned parenthood in a very grueling eight-day trial one of the few in the country on the defense of florida's notice act and i will tell you follow the money as a concept that applies with special force in that area and it was astounding what i learned about how money motivates that industry and when i look at these figures, let me give you an example. one of the doctors that testified acknowledged that he had performed over 100,000 abortions and based on the amount of time that the only way we could do it because i continue to try to find out how much are they making and they

thought to stand nail to prevent that information from coming out, so quickly just to answer the question i would say yes its extremelit's extremely importand out. >> what documents would you look for clark's >> i would look for bank records and follow the money, find out who's getting paid, where are the checks going. >> i would start by looking at the videos which i have seen and by reading the third and sixth report in the investigations made up of the former fbi agents which found the videos were credible in the redacted version. i would obtain the records of the financial records of the abortion clinic and the procurement business and frankly of the user as well and subpoenaed the records and witnesses from all of those entities to flush out the facts of the case. >> thank you very much.

in the last minute i want to turn to ms. foster and ask you a question as to testified please explain a little bit more about what you think regarding possible violations of mr. norton raised where the procurement to commission has the ability after receiving the orders through the e-mails to review the medical record of the patient without their knowledge explain how they been violated and what should the penalty be? >> i'm very concerned that it may have been violated. obviously planned parenthood has gone to court time and time again to keep secret and confidential the records of women who have abortions and get the same of bush and clinics are a loving procuremenallowing pros and their doors, sharing records and allowing them to find out some of the most personal healthcare information imaginable. so that obviously is an extreme concern for me and something i

definitely want investigated. >> thank you for sharing that. we are here because we care about the women, too to make sure they aren't being manipulated or hurt in any way. >> the gentle lady killed. mr. nadler you are recognized for five minutes. >> when i think my republican colleagues can find a way to make this more of a farce we have a hearing like this one. none of the documents are showing they contain any evidence of wrongdoing in fact committees documents many of which the republicans have introduced themselves with no basis in reality do not provide any foundation for an investigation of this nature. cutting and pasting sections of the contracts that were never signed or formalized, creating charts with no analytical basis and printing off random invoices with no explanation does not need any investigation. i would think the republicans

should have learned this lesson after the mess of a hearing in 2000 when the procurement organization stood accused of processing the sale of the fetal tissue research. the source of these accusations and videos produced by antiabortion extremists in the same of the same documents we are looking at today for tossed around by the republicans but the same misrepresentation of the facts. as we all know the hearing fell apart when the key with this, the man that accused him of profiting from the fetal tissue donations admitted under oath that he had lied in the videos. suddenly it didn't seem like such a smoking gun. they were not then and they are not now but here we are again. another example of the republican majority going to extreme lengths to advance the global agenda of sneering organizations against whom all federal and state investigations found no evidence of any violation of the law knowing that they would endanger the

lives of people who work for these organizations and that's why i said this committee is worse then the mccarthy investigations because mccarthy endanger people's lives, i'm sorry to endanger people's jobs but this committee is endangering people's lives. and the other goal of eliminating women's choices and degrading their doctors. now i would like to ask you a couple questions. just yesterday we received a letter from the council who informed us and i quote it appears the majority staff may have stolen documents obtained by david and the center for medical progress and the majority of the exhibits that never appeared publicly suggesting perhaps they are receiving the so-called evidence for his associates. is that not calling into question the validity of the investigation or at least what

the majority appears to be relying on clark's >> it sounds like so, yes. >> what do you think of the refusal to even question or test the credibility and objectivity of the investigations, what should that tell us about this investigation? >> i'm not going to comment on my good friends across the aisle. what i am concerned about is whether the plaintiff the hearing is to politicize an investigation and press the doj to do their job to weigh it up differently than they think they ought to do it. i think there is a sad history of that and it's dangerous. >> abusing congressional pressure and prosecutorial decisions clacks >> it's one thing to d. for information and comment between the branches, and it's another to use politics to pressure a particular agent or investigator to doing his or her job. >> is the entire hearing in this

investigation having no purpose essentially other than to suggest that since it is obvious that these organizations are guilty of what they are being accused of that the doj and the investigating agencies haven't done their job properly if they have the indictment clacks >> that's the implication. >> we heard before that he was invited only for the false identification and every college kid or half of the college kids have false identification, so big deal. but section 1001 criminalizes any person knowingly submits false material in connection with an investigation. i think, and i would like your comment, from what we have seen in this entire thing it does seem to be a serious problem that they sent to the medical progress for submitting submitting knowingly mis- information to congress and

that's a serious problem. >> ms. clayton clacks >> absolutely. and i've always wondered why they didn't get prosecuted for it because it was a fact admitted by the guy they hired. that's who they should be going after. >> we had the refusal by the committee to make all sorts of accusations against the express and the refusal by the committee to talk to them and ask them their explanations. then we have the committee or apparently taking direct or indirectly material from the express website without asking if the material seems to be documented all to say the other organizations that you don't want to talk to them to see if they have an explanation and you do take apparently false material stolen in the purpose

in order to pressure. is that a fair summary of what seems to be going on clark's >> yes. is that a legitimate function of the congress? >> i will repeat what i said in the concern i have after 20 some years being on both sides, this is when the congressional travel is used to intimidate or pressure and investigative agency to take action that they think ought to be taken particularly in the face of now 20 states, 20 state officials, nonpartisan have said on the record they've looked into this or other related facts to go forward and prosecutions. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and to the panel for being here. i want to focus on two different things. organ donations and fetal tissue donations. first, many say that organ

donations are a gift that one can get. it's a beautiful thing when you think about somebody donating their organs. organ donations are done with dignity, disclosure and where and how they will be used and if every hospital in the nation there are counselors to help with the process and no money is made from the donation. the process is transparent and seen as ethical. on the other hand when it comes to the fetal tissue donation, it's different. a scared of vulnerable women including a minor who was under age can come into a clinic on the morning of her surgery. first she needs to give consent procedure without any parental guidance for anyone there. then before the event comedy for this procedure, a technician comes to her and gets her to donate her baby body parts.

instead of end unbiased counselor, the tissue technician may be focused on making a commission rather than protecting the woman's best interest. it is not transparent how the organs will be used or by what organization. to me the contrast is astounding and it is ethical, it is unethical for this procedure to happen this way so my question is who protects the interest of each case? who protects the minor's interest in the case? there are no existing laws related to the content for fetal tissue donation. how many organs are needed, how much will be paid out for each part, and as a mother of two teenage girls, i am absolutely astounded and outraged that we don't have laws in place to protect our minors. mr. lennon, why is their uniform

law for organ donation for any and every hospital in this nation and an entirely different practice for donations of fetal organs and tissue? >> i don't know and i would have to speculate. that's a good question. >> my father was persian and came here from india but his people were from persia. [inaudible] it's pronounced this way. is there any evidence that there was any evidence of the wal laws being broken or suggestions of profiteering from bibi's organs, should there be investigations to ensure that this is not the case? >> i thought that was the focus of this hearing, which is to ask

a federal prosecutor if you have this information would it justify the investigatiojustifyn those facts. >> at the end of the comment you mentioned it is actually the duty to investigate and make sure that the law is not being broken. i want to point out five in media differences when it comes to organ donation and fetal tissue donation and ask why there would be such a difference and i want to ask your thoughts here after you hear these first. organ donation is done with protections and advocates for the donor and the person giving the consent for the donation of the organs. of a loved one, sometimes that is already deceased there is no profit being made or money exchanged with organ donation and furthermore, if there was evidence of such there would be a great cause to investigate.

three there's never a minor under address having to make these decisions alone without the consent or advocate of an adult or any other operating procedure let alone an invasive procedure and furthermore, a minor would never be in the position to make the decision to donate the organs of another person. there is no contact when it comes to donation between the recipient of the organ and the position or the transfer team with the consent of before the content is being given and the violations would never be allowed when it comes to the organ donation. so i want to ask you this if you were ever in a clinic setting in bathroom understanding that those protections are different,

who is advocating for years? spinet in the abortion clinic, no one. >> who was there advocating for a minor that this country wouldn'butwouldinclude get behif a vehicle, was not allowed to vote, would not allow to join the military, would not be allowed to smoke, wouldn't even be allowed to join a gym because there's a financially binding contract? >> no one. >> that leedy yields back, and i recognize myself five minutes for a question. as a reminder to my colleagues i believe myself until last in the questions. i want to just go back to a couple of comments that were made, and i do have a couple of questions for you all.

it's a pricing document in the exhibit. we looked at some of those on the pricing of the items and things of this nature. if you are looking at a customer paying say $2,000 for a brain and over the course of a year, that customer is paying $42,000 for the body parts, it's hard to imagine how the procurement business is operating at a loss. and what we are seeking to do is to figure out if there is a violation of the law, and if someone is selling these fetal tissue parts for a profit. that is what we are digging down on as we are looking at the pricing of fetal tissue represented in those documents

and then we have constructed the chart that shows where there seems to be movement of the money. you have heard the debate and the questions coming from both sides, and i'm going to start with you and work my way down. very quickly, but i would like to hear from you, what documents would you request or subpoena from these procurement organizations in order to find out, we have asked for banking records from the procurement business that has been the point of discussion today and they have refused to give us those. they though thought that would p clear the way if you will to figure out. so let's start very quickly we have two minutes and 45 seconds.

>> i would start with accepting the invitation from the procurement business. i understand it's name is stan express. i would have been an under oath and as i understand they've offered to do and ask them how did you come up with this chart -- >> that would be an incorrect assumption but yes we would like to have -- >> the second thing i would do is ask in each particular case what aspect of the cost does a particular clinic incurred for example do they provide space, does the clinic provide the blood draw requires a technician or perhaps a nurse, does the clinic have to do paperwork and how much and therefore how much of the cost is incurred by the clinic itself as opposed to the procurement business card that's where i would start. >> sterilization of equipment, the processing to the preservation of the

transportation costs that i wouldn't look at banking records and hr function as well and staff time for the consent forms that are put together. >> as i said in my opening you have to have a frantic accounting of the procurement business because that isn't clear from the records so you have to have the entire picture. >> the first think i would do is ask are you guilty. every defendant is prosecuted or representerepresented has claimd innocence and that just isn't the case. there is some culpability. i would do the same thing i did get forensic accounting and financial records and the statement and get people under oath before a grand jury. the letters are not particularly valuable. >> there are two things that i would seek among the many different documents. first, financial records that something that must be brought

to light. second, women of every generation are unique human beings that can speak for themselves but the bb of body parts are for tears created a profit which they pressure women into signing donation consent forms so i would want to find out exactly what the procedures are, what documents, with training they have on how to speak to women and how they get the consent form signed. >> i would echo the comments of the other members on the panel. i would note that in the case i handled, many of the miners were -- there were reports from the people that owned and ran the clinics but many would be under the age of 14 who often would cry out for their mothers and so forth, and they are in no position to give meaningful consent such as those suggested

by the exhibits that were presented here. >> thank you. my time is expired and i would yield back. i ask unanimous consent the members were ten open statements be introduced into the record. >> we have provided you a packet of material to be entered into the record and ask unanimous consent that those be made part of the record. >> so ordered. we also will submit the document binder to be submitted for the record and the staff to make the appropriate reductions, so ordered. we will also submit an article from the sacramento business journal from the founder and ceo that will go into the record. with the ranking he