doctors and hospitals into ending abortion services. under the guise of promoting life, this bill puts more lives at risk. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. ms. degette: madam speaker, i believe my colleague has no more speakers. mr. pitts: we are prepared to close. i reserve. bill is a strong ms. degette: i have more speakers. i'd now like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from california, dr. bera, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dera: thank you to my colleague from colorado. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to another bill restricting women's access to health care. the so-called women's public health and safety act is not about public health and certainly not about safety. this is a bill that takes away individual rights. it's a bill that would significantly restrict a women's access to health care.

where they want to go. this is fundamentally about individual rights and individuals' aability to choose where they want to get health care. it's another example of politicians coming in to the examine room and making decisions. now, my colleagues on the right, madam speaker, often will say they want to stand for individual rights. well, planned parenthood has not broken any laws to my knowledge. if an individual patient wants to get their care at planned parenthood, that's their right. planned parenthood's providing access to care. they are doing exactly what their name says, planning and helping families decide when they are ready to start a family. planning parenthood. we should protect that fundamental individual right. now, as a doctor i find it offensive when the government comes into my exam room and tells patients what they can and can't do. fundamentally to the practice of medicine i have to answer my

patients' questions, empower them to make the choice that is they want to, and let them make those choices. again, patients should be able to choose their provider. congress should not be picking and choosing who people can go see. this is about individual rights and preserving that right. i am proud to stand with planned parenthood. i am proud to fight to preserve those individual rights. as a doctor, we have got to protect access to care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. degette: may i inquire to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. degette: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has five minutes. the gentlelady from colorado reserve. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from rhode island mr. cicilline for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, today we are debating h.r. 3495, which should

be called the yet another radical republican assault on women's health care act. this bill undermines the long-standing freedom of choice providers provision of the medicaid statute that protects the rights of medicare patients to seek care from any willing qualified provider. this bill contains language that is so broad that it gives states unchecked authority to deny access to any providers it defines as participating in the performance of abortion. this bill is the latest in a long line of radical republican efforts to defund planned parenthood and deny women access to the high quality health care service it is provides. madam speaker, here are the facts. each year planned parenthood provides essential care to 2.7 million men and women. one in five american women have visited planned parenthood at least once. 1.5 million young people and adults participate in planned parenthood's educational programs or reproductive health. each year 700 planned parenthood

clinics across the united states provide 900 cancer screenings to help detect cervical and breast cancer, 400,000 pap tests, and 500,000 breast exams. the cruel irony of this bill is that if it becomes law, these services, not abortion services, will be put at risk because planned parenthood is already prohibited from using federal funds to provide abortion services intercept limited circumstances. in providing the critical services i just described, planned pirntehood saves lives. -- parenthood saves lives. i want to close by articulating the testimony that richards offered in the house oversight committee today. it was disturbing that so many members of this chamber treated her with such condescension and disrespect. at some point, madam speaker, the republican party will need to end this war on women and recognize that the question of whether women have a right to make their own health care decisions is a matter of settled law. and threatening to shut down the

government unless we agree to deny millions of women access to high quality health care is reckless and irresponsible. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished ntlelady from the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: this is not a debate on people's conscience and what you believe in. it is a debate and question of the law. first of all, the legislation -- the underlying legislation we have before us is likely to be ruled unconstitutional and it's likely to do so because it meets the very four corners of what the supreme court ruled the texas law to be unconstitutional and i'd venture to say that this bill was a copy of the texas

law. in 2014 and 2015, the texas legislators tried to stop reproductive health care clinics by requiring them to have a hospital style surgery center building and staffing requirements, leaving only seven clinics to provide health care. the same thing where they threatened the same kind of thing which would only leave 10 health care providers. guess what, madam speaker? in 2014 and 2015, the supreme court of the united states ruled it unconstitutional and stopped the legislature in their tracks. that's what's going to happen to this legislation as well. let me be very clear planned parenthood does not engage in selling body parts. yes, as under the lay, they do deal with fetal issue research which has saved millions of lives. under the 1993 n.i.h. revitally sargse act, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly receive

any human fetal transfer if the transfer affects interstate commerce. they do not do this. the reason i know that, there's been no department of justice investigation no, health and human services investigation, and in actuality, mr. delayeden, who is not the f.b.i., has engaged in a deleterious, dastardly, deceitful investigation, stealing the inch d. of one of his fellow high school students. so i'm against this bill and i'm against it for the good things that planned parenthood does. for example, in my state, there are 38 clinics, 150,000 young women are being served. 108,000 are contraceptive, others are s.t.i. let me fin herb by saying mammograms are not done in your doctor's office you get a referral and go to a place where you can get a mammogram with a radiologist. if we would only discuss from that, we would know the underlying bill should be opposed. i oppose it and ask my colleagues to oppose it.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expire thsmed echair recognizes the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. farr, for 1.5 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1.5 minutes. mr. farr: thank you very much for yielding. there's been a lot of talk here about a bill that's only two pages long. and you've heard a lot of talk about -- and a lot of misstatements of fact about plan parenthood. but guess what? this bill is really about giving the state's ability to hurt women and never even mentioned planned parenthood. it never mentioned any of the procedures you've heard about here on the floor. it gives the states the ability to wipe out clinics that serve women. so it isn't about abortion procedures. it isn't about planned parenthood. it's about taking away access to

health care. this bill gives the authority to states to cut off all those services if they specialize in health care for women. when is this war on women going to stop? your party ought to be ashamed of its reputation in this country now that is taking on women on all issues. so on behalf of my wife, my daughter, and my granddaughter, who will need access to women's services, hopefully not abortion, but if necessary, maybe, i would hope that this war on women would stop and that all of us would vote against it. oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: we're prepared to close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. deget: thank you, madam speaker. we have heard a lot of emotion today, madam speaker and a lot of ideas and ugly things being thrown around but as a lawyer with legal training, i did something radical. ms. degette: i actually read this bill because as mr. farr pointed out, it's only two pages long. i want to talk about what this bill would do. this bill would do far, far more than its proponents claim it would do. let me say first of all, there is no federal money that is spent on abortion in most cases in the united states. this has been the law of the land for a long time. i disagree with that law because i think it limits full reproductive health for women who can least afford it. but that's the law of the land. so what are we talking about here? what we're talking about is states being able to deny money

to anybody who is directly or indirectly involved with abortion services with nongovernmental money. with private money from women and their family with insurance money, with nongovernmental money. so here's how this bill would work. a state could decide that if a hospital provided abortions with nongovernment money, it simply wasn't going to authorize state money or medicaid money to that state. it could -- to that hospital. and i don't mean just medicaid services for women's services. i mean all medicaid money or state money. all money for services. this bill could say that an ob/gyn who has co-privileges at a hospital that provides abortion could now not serve any medicaid patients. this bill would say that a doctor who provides services at

a neighborhood health care clinic who has privileges at a hospital that provides abortions could now be banned from taking medicaid patients. that's how broad this bill is written. what this would do is it would allow states to terminate all government funds to any entity that directly or indirectly provides abortions with nongovernment dollars. so what would this do? well, 72 million people in this country are on medicaid right now. these people are men, these people are women, these people are children. these people are people who take women's medical services and those who don't need them. these 2 million americans risk the loss of all of their health care services under medicaid because of this radical bill. now, ok, let's say that won't really happen. let's say that's just an overbroad interpretation of the bill.

so then our colleagues on the other side say, well, let's just limit ourselves to community health centers. if we use this bill to deny funding for planned parenthood, everyone will go to community health centers. let's see how that would work. right now, we have 24 million patients in this country in community health centers. the community health centers themselves tell us for every one of those 24 million patients they're taking, right now, they're turning away seven people. so we have 4.2 million planned parenthood patients. let's say those 7.2 million planned parenthood -- i'm sorry, those 4.2 million planned parenthood patients decide to go to the community health clinics, that's not going to work. they tried this in louisiana. in louisiana, a federal judge found there would be 29 providers for 5,000 women to do health care services. that's untenable. that's unacceptable.

and it puts the jeopardy of our nation's women's health at risk. since we've been debating this bill today, we're one hour closer to a government shutdown. and we have done nothing to make sure we're not going to do that. i would suggest that we refocus our efforts, that we stop beating up planned parenthood that we stop beating up women's health, that we get together collectively and we say, how are we going to keep this government open? how are we going to work together to make sure every man and woman in this country has a good job, a good health insurance, and that they can provide for their families. that's what we're elected to do and that's what i commit myself to do on behalf of this body. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> madam speaker, we've heard lots of arguments here on the floor. mr. pitts: we've heard about abortion being a health care issue.

abortion is not a health care issue. abortion is the most violent form of death known to mankind. death by dismemberment. decapitation. it's horrific. and these video clips that we've seen show the graphic nature of what they're doing to these little unborn -- unborn babies in planned parenthood clinics and harvesting their body parts, and you call that humane? it's horrific. it's barbaric. why is this bill necessary? currently, c.m.s. is bullying states, telling them they must include providers of elective abortions in their medicaid programs. with ll empowers states the needed flexibility to design their medicaid programs in a

manner that's consistent with pro-life values in a state. the gentleman talked about patients. well, a lot of unborn babies are treated as patients in their mother's womb. one lady talked about, what about individual rights? what about the rights of these little patients in the womb? this bill merely gives states the flexibility to choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its medicaid program of entities or persons who perform or participate in the performance of elective abortions. under this bill, low income women and men will still have access to more than 13,000 federally qualified health centers and rural health center sites. in addition at least 1,200 private and free charitable

clinics. in contrast, planned parenthood has some 665 clinics. they can find health care near them. because these federally qualified and rural health centers are 20 over the one planned parenthood clinic. we have the list of the member here's. some of the members who have spoken. they have one planned parenthood clinic. they may have 56, 44, the list varies, community health centers who would get that redistributed money and provide real health care as doctor harris said. this bill gives states the flexibility to design their medicaid programs in a manner they choose. to serve their medicaid patients. so i strongly urge support for h.r. 3495, the women's public

and madam safety act, chair, in conclusion, i ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on h.r. 3495 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? ms. degette: i object -- i withdraw. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. does >> the house when on to approve the bill. it would allow states to exclude planned parenthood who conduct abortions. forle richards testimony funding on her organization. to fiveing is close

hours. >> committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. chairman is responsible under the rules of the house and the rules of the committee to maintain order and preserve detore um in the committee room. members of the audience are reminded disruption is a violation of law and a criminal offense. we welcome your presence but we will not tolerate disruption. we hope to have a good, lively debate. this is what congress is

intended to do. and we need everybody in this room -- we need everybody's participation along the way. this is an important topic. the risk of getting a little personal, my wife julie and have i been married some 24 years. have our 25th wedding anniversary coming up in february. i'm proud of my wife. she got her degree in psychology later in life after helping to raise three kids. some are still at home. she has started to work for a plastic surgeon. this plastic surgeon is involved in helping women who are having to have their breasts removed. and my wife spends her day

helping these women. and i'm proud of her for doing that. my mother, she passed away when i was 28 years old. she fought cancer for more than ten years. she had breast cancer. and i miss her. i lost my father to cancer as well. cancer in this country kills about 1,500 people a day -- a day. and yet our federal government spends about $5 billion to fight it. if they were shooting 1,500 people a day, if there were rockets coming -- we would be fighting this with everything we have got. and as i said before i came to congress and i'm saying it here today, as fiscally conservative as i can possibly be, we don't

spend enough on cancer. we don't spend enough. we need to spend more. i would quadruple the amount of money if i had my chance to fight cancer and win. and the reason i'm passionate about the hearing today is we got a lot of healthcare providers who i think in their hearts know that they're trying to provide good. the question before us is, does this organization -- does planned parenthood really need federal subsidy? does it need federal dollars? every time we spend a federal dollar, what we're doing is pulling money out of somebody's pocket and we're giving it to somebody else. what i don't like, what i don't want to tolerate, what i don't

want to become numb to is wasting those taxpayer dollars. and as best i can tell, we're going to have a hearing here, this is an organization that doesn't need federal subsidy. for the year ended june 14th -- june of 2014, i should say, planned parenthood reported $127 million in revenue over expen expenses. they had $127 million more in revenue than they had in expenses. yet between 2005 and 2013, in large part under ms. richards' leadership, there was a 53% reduction in cancer screenings. 42% reduction in breast exams and breast care.

i don't understand why. i don't understand why. let me give you a sense of the numbers that we're talking about here. government dollars from taxpayers going to planned parenthood is roughly $528 million. $450 million of that comes in federal funds. roughly $390 million comes in the form of medicaid. a lot of blufter today about shutting down the government over planned parenthood. the funding amount that we're talking about under title 10 is $60 million. i just told you that last year -- last year they had more than 100 milli$100 million in r without expenses. and we're talking about $60 million. roughly 4.6 of their total

revenue. planned parenthood is an organization with massive salaries. ms. richards makes nearly $600,000 a year. the person that runs the affiliates makes roughly $450,000 a year. i could be here for a long time listing out salaries. this is also an organization that seems to have exorbitant travel expenses. they spend more than $5 millioned in travel, first class tickets, private chartered aircraft. roughly, they are spending $14,000 a day on travel. that's a lot. that's money that isn't going to women's healthcare. ymlabñ on blowout parties, chocolate champagne events and

salt and pepper came and performed a concert. celebrities and other hoopla. these are things they lost money doing, according to their tax record. in the past three years, they spent more than $67 million on fund-raising. they're pretty good at it. that's partly my point. they're pretty good at fund-raising. they don't necessarily need taxpayer dollars to go pay for it. and this part i really hope we have a deeper discussion about. we may not learn everything that we need to, but over the past five years, more than $22 million has been transferred from their 501 c3 to 504 c4 organizations as well as pacs. this is advocacy, it's lobbying, it's get out the vote. in one case in alaska, it was

about redistricting. ladies and gentlemen, that has absolutely nothing to do with providing healthcare to young women who need a breast exam or need to get a mammogram. none of that money goes to that. it's a political activity. i was, i guess, naive but surprised that you could take it and give it to the 501 c4. if you look at planned parenthooda parenthood you will see shared assets. it's a political organization. that's something that needs to be ferreted out. when you start saying, they have to have federal money, they have to have federal money, over the past five years, they spent more than $32 million sending money

overseas. didn't even come to the united states of america. didn't affect people in low income situations. they're so flush with cash, they started sending and giving out money overseas. i don't understand that. we have the state department. we have all kinds of foreign aide. we don't need planned parenthood foreign aid. but that's what we got. and their desire for more of taxpayer dollars is just insatiable. there are going to be discussions today i'm sure about the video. or videos. let me just explain that. i know i've gone over time. but we're going to have to address it one way or the other, so let me address it. i think it was legitimate to look at all of the videos, all of the videos. so we issued a subpoena to get ought of the videos. in cam clifornia, there's a cou case where there's a temporary

restraining order that doesn't allow the producers of the videos to release them publically. so we actually sent a letter asking for the videos. democrats didn't want us to ask for the videos. they wanted to take that language out. nevertheless, we moved forward and actually went to the extraordinary step of subpoenaing, something i think that actually both sides of the aisle should support. if you want the totality of the record, let's send a subpoena for all the videos. now, with a temporary restraining order in place, there's conflict between the legislative branch and the judicial branch. what we're seeing here is they on one hand have a restraining order, can't send the videos, they have a subpoena from the united states congress. that is going to have to work itself out. there has been discussion about the producer coming and testifying before congress.

i don't know which direction we're going to go to that. the first step is seeing all the videos. all the videos. dp democrats said they have been doctored. they have videos they want to show that show that. the reason they're out there is that they are publically available. there is more to this story, there is more that needs to come out. but that's going to have to play itself out. the prime thrust of this hearing today is about the finances. we were very clear and blunt in our -- in what we were talking about in terms of what we're trying to accomplish here today. have i great latitude to members. they can ask what they want to ask. the focus of what we're doing today is how this organization is funded and how they spend their money. if they're going to accept taxpayer dollars, they have to withstand the scrutiny of congress asking questions about how they spend the money. that's the direction i'm coming from today. if there's more clarification needed, let me know.

i now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. let me be clear from the very beginning. we have asked for all of the tapes, mr. chairman. we wanted all of them -- everything. we welcomed a subpoena for everything, because we think that that goes to the integrity of this committee and it goes to the integrity of this congress. today's hearing is very important. it will reveal whether this committee is more interested in facts or fiction. the questions members pose will show whether they are engaged in an even-handed search for the truth or a partisan attack based on ideology. the way we conduct ourselves will demonstrate whether this committee is seeking integrity

in our investigation or is being usurped by the most extreme forces of partisan warfare. let's look at the facts. david dolidon and his group engaged in a campaign of deceit against planned parenthood. they set up fake companies, created fake identities, repeatedly lied about who they were and secretly recorded planned parenthood employees without their knowledge or consent. these are facts that mr. dolidon admitted to. he admitted to this. his goal for the past three years was to entrap planned parenthood into selling fetal tissue for profit.

selling it for profit. he deceived, misled and essentially conned planned parenthood employees to try to achieve his goal. he gave them illegal contract proposals. he offered them huge sums of money. and he pursued them relentlessly. some would say he was obsessed. despite his best efforts, he failed. there's no credible evidence before this committee that any planned parenthood employee agreed to any proposal to sell fetal tissue for profit in violation of the law. republicans keep making this claim over and over again. but that does not make it true. when he was faced with the failure of his three-year

effort, he did not relent. he took the video footage he had, manipulated it and put it out to the public. he removed every single time planned parenthood employees rejected his offers. he edited out all of this exk exculpatory evidence and he twisted what was left to distort the truth. something is awfully wrong with that picture. last week, all the committee members on this side of the aisle asked for him to testify here today. since his video was the basis of this committee's investigation, we wanted to ask questions about his tactics and his evidence. that's only fair. but republicans refused. they did not want him to testify. they don't want him to -- to subject him to a difficult or uncomfortable questions that relate to the actual facts. but the facts are indeed critical.

here are some of the key facts we now know. federal law authorizes fetal tissue research and it expressly allows for recouping reasonable costs. that's a fact. that law was passed by congress with strong bipartisan support based on the work of president ronald reagan's blue ribbon panel on fetal tissue research in 1988. this is also a fact. planned parenthood receives no federal funding for fetal tissue donation programs and only 1% of planned parenthood's health centers participate in these programs. those are facts. unfortunately, i suspect the facts will have little impact on the republican talking points and they will just keep accusing planned parenthood of selling

fetal tissue for profit. today's hearing are supposed to be about federal funding. so let me highlight one more fact. republicans have been saying that planned parenthood receives a half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds. they make it sound as if the government writes a check to planned parenthood each year. but the vast majority of the funding, approximately $400 million, comes from reimbursements from individual health services under medicaid. medicaid provides healthcare services for people who are poor, elderly and have disabilities. in my home state of maryland, banning funds for planned parenthood would have a negative and disproportionate impact on poor women who rely on planned parenthood for a host of healthcare services including pap tests, breast exams and

cancer screenings. mr. chairman, as i listened to you talk about cancer and breast cancer, i agree with you. we need every dollar we can get for research with regard to these diseases. as you know, on friday i will be funeralizing my mother-in-law who was very dear to me, who died from breast cancer less than a week ago. so i understand what you are talking about. i get it. a lot of people who need these services are the people who live in our districts and they live in areas where they do not have these services. and i'm sure ms. richards will testify with regard to that. for many poor women, planned parenthood may be one of their only sources of medical care in

underserve d or rural communities. this brings us to the big question for my republican colleagues. do you really want to do this? do you really? do you want to align yourselves with the red cal extremists who manipulate the facts? most importantly, do you want to attack millions of women who have a constitutional right affirmed by the supreme court of the united states of america to make their own healthcare decisions with the advice of their doctors? based on the evidence of last week, it appears that you do. you threaten to shut down the government. you ousted your speaker. and now you want to set up yet another select committee to investigate. it looks like you have made your choice.

unfortunately, i think your actions will result in even more chaos and discord in this congress, which is exactly what the american people don't want. they do not want the discord. ms. richards, i want to thank you for being here today to give us the facts. your group has been extremely helpful during this investigation providing tens of thousands of pages of documents. your cooperation stands in stark contrast to mr. dolidon whose notable absence speaks volumes. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we have agreed to allow the subcommittee chairman to also make opening statements. we will now recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on healthcare benefits administrative rules, mr. jordan of ohio for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this hearing. thank you for your heart felt remarks in your opening statement.

here is the troubling truth. a picture is worth a thousand words. you can see that these things were edited, they were changed. but if that's the case, why did ms. richards apolgize for the videos two days after they first surfaced? everyone knows the videos are as the speaker of the house said, barbaric and repulsive. this argument, this argument that we keep hearing from the other side, republicans want to shut down the government. are you kidding me? we want to fund the government at the levels everyone agreed to. the budget -- the levels of the president agreed to. we want to shift the money from an organization caught doing what they were caught doing and give it to the community health centers. shift it from the 700 planned parenthood clinics, give it to the 13,000 federally approved community health centers. take the money from the guys doing bad things and give it to the ones who aren't. take the dollars from one

private company doing what the speaker said, barbaric things shg, and give it to federally approved health centers. if the democrats insist that this organization should still get your tax dollars and that that somehow is more important than funding our troops, our veterans and frankly wm's health issues and some of the things the chairman talked about, if they're their position, then they can defend that position. let's be honest here. this is what this is really all about, plain and simple, money and politics. here is how it works. politicians give money to planned parenthood who give it back to politicians at election time who get elected and give it back to planned parenthood who give it back to politicians who get elected and the game plays on. in 2012, in that election cycle, planned parenthood spent almost $12 million in advertising.

fact, $11,874,052, 100% of that went to democrats. every penny, every single penny went to democrats. no wonder they are defending this repulsive game. politicians give money to planned parenthood. they give it back to politicians. it keeps on going. the nice thing about these videos, it has lifted the curtain. we can see what's going on there. that's why we should fund the government and shift the money from this organization to organizations who didn't do this kind of behavior. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. we will recognize ms. maloney for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome ms. richards. last week the democratic members of this committee sent a letter warning our chairman that the

relentless campaign by the conservative house freedom caucus to attack planned parenthood was, in fact, part of a broader power struggle to unseat speaker boehner led by an extreme wing of the republican party that is using this issue to force a government shutdown unless the speaker bows to their demand. our warnings proved press enter. on friday, speaker boehner announced he will resign at the end of next month but not before creating a new select committee to investigate planned parenthood. make no mistake, despite what we hear from the other side, republicans are doubling down on their war against women. i request unanimoooh n unanimou place this letter in the record.

>> without objection, so ordered. >> when you read this, there are certain things that jump out. all of the signatories are men. none of whom will get pregnant or need a cervical screening for cancer or a mammogram or a pap smear or other life saving services that are provided by planned parenthood. we will hear today lots of arguments to justify the extreme aksz of the center for medical progress, those who created these videotapes. but there is one simple reason we are at this point. republicans want to outlaw a woman's right to choose. republicans say that this is all about videos purporting to show violations of our laws. but when the facts come out, that contradict their narrative and it comes to light, it never seems to matter. for example, when we learned

that the videos had dozens of unexplained edits, removing phrases like, "we do not profit from tissue donations from those who work for planned parenthood," that did not matter. when we learned that less than 1% of planned parenthood centers had any involvement whatsoever in fetal tissue donation, that did not matter. when we learned that some planned parenthood centers involved in tissue donation took the extra precaution of accepting no reimbursement for their cost, far beyond what is required by federal law, that did not matter. when we learned that the planned parenthood centers that lawfully accepted reimbursement rekoopd only their costs and repeatedly refused offers from anti-abortion extremists to entrap them into accepting far larger amounts, even in one case ten times more, republicans still insisted they were trying

to profit from these donations. the righteous rhetoric we have heard for weeks about planned parenthood trafficking in baby parts has one sfufundmental lawt is not true. it never has been true. it makes for a great sound bite. the reason the facts don't matter is that this whole episode is not about tissue donation or the amendments or medicaid reimbursement. the core issue is that republican members of congress now almost universally oppose a woman's right to choose. they oppose the constitutional right of abortion. increasing number, like senator marco rubio, support banning abortion with no exceptions, none whatsoever, not even in cases of rape, incest or when the light of the mother is threatened. the majority of americans

disagree with these extreme views. and we will do everything we can to stop them. because if we don't, there will be serious consequences for women across this country that rely on the services -- life-saving services. it is their choice of over 2.7 million women to have their basic healthcare services provided by planned parenthood. in 103 counties with a planned parenthood health center, they serve all of the women obtaining publically supported contraceptive services. there aren't any community health centers that can step in to fill the void. if we don't continue this life saving service, women will be denied healthcare across this great nation. this continued assault on constitutionally protected reproductive freedoms is based on outright falsehoods and lies

backed up by fraudulent reco recordi recordings, selectively edited by radical anti-choice activists. and if they have their way, over 630,000 parents will lose access to birth control, std screenings and other reproductive healthcare, mammogram, cervical cancer screenings. we need to recognize this fight for what it is. it's about bannin a woman's right to choose and it is being driven by politicians, most of whom are men, who think they have the right to dictate to women about their most private healthcare decisions. and i might add that planned parenthood polls four times stronger than congress. i might add, we should be investigating this group that did fraudulent edited tapes and not a distinguished healthcare

providing health life saving group that is a cross this nation saving lives and providing basic reproductive healthcare to american women, many of whom are very poor and many of whom are very vulnerable. so i want to publically thank planned parenthood. one in five women in america have gone to planned parenthood for services, including myself. at times in their life when they needed it. and i want to thank you for the work that you are doing. to provide basic healthcare reproductive healthcare services to american women. and men. >> i will hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. we have had wide interest from a number of our colleagues from broader house membership. i would ask consent that other congress women be allowed to

fully participate in today's hearing. if there are additional democrats that would like to participate, i would be happy to waive them in as well. without objection, so ordered. we will now recognize our witness. pleased to welcome ms. richards. all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. if you will rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whoethe whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate if you would limit your testimony to five minutes and your entire written statement will be made part of the record. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i'm proud to be here today speaking on behalf of planned parenthood, a leading provider of reproductive healthcare in america. one in five country in this country has sought care from us and they trust us because our standards have been created over our 99 year history. there's been a great deal of misinformation circulated by planned parenthood recently. i want to be absolutely clear at the outset. the federal funding that planned parenthood receives allows our doctors and clinicians to provide birth control, cancer screenings and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. while the federal policy in my opinion discriminates against low income women, no federal funds pay for abortion services at planned parenthood or anywhere else except in the very

limited circumstances allowed by law. these are when the woman has been raped, the victim of incest or when her sleeve life is in d. we operate like other health centers and hospitals that provide medical care. medicaid reimburses us for the health services that we provide. the department of health and human services conductings routine audits of the medicaid program to ebb sure theer funds are used appropriately. the same is true for the title ten, the federal family planning program which was signed into law by president richard nixon. planned parenthood has been in the news because of deceptively edited videos released by a group dedicated to making abortion illegal. this is just the most recent in a long line of discredited attacks, the tenth over the last 15 years. the latest smear campaign is

based on efforts by our opponents to entrap our doctors and clinicians into breaking the law and once again our opponents failed. to set the record straight, i want to be clear on four matters. first, using fetal tissue in life saving medical research is legal according to the 1993 law passed by the senate 93-4. based on recommendations from a blue ribbon panel that was created under the reagan administration. second, currently less than 1% of planned parenthood health centers are facilitating the donation of tissue for fetal tissue research. third, in those health centers, donating fetal tissue is something that many of our parents want to do and regularly request. finally, planned parenthood policies not only comply with but go beyond the requirements of the law. the outrageous accusations levelled against planned

parenthood based on heavily doctored videos are offensive and categorically untrue. i realize though that the facts have never gotten in the way of these campaigns to block women from healthcare they need and deserve. mr. chairman, you and i do disagree about whether women should have access to safe and legal abortion. at planned parenthood, we believe that women should be able to make their own decisions about their pregnancies and their futures. and the majority of americans agree. we trust women to make these decisions in consultation with their families, their doctors and their faith. and not by congress. is it unacceptable that women are routinely harassed for accessing a legal medical procedure. doctors who provide abortion as well as their families often face harassment and threats of violence and after this recent

smear campaign, it's only gotten worse. these acts against women and healthcare providers don't reflect american values or the rule of law and i hope this committee will condemn them. for 99 years planned parenthood has worked to improve the lives of women and families in america and largely as a result of access to birth control women are now nearly half the work force in america and more than half of college students. as a result of better sex education and more access to birth control, we are aat a 40 year low for teen pregnancy in the united states. for all the progress we have made, there is much still to do. for many american women, planned parenthood is the only healthcare provider they will see this year. it is impossible for our patients to understand why congress is once again threatening their ability to go to the healthcare provider of their choice. two weeks ago, i was in texas

with one of these patients. she can't be here today because she has a new job and she's supporting her family. but if they were here, she would tell you what she told me, that planned parenthood saved her life. in 2013, her husband lost his job and, therefore, their health insurance. and not long after, she found a lump in her breast. the only two clinics that would take a patient without health insurance couldn't see her for at least two months. so she came to planned parenthood for a breast exam. there our clinician of 21 years vivian guided her through the process of follow-ups and referrals and helped make sure they are treatment was covered. she called dana repeatedly to check on her as she entered treatment. and i am really happy to say today that dana is now cancer free.

mr. chairman, i wish this congress would spend more time hearing from women like dana. all women in this country deserve to have the same opportunities as members of congress and their families for high quality and timely healthcare. so i want to thank you to be here today and opportunity to testify on behalf of dana and the 2.7 million parents who rely on planned parenthood for high quality essential healthcare every year. thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize myself for five minutes. ms. richards, planned parenthood has sent 32-plus million dollars in grants overseas. does any of the funds go to the democratic republican of the congo? >> congressman, let me -- >> no, no, no. we don't have time for a narrative. >> you asked me a question. any of the money that is planned parenthood raises and is given

by foundations and individuals to support family plans services is in africa and latin america and they go to individual organizations. i'm happy to provide you a list of those organizations. i did not bring them with me. >> if could you give us a list. does planned parenthood have any ownership in foreign companies? >> i don't believe so. i don't know what you mean by ownership. >> in your 2013 tax return it lists $3.3 million marked as investment in central america and the caribbean. i'm asking if that was an actual investment. >> we don't own anything in those countries. >> okay. >> let me keep going. i have to keep going. i would appreciate a list. you have been very cooperative so far. >> we have been extremely cooperative. >> i just cited that. if you can give us a listing as you said you would of where those dollars go overseas we would very much appreciate it. your compensation in 2009 was $353,000. is that correct?

>> indon't have the figures with me. >> it was. congratulations. in 2013, your compensation went up $240,000. your compensation we're showing based on tax returns is $590,000. >> my annual compensation is $520,000 a year. i believe there was a program that the board sort of put together for a three-year -- again, i think we have been extremely forthcoming with all of our documents. >> let me go to the next one. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no. planned parenthood action fund controls two 527 organizations that have their own political activities. planned parenthood votes and action fund pac. do they receive money to conduct these activities? >> the planned parenthood action

fund is a totally separate corporation, receives no federal dollars whatsoever. >> what about the management? who manages is? do you manage it? >> it's managed by a team of people who are employed by the planned parenthood action fund. i don't directly manage it. >> do you help manage it? >> some of my time is allocated to it. but i do not oversee -- >> in 2013, you were listed as a shared employee. you were compensated with $31,000 to help run that organization, correct? >> you asked me -- sir, you asked me if i ran the organization. some of my time -- >> do you help rub it? >> some of my time is allocated to the planned parenthood action fund which is required by law and we meet all of the legal requirements. >> you also involved in the action fund. if you could help us understand what the duties are for your $31,000 of contribution. my guess is you run the mothership here when you show up

and want to have something done, it's probably done. does planned patienthood control any organizations that lobby? >> the planned parenthood action fund is a separate organization that has its own board and no federal employees -- >> shared assets. shared lists. shared e-mails, assets. this is the concern. tell me about -- >> could i -- i want to make sure you understood my statements as i know we're talking about federal funds. zero federal funds are related to the -- >> it's the co-mingling that bothers us. hold on. every dollar that you get in a federal from federal dollars means you don't necessarily have to allocate it for these particular assets. that's what we're concerned about. tell me about the $200,000 you gave to the ballot initiative strategy center. what was that for? that was in 2013 as well. >> i'm not familiar with that exact payment. >> you gave them $200,000.

if you don't know -- you are running this organization. hold on. hold on. let me list out what their goal is. their mantra is, envision where progressives use ballot measures as a political and civic engagement tool for victory. you gave them $2 owe,000. >> i ran an organization that has a budget of $200 million. when you pull out one figure out of the last five years, i'm trying to be responsive. it's important to -- perhaps you are not aware there have been many efforts in states over the last several years to pass ballot initiatives that restrict women's access to birth control and reproductive healthcare. for me to be involved in ballot measures that have been introduced by people who want to restrict women's healthcare. >> if you want to be vie vat. you don't need federal dollars to do this. >> i don't to do that. >> you do to run the organization. planned parenthood has given planned parenthood action fund

more $22 million to exercise -- involved in their lobbying expenditures and their advocacy efforts. >> none of the dollars that you are discussing are federal dollars. the planned parenthood federation of america receives almost no federal dollars. at this point $21,000 for clinical trial network for birth control. >> you just separate all that out. >> we are highly accountable. >> have i gone over time. i need to show this last slight. this one i don't understand. in the case of dana, when she came to planned parenthood, did she get a mammogram? >> no. she was referred for a mammogram. >> that's part of the challenge is that you don't do mammograms. if you -- >> i'm sorry. >> you don't do mammograms, correct? >> if you would give me one moment to explain. planned parenthood say woman's health center like where i go tore my breast exams every year. if you need a mammogram, you are

referred to a radiological center and that's how women actually receive their care. we provide breast exams to -- i could get you the numbers of how many hundreds of thousands of women receive breast exams at planned parenthood last year. has nothing to do with -- again, you created the slide. have i no idea what it is. >> it's the reduction over the course of years in pink, that's the reduction in the breast exams and the red is the increase in the abortions. that's what's going on in your organization. >> this is a slide that has never been shown to me before. i'm happy to look at it and -- it does not reflect what's happening at planned parenthood. >> you are going to deny that we take those numbers -- >> i'm going to deny the slide you showed me that no one provided us before. we provided you all the information about everything -- all the services that planned parenthood provides. it doesn't feel like we're trying to get to the truth. you showed me this.

>> i bulled tho pulled those ou >> the source of this is actually americans united for life which is an anti-abortion group. so i would check your source. >> we will get to the bottom of the truth of that. we will now recognize mr. cummings for a generous seven minutes. >> i thought it was eight. i think it's eight. thank you very much. ms. richards, i often hear women, including my wife, talk about the way women are treated as opposed to men. not being a woman, i try to be sensitive. i want to just -- the chairman gave you a series of questions. i have a few other ones. i find it extremely hypocritical that the republicans criticize your salary when you have violated no law while the same

republicans ignore the ceos of huge companies that are actually guilty of breaking the law. earlier this year, jp morgan and other major banks pled guilty to manipulating markets and interest rates. they were fined more than $5 billion for their actions. yet city group ceo received $13 million last year and jp morgan's ceo received $20 million. these banks get extensive federal support in the federal of barring through the federal reserve window and access to the insurance through the fdic. ms. richards, do you know if house republicans made any effort to strip the banks of their federal support that i just talked about? >> i'm awaunaware. >> well, i can tell you they did. johnson & johnson was fined $2

million for kickbacks to doctors and nursing homes yet the ceo still received $25 million last year. ms. richards, do you know about the house republicans conducted an investigation of this company or other drug companies that violated the law? do you? >> i do not. >> i can answer that for you, no, they didn't. and they never sought to deny federal funding through medicaid or to block their nih grants. let me go on. last month lockheed martin was fined millions of dollars for using tax payer funds to lobby congress, to maintain its hold on a multibillion dollar pentagon contract. lockheed ceo received a stunning $33 million last year. miss richards, do you know if there has been any investigation or any effort, any, to eliminate

lockheed martin's federal funding? >> it sounds like there hasn't been. >> you got it. of course there wasn't. these are huge companies that are actually guilty of breaking the law. and their ceos make millions of dollars. republicans never criticize the salaries of their ceos and they never try to strip their federal funding, their government subsidies or tax breaks. but when it comes to women's health, when it comes to women's health, the republicans's approach is is completely different. republicans targeted planned parenthood which provides essential high-quality care to millions of american people more aggressively than all of these companies combined. with no evidence of wrongdoing, these republican investigations

multiply. this whole defunding fight a pretext for the republican agenda. it's a pretext. take away the constitutional right of women and their doctors to decide what is is best for them. i reject the same on women's health. ms. richards, again, i want to thank you for being here. republicans use planned parenthood from selling tissue from abortions for profit. federal law explicitly allows for the reimbursement for tissue samples. but mr. deliden's videos are proof that planned parenthood was making a profit.

do you know who dr. nuke tore is. >> yes. >> who is it? >> she works in our medical division. >> i want to do steps from some of the stuff there deliden left when he was doing his working with the tapes. dr. tkreb nideborah said no ones going to see this as a money-making thing. she went on to say we're not looking to make money from this. our goal is to keep access available. another quote left on the cutting room floor. we really just want it to be reasonable for the impact it has on the clinic. this is not something -- this isn't a new revenue stream that a affiliates are looking at.

this is offering service and do good for the medical community and still maintain access at the end of the day she went on to say the other piece on the cutting room floor, on the floor are there affiliates that would just donate the tissue for free or -- and then there is another one. dr. natollah said, i mean, really, the guidance is, this is not something we should be making an exorbitant a amount of money on, so --. so let me ask you this. ms. richards, i cannot imagine a more clearer answer than these. as far as i can dr. deliden and his group spent the better part of three years, miss richards

trying and failing to entrap planned parenthood employees. they tried to get someone to sign a contract, agree to a sale, or provide one tissue sale at a price above reasonable expenses that are allowed under the law. but nobody, nobody has identified a single, a single incident where that occurred. is that right ms. richards? >> that's correct. >> it's amazing how hard mr. deliden and his group tried to get your affiliates to accept more than reasonable expenses. over and over again they press, they cajole, but they never succeeded. so after they fail in the three-year effort, when they were unable to get even one agreement, they put out these misleading videos instead and they cut out every single time an employee said no, no, no, no. ms. richardings, my final

question as i run out of time, in the clips that i just talked about, dr. nakatollah was not aware she was being secretly recorded. do you know whether that is accurate or not? >> that is the truth. >> my time is up. >> my first is is how many planned parenthood clinics have mammogram? >> i'm not sure how many are at each facility. >> and how many clinics are there?

>> 650 and 700 on any given day. >> okay. so none, to your knowledge, have a mammogram machine. >> right. we have different kinds of arrangements with -- depending on the state, to refer women for mammograms. as i said earlier, the question to the chairman -- >> what surgical services does planned parenthood provide, surgical services? >> well, we provide surgical abortions. we provide polyposcopy. we have courses across the country. but some planned parenthood provide broader services, some primary care, et cetera. >> i was just asking about surgical services with that question. so abortion is included in surgical services. but i want to find out where you

get your 3% figure that you cite for abortion procedures. that's yourself reported abortion statistic. >> it is 3% of all the procedures we provide. all the services we provide. >> okay. well, let's talk about planned parenthood revenue from abortions. if you look at the 2013 statistics that you report, abortions from -- from revenue would have been over 86% of your nongovernment revenue. how do you explain this massive disparity between the amount of revenue you collect from abortion and the only report 3% of your services being abortion? >> well, i think there's two questions you sort of mixed in there. let me try to address both. one is, as we already stated, federal money does not go for

abortions. so the federal portion is reimbursement for preventive care services. i think the other -- so that's why they are -- those numbers aren't connected. >> can you tell me how many of your affiliates receive the majority of their revenue from abortion? >> i don't know that answer. >> could you get it for me? >> i'll talk to my team. >> thanks. >> but i do think it's important to understand that abortion procedures are probably more intensive than some other procedures that we provide. which might explain what you are trying to get at. >> okay. according to your 2013 tax return, i'm switching now to travel expenses, planned parenthood spent 5.1 million on travel last year. so as the chairman said earlier, that's nearly 14,000 per day.

what is all that money being spent on? >> well, we're an organization in 50 states. we as the chairman has noted we have programs in latin america and in africa where we support family planning programs. and i think we have provided very detailed information, thousands of pages are financial statements, audited financials, our annual report. if there's anything we need to break down further, i'm happy to do that. but i would say that, again -- >> i would very much appreciate it if you would break it down. because the tax payers are funding over 40% of planned parenthood. and my point is they just have a right to know how this money is being spent. >> absolutely. >> and if tax payer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide that are are a

abhorrent services in the view of many tax payers. there are alternatives in this country. many, many, 13,000 clinics that cater specifically to women's health. >> congresswoman, i would like to address this. one of the comments made earlier, and i wasn't able to respond, we don't get a federal subsidy. it is important to understand -- >> can you function -- >> -- how the medicaid -- >> why do you need federal dollars? you're making a ton of dough. >> we don't make any profit off federal money. if i could just have a moment to explain. >> but you are using -- >> 1.6 million -- >> it could go to the 13,000 health care clinics. my time is up. i yield back. >> could i answer the question? i'm not sure exactly what the whole question was.

but i do think it is really important to understand that 60% of our patients are receiving -- they are either medicaid patients or title 10 patients. 78% live at 150% of poverty or below. for many of them, it is is the only family planning provider that will will see them in their area. so it is not a -- we don't just get a big check from the federal government. we, like other medicaid providers, are reimbursed directly for services provided. >> mr. chairman, thank you for allowing ms. richards to answer the question. >> as a point of clarification, ms. richards, i want to make sure there is no ambiguity here. it was asked whether the majority of revenue comes from abortion services.

will you actually provide us that list? >> i will talk to my team. just for the record, i am here voluntarily. we have provided tens of thousands of pages of documents to you, audited financial statements. i will talk to my team and we will do -- >> for the record, you have been very cooperative. i just want to keep that rolling. why not this part of it? >> i don't want to commit to anything that i don't have. i said i will work with you is and your team. we have no -- >> if you have it, will you give it to us? >> i don't have it. so i'm just saying to you i will work with my team and we will work with your staff to provide any and all information we can. >> i would hope that would include the request from the congresswoman from wyoming as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i would like to register

my opposition and my objection to the chairman beating up on a woman on our witness today for making a good salary. the speier time i've been in congress i've never seen a witness beaten up and questioned about their salary. ms. richards heads a distinguished organization providing health care services to millions of americans. find it totally inappropriate and discriminatory. ms. richards, are you aware that there are over 285 rallies in support of planned parenthood, including one in my district today. and that many are calling today national pink out day in support of the services and life-changing and life support services of planned parenthood? are you aware of that?

>> i am. i look forward to changing into pink as soon as these proceedings are finished today. >> are you aware that 2.7 million men and women in america choose planned parenthood as their primary health provider and that there are two planned parenthood clinics in the district that i am privileged to represent. and if you go at the end of the day, young women and men are lined up through the waiting room, out the door. and on some days clear down the block waiting for the health care services of planned parenthood? >> i'm glad to hear that. again, we're pleased to provide services to anyone who walks in the door. one of the things i think that is important and refers a little bit to the question earlier is that 60% of our health centers are able to see patients on the same day. and i know for many women if

they are concerned about a lump in their breast or need birth control. for some of them they haven't had an annual mammogram in many, many years. we are proud to serve them with high quality care when they need it. >> are you aware this hearing today is is promoted by a series of deceptively edited and purposefully misleading videos that have been found to be deceptively edited by leading organizations in this country, including five states, five states have their own individual investigations. now six. missouri did their own review. and they found they are complying, that planned parenthood is complying with allstate laws regarding tissue donations. are you aware of any other efforts by republicans and others to defund other organizations that provide health care, reproductive health

care to women in this country? >> i'm not aware of any, but there may be. >> what about a tax on title 10? >> well, i think it has been concerning not only are we seeing in this country ending access to safe and legal right of abortion, but support in family planning are equally disturbing. i'm encouraged that finally we are beginning to see some breakthrough. as i said earlier, we have the lowest teen pregnancy in 40 years in america. we are seeing much better birth control. through the affordable care act, now 50 million women getting access to no cost birth control. i think there is a lot we can do to reduce costs in america. >> what do you want to do for those who want to defund planned parenthood and outlaw abortion altogether? >> we trust women to make their

decisions and make decisions where they want to go for health care. i know a lot members of this committee feel strongly people should be able to go to their own doctor. this isn't an attack on planned parenthood. this is 2.7 million patients who each year choose planned parenthood as their health care provider. and i think they should have that right. >> i agree with you completely. we in congress can join. vulnerable men and women should be able to choose their health care provider. i would just like to end by saying using these videos to justify efforts to defund planned parenthood is extreme abuse, it is deceitful and undermines the integrity of this committee. thank you. my time has expired. >> the gentlemenwoman's time has expired. now the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> if the videos were selectively edited, if this was

entrapment, all untrue, then why did you apologize? >> well, congressman, first, everyone has agreed they were heavily edited -- >> my question is why did you apologize? -- the perpetrator agreed they were done undercover. i spoke with dr. nukatollah featured in one of the videos and i thought it was important in my opinion, in my opinion, it was inappropriate to have a clinical discussion anything a nonconfidential, nonclinical setting. and i told her that. >> what were you apologizing for. >> that she used i think, in my judgment, it was bad judgment to have a clinical discussion in a nonclinic al setting. >> the first video comes out july 14th. two days later you issue an a apology. you said it is unacceptable.

i personally apologize for the tone and statements. >> that's what i felt like -- >> no. here's the question. what statements were you a apologizing for? >> it was really the situation that she was in. >> ms. richards, that's not what you said. you said i apologize for statements. i would like to know and the american people would like to know which statements in the video were you apologizing for? were you apologizing for statements that are untrue? if something is unroux and false, you don't apologize for that. you correct the record. but that's not what you said. you said i personally apologize for the tone and statements. and i'm asking you a simple question. there was only one video at the time you issued this statement. when you did the video, there was only one video. i want to know which statements were you a apologizing for? >> congressman, at the time i'm sure you remember, that video

was released. we have had no time to actually evaluate how much editing had happened. it was days later. >> which statements in that video were you a apologizing for? >> i was reflecting that on that video, not any particular statement. it did not reflect the compassionate care we provide. >> that raises an important question. so is what you said in your video untrue? you weren't really apologizing for statements made? >> i was apologizing for what was said in a nonclinical setting in a nonappropriate way. and i don't believe -- >> you can't have it both ways. you can't say i'm apologizing for statements in one video and then not tell us what those statements were. >> i don't believe that doctor -- >> or you can say i wasn't apologizing for any statements. but it can't be both positions. it has to be one.

and i want to know which one is it. which one is it? >> in my judgment, it was inappropriate to have that conversation in a nonclinical setting in a nonconfidential area about clinical matters. and i have tardy that to dr. nuke toll la. >> why didn't you say that? this was a video you produced to send out to the whole world, not a reporter sticking a mike in your face? >> we may have to just agree to disagree on this matter. >> i don't think we need to agree on to disagree. i think you're not answering my question. >> i want to say for the record -- >> this to me is critical. at the moment you did this there was one video. then you do your video in response to that video. and you made a specific statement. i'm sure your staff worked on this. this probably went through a number of drafts. you were very specific in what you said. i a apologize for the tone and

statements. so there were statements in that first statement that were accurate that were out there and you wanted to apologize for it. i'm asking you a simple question. what you needed to apologize for. >> the highly edited video. we have gotten further -- >> the highly edited video that you apologized for. >> i have now read hundreds of pages of all the things that were said and what is clear now there were many 10 times during that conversation in which dr. nuke toll la said -- >> it is a simple question. it is as simple and basic as it gets. you don't apologize for things that are inaccurate. you apologize for things that are accurate.

there are statements in that first video that i want to a apologize for. i want you to tell this committee and were those statements? >> i think i have already made my explanation. and for the record, dr. nuke toll la is an excellent doctor. >> i'm not saying she is not. >> i wanted to make sure that you understood that she provides incredibly are compassionate care and i'm proud of her. >> now recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. >> first, i want to thank you for the medicaid funds you do receive. the fact that they are medicaid funds makes its own statement about who you are serving. you are serving low income women in my community and throughout the country. i want to thank you for that. i want to congratulate you on raising your own funds.

you receive a very small grant. you are being investigated by four committees of the united states congress, and the speaker wants a standing committee. none of them have indicated they want to investigate this deceptive take which at the moment is enjoined because it may indeed be legal. yet this committee is about uncovering illegal matters, not providing a cover for such matters. you know, when i saw this tape i had a sense deja vu. and i asked the staff to look and see, isn't there some kind of pattern here? and discovered there were nearly

10 of these deceptive sting operations over the past 10 or 15 years. may i ask you, hosni one of those stings uncovered wrongdoing on the part of planned parenthood? >> absolutely not. and thank you, congresswoman norton. i think it is important to recognize this is a tactic that's been used repeatedly, as you say, 10 times of the last 15 years. and every single time it has been thoroughly discredited. >> it seems they never learn, ms. richards. i want to bring to your attention a sting from 2000 that looks remarkable like this one. an anti-abortion extremist approached a committee to say they have evidence that planned

parenthood was selling fetal tissue for profit, which is of course what has been alleged by republicans consistently. of course there was an investigation. the hearing with this whistle-blower who claimed he had helped planned parenthood sell fetal tissue for profit and that he had seen intact fetuses at a planned parenthood clinic. by the way, does that not sound familiar? he said there was an affidavit at the hearing. he swore that in his aft -- this is somebody watching out for perhaps being prosecuted -- that he had no personal knowledge of anyone at planned parenthood selling fetal tissue for profit.

during his testimony, this is about 15 years ago, he admitted that he was paid by an anti-abortion group to appear in the sting video. and i want to quote what he said. when i was under oath, i told the truth. anything i said on the video when i was not under oath that is a different story. does that not sound like the story of this video? >> i think it does. >> i want to know how you can protect yourself as an institutional matter, how do you deal with these repeated stings, unsuccessful though they are, being approached year after year as you attempt to provide health services for low income women.

what do you do as an institutional matter with repeated stings to keep going in the face of this activity? >> well, i think what keeps us going, and i think i could speak here for the thousands of folks that work here at planned parenthood, many of whom deal with threats and to their own personal safety, it's the patients. that's what keeps you going. >> but is there anything you can do to protect yourselves when people come off the street. you presume they would be in good faith. is is there anything that an organization could even do to protect themselves against unethical activity of this kind? >> well, we work very hard to protect our patients. and they are our number one priority always. we have security. we take it very, very seriously.

it's a shame to think there are people in this country who are so committed to ending women's access to both birth control and safe and legal abortion that they will really resort to any means to try to entrap people, twist the truth in order to reach their ends. but again, we believe, and why i am here voluntarily today, that the facts are on our side. we are proud of the health care we deliver every single year despite the animosity by some. and we are grateful that the american people stands with with planned parenthood as "the wall street journal" showed last night. >> 65%. >> we will now recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> thank you, ms. richards, for being with us. we are all products of our personal experience. we heard how their lives are affected. when i was young i had a

different opinion. when my wife and i lost our first child, your life and your philosophy change. from that time, i tried to be a champion for the unborn. they don't have advocates. a lot of groups send you a lot of money advocating. but they don't have a very good lobby. you are an advocate for abortion. and your organization provides a significant number of abortions. i think the staff told me there are 300,000 abortions last year in the united states. is that approximate? >> about 300,000 at planned parentho parenthood. >> at planned parenthood? >> yes, sir.

>> what about in the whole of the united states? >> i think it's about a million. >> so you provide about a third of the abortions. you would probably have to be the leading provider of abortion in the country. >> i don't know if that's exactly true. i just know what we do. >> i've had belief of some exceptions. but there are many people that i represent, myself who object to any public money going into abortions. i think the majority of americans would oppose public federal dollars going into abortion. would you agree with that? >> i don't think the polling reflects that. i think it depends -- >> if you ask people, i think they would. that's part of it. your most recent controversy raised questions about public money in your organization. i looked at it. i was kind of stunned.

it's about 41% of your total money is federal money. it is is not just a small amount. because if you had the money you get from different programs, grants, et cetera, it's 41%. and i've had that figure confirmed. that's a significant amount of money. i don't think most people have any problem with you spending the money on women's health care. i'm a strong advocate for that. you have 650 clinics? >> roughly. there are new ones opening all the time. >> you don't have one mammogram machine in one? mammograms have never -- >> you don't do that. >> we do breast exams. just like my own doctor does. >> your breast exams are down significantly. and i've got the numbers from your reports from 830,312 exams

in 2009 to 487,029 in 2013. and those are your statistics. so you're getting more money, you're not spending it there. now, do all 650 of the clinics perform abortions? >> no, sir. >> how many? >> roughly half provide abortion services. >> again, this is when 41% of the money is coming out -- people, their religion, principles, they feel strongly, as do i, that no public money should go into this. we should do everything we should to put money into research. you're not putting money into research.

you are criticized for your salary. it's a big organization. buff then you look at where is the money going in north dakota, south carolina, one employee got 459,000. southern new england, one got nearly $400,000, 398,000. another one, 380,000. another one, 377,000. another a quarter million dollars. there are dozens of employees in the quarter million dollar range. people want the money to go for research. people want the money to go for helping women with their health care identifying the problem or putting the money where it can do the most good. not travel, lavish parties and expenses. maybe you separate that money.

but i tell you, it does not look good. i yield back. >> i would love the chance to respond. >> it was more of a comment than a question. we need to keep the pace here. we will recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> welcome, ms. richards. >> thank you, mr. congressman. >> i wish your mom would be here. she would be handing out texas boots to all of my colleagues. >> she's here in spirit. >> thank god. you know, i hope every american woman is watching today's hearing. because just the visuals as well as the a audio tells you a lot. my colleagues have said there's no war on women. look how you have been treated as a witness. intimidation, talking over, interrupting, cutting off sentences, criticizing you

because of your salary. how dare you! who do you think you are? making a professional salary as a head of a premier national organization and daring to actually make decisions as head of that organization. lord almighty, what's america coming to? the disrespect, the misogyny rampant here today tells us what's really going on here. this isn't about some bonus video. the author of whom does not have the courage to appear here. nor would the majority call him pause they know he will make a bad witness under oath. this is about a conservative philosophy that says we are

constitutionalists. we believe in individualism and personal liberty. with one big carveout, though. there is a an asterisk in that serious. except when it comes to women controlling their own bodies and making their own health decisions. you would never know that the constitution, according to the supreme court, guarantees a right of choice. hopefully, apparently, we're going to erode that choice and that right by using insinuation and slander and half truths for the primary mission is to provide health care to men and women, but primarily women. one of my colleagues said

getting rid of planned parenthood will hand these over to community health clinics and other nonprofits that can take up the slack. if you were really committed to that principle, surely you would agree to the expansion kade as provided of the affordable care act to, in my home state virginia, 400,000 people who aren't covered. >> that's correct. >> it would make your job a lot easier, wouldn't it? >> a lot of families need access to health care that aren't getting it. >> so if we really need it, that's what we do. but of course the very same people who are saying that vehemently oppose medicaid. 90% is a good deal for any state. which might be why the governor of ohio, the republican governor of ohio, actually agreed with

that and expanded it. >> that's right. is is there you want to add uninterrupted with some sense of respect? >> thank you, congressman. and i did want to respond to what's been said. we are a health care provider to 2.7 million people every year. they come to us by choice. so when i think about what's really at stake here, particularly for folks who think about ending access to planned parenthood, i think it's about those folks. last year we provided 3.5 million birth control services in this country. 4.4 million std testing and treatments, 378,000 pap tests. almost half a million breast exams. more than a million pregnancy tests. it's interesting one of the things we do is work to the

highest level, most current level of health care for women. it's interesting we are being criticized for the decline in pap smears and that's because we have adopted the best medicine. not every woman needs a pap smear. that's what we are back, making sure every woman regardless of her income, immigration status, whether she is insured can get a access medical care. that's why we are proud to do it. >> that is called respect. thank you, ms. richards, for being here. >> i recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> ms. richards, this is my 27th year in congress. i'm sure i have seen many male witnesses treated much tougher than you have today. and surely you don't expect us to be easier on you because you're a woman? >> absolutely not.

that's not how my mama raised me. >> let me ask you this. you say in your testimony a lot of women wouldn't have access to certain types of health care were it not for planned parenthood. do you know that the department of health and human services say there are 9,727 health care service delivery sites, 4,082 rural health clinics, 1,200 qualified health centers that also operate 9,000 other sites, over 9,000. do you know about that? and there are over 2,000 pregnancy health centers over 80% which received no federal funds at all. and that doesn't even count many hundreds of thousands of private doctors and nurses and health care delivery services, walk-in

clinics and so forth. have you taken all of that into consideration? >> certainly. what i can speak to is what i know about, the patients that choose, again, voluntarily to come to us. one of the interesting things is is nationally a third of the women who access family planning services through a safety net provider, a third of the women get that from planned parenthood. >> the point is there are many thousands of other alternative health care providers. let me ask you this. according to our reports, there are 2.3 million private charitable organizations. almost all of whom receive no federal funds. but do you know how many received 41% of their funding from the tax payers? >> i don't know how many see as many patients as we do. we see 2.7 million patients a year. >> do you know of any other charitable organization

receiving 528 million from the tax payers? >> the fair comparison is who is seeing 2.7 million patients. we don't get a big check from the government. we are reimbursed for birth control, std testing and treatment. >> well, i can tell you almost every one of those 2.3 million charitable organizations would tell us that the government, tax payers benefit from what they are doing also. and just to give you an example. the national boys and girls club in the last annual report said they received $26 million from the federal government compared to your 528 million. it seems a little bit lopsided to me. >> the call is providing health care to 2.7 million people. i respect the boys and girls club. we work like hospitals being

reimbursed directly for services we provide. i think the comparison is a little apples and oranges. >> let me ask you this. do you think it's right from a free country to contribute to your organization because that's what you're doing, taking tax payer money who oppose what you are doing. >> we provide health care like any other hospital or provider that sees medicaid patients. one thing that is important to understand in many areas there aren't new doctors or health care providers that will see medicaid patients. particularly in the southern united states. to find someone who will provide a well visit, birth control services. >> let me ask you this because my time is running out. i know you apologized for the discussion and the tone and maybe the laughter. i don't know whether you a apologized for the laughter on

the videos. do you defend the sale of baby body parts. >> no. and i think that is a total mischaracterizati mischaracterization. fetal tissue research was started -- the whole commission that legalized and created the structure under fetal tissue research was started under the reagan administration. what it does is facilitates fetal tissue donation. that is, as i said, fewer than 1% of our centers, facilitate fetal tissue donation -- >> my time has run out. i just want to say this. it seems to me that the apology you offered was like what some criminals do. they're not really sorry for what they have done. they are sorry they got caught. and it seems to me that your apology is more because you got caught on these videos. >> i respectfully disagree.

>> ms. richards, thank you for testifying and being here today. an organization that provides such extensive preventive health care to millions of women. i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from 92 organizations that work closely with planned parenthood talking about all the great high quality health care it provides for women and women throughout the country. i myself have received services from planned parenthood. like many young women, when i was in my young 20s, i came from a very poor family. i wasn't able to afford college. i went based on student loans, pell grants and two jobs, one of

which as a waitress. i couldn't get that wealth getting a health exam. i couldn't afford to go to a doctor. the job was there. you can start friday if you come in with a valid health exam. go to your local planned parenthood. they will do it for you today. you can start in two days. it was a life saver. i remember what it was like needing the health care and trusting planned parenthood for helping me when i was in need. i want to talk about what you do across the country and focus a little bit as an example of my home state of illinois. i think it's a critical point that 96% of the services that planned parenthood, according to your most recent a annual report are for preventive and screening services. in illinois for 2015, tell me if these sound accurate to, nearly 60,000 patients were served over

110,000 visits in illinois. nearly 50,000 for contraceptive services. over 34,000 were for std testing and treatment. 7,000 visits were for cancer screenings. does that sound about right to you, ms. richards? >> itst. thank you. i would like to address an issue that started very early on in this hearing which is this implication by allowing medicare and medicaid to reimburse planned parenthood we are shifting money away that could be used for military defense and servicemen and women. as a military woman who retired after 23 years of service, i would like to talk about the services that planned parenthood has provided to military men and women and their families for the past several decades and include the women of the peace corps.the very women who are willing to lay down their lives were denied

services under the height amendment of for abortion services as a result of rape or incest. and especially this is tragic in light of the many tens of thousands of women of sexual trauma. can you go through what you have done for the past many decades. >> thank you. and i'm glad we were able to provide you health care when you needed it. my first real doctor visit was a planned parenthood when i had gone away from texas. so i'm grateful as well to the organization. we do serve everyone. that is really our mantra is care no matter what. we believe it is so important that no matter what walk of life someone comes, from whether they're insured, military services. in fact, i remember the last time this house of representatives went through a similar exercise. i remember hearing from a woman in north carolina who said --

she wrote in. she said i don't know if they know that. us military wives go to planned parenthood when a doctor on base can't see us. so i know we serve military families all over this country. and we're proud to do so. >> can you talk a little bit about senator murray's bipartisan legislation to allow women veterans and families which allowed us access to ivf treatment for in fertility issues caused by a military service being withdrawn as a result of the attacks on planned parenthood? >> i'm not that familiar with all the details of her bill. i know senator murray has been a strong advocate for ensuring that women in the military get the same types of services, that women do here in the states. and i think we are highly supportive of that. it is incredibly important that we equalize women's access to

health care globally and in the u.s. >> thank you very much e, ms. richards. i yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> i thank the witnesses for being here. i am wearing a pink tie in solidarity of women's issue. my wife, daughter-in-law, daughter, my two granddaughters. >> congratulations. >> -- are extremely important to me. i just go back to some of the statements on the video. and i'm not going to spend time there. but planned parenthood commissioned a report by fusion gps examining the authenticity of the videos. the conclusion of that report says the analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of "substantive video manipulation" and it "shows no evidence of audio manipulation." full versions of the videos are

available on the center for medical progress website and the cmp youtube channel. only edited are pardon me breaks and two breaks where no conversations took place. i just want that stated for the record, mr. chairman, as we have a lot of controversy about the videos. yet the eyes show but ears even more so, what was said. >> could i address that? >> very quickly. i want to go on to more crucial issues. >> i think it's important that we at planned parenthood asked, i think even prior to this committee, that all the original source footage be released. that has still not happened. because, again, we want all of it out there. >> we want to know too. >> i think we can agree