Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  September 30, 2015 6:00am-7:01am EDT

6:00 am
i'm looking at this and i'm seeing an employee of planned parenthood's affiliate in north dakota and south dakota was paid $549,827 in 2013, is that correct? >> i don't have the figures. i do happen to know that affiliate -- this is a woman who has been a health care professional for decades. >> $549,000. and it is correct that you were compensated $590,000 in 2013, is that correct? >> well, i tried to address this earlier. >> i understand. >> i'm sorry -- >> yes or no? >> $520,000 was my annual salary. there was a benefit that was accrued to me -- >> and $590,000 was your compensation in 2013? >> it's set by the board of directors, and it's important to me -- >> all i need to no is yes or no. >> no federal funds go to my salary. >> $590,000 was what you were
6:01 am
compensated in 2013, according to what you provided this committee with, correct? yes? >> i think i've answered your question. >> let me ask you about the travel for planned parenthood. planned parenthood spent over $5 million on travel in 2013. that's almost $14,000 a day. was that first class, or was any of it charter jet? >> that would be nice. no. i don't fly -- >> $14,000 a day? >> we have eight million supporters in this country. we provide health care to 2.7 million people. we provide sex education to 1.5 million people. >> is that correct? 14,000 dl $14,000 a day? >> i'm happy to look at them. >> can you provide this committee with the records that show the modes of travel that you've taken, whether they've been first class, whether they've been charter jets? >> i will work with the
6:02 am
committee staff to provide whatever we can on questions that have been asked. >> we appreciate that very much. let me ask you something -- >> although i will say for the record, i do not travel first class. >> neither do i, but i don't spend $14,000 a day either. nevertheless. you've made the claim that many patients wouldn't have timely access to basic reproductive health care if it weren't for the services of planned parenthood. yet, u.s. department of health and human services in 2015 said that there were almost 9,700 health care service delivery sites and over 4,000 rural health clinics, including over 1,200 federally qualified health centers operating over 9,000 sites in the united states. how many clinics does planned parenthood operate? >> between 650 and 700, depending. >> if that would go away, these patients wouldn't have access to health care?
6:03 am
>> well, i mean, i'm looking at the cvo report -- the congressional budget just came out with a report that if planned parenthood -- if women were unable to go to planned parenthood, medicaid patients or title ten patients, 390,000 women would immediately lose health care next year. >> the problem i have with that is the obama administration reports that there are over 13,000 publicly supported health care alternatives in the united states. have you seen that? are you aware of that? >> i have not seen that. >> that's what the obama administration is telling us. so that's almost eight times as many as planned parenthood has. and out of those clinics, i mean, we've got almost -- excuse me. i misspoke. over 20 federally funded clinics, as opposed to every planned parenthood. yet those federally funded clinics, they don't have $100 million endowments. today don't have $70 million manhattan condos.
6:04 am
they don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on grammy-winning performers performing at their galas. they don't do any of those thing. yet they are able to provide needed services to women. why is it that planned parenthood has got to have that in order to have the same services? do you believe that they have to have that? >> well -- >> it's yes or no. that's all it is. >> with all respect, that wasn't really a question. i would say i really stand by the fact that we provide health care to many, many women in this country. >> the question was, have you got to have that in order to provide health care to women? other clinics don't have it and they don't have it. >> i'm not going to speak to every other clinic -- i think we provide excellent health care to women in this country. >> please answer the question. the question is do you have to have $100 million endowment. $70 million condos.
6:05 am
>> i don't know what you're speaking of. with respect, i think it's important that the question here is do low income women in this country have the right to choose wherever they want to go to for health care. and 2.7 million of them choose planned parenthood. >> why don't you let them go to one of those $70 million condos. >> the gentlelady from texas is recognized. >> thank you so very much for the courtesies extended. let me thank the chairman of the full committee for his courtesies, and to mr. cummings, certainly for his courtesies as well for my participation in this very vital hearing today. i am a member of the judiciary committee as well, and we held such a hearing some weeks ago. and so i can almost say deja vu. let me thank ms. richards, first of all, as a fellow texan, to thank her for the legacy of her family. that has always been engaged in public service. and that's what i consider you
6:06 am
and planned parenthood as doing. coming from texas, let me cite the houston planned parenthood offices, of which i've been in, walked through, and seen the clinics, and seen individuals who fell into my arms, indicating that without planned parenthood, they would not be able to, in fact, have health care. let me ask you very quickly, as my time goes. it may be as i've been listening this afternoon that we have been mixing more than apples and oranges. it might be apples and potatoes. because we're talking about abortion. when i say that, many of these questions have come forward. and i just wanted to read this quote from a senator in oklahoma. in discussing planned parenthood. my focus is to try to deal with the life issue. defunding planned parenthood is just a sideshow for the real event. has this come to your attention, ms. richards, that many are talking about something that really has nothing to do with your federal funding? >> well, i do think it's been a bit of a theme. i think that is one thing i'd
6:07 am
like to say. it's important that i don't really believe that an organization, a health care provider should be discriminated against for providing a legal service. whether it's planned parenthood or a local community hospital or anyone else. >> let me follow up as well and hold this up and ask to place it into the record. let me cite for some of my colleagues. ohio, 28 clinic, 80,000 patients, 66,000 on contraception. texas, 38 clinic, 150,000 patients and 108,000 on contraception and others dealing with sexually transmitted diseases. if those clinics went away, we're talking about 28 in a big state like ohio, 38 in texas. thousands of women losing access to health care. is that not correct, ms. richards? >> that's correct. >> and are you familiar with the texas cases which challenge or
6:08 am
discuss the legislative initiatives that are literally implode clinics in texas, and the supreme court decision that ruled in 2014 and 2015. i think the united states supreme court pay be based on roe v. wade, may be based on the fact that abortion services which are not part of the funding here. but in any event, just so my colleagues would know that, in my state of texas, the state law would have cut off 75% of reproductive health care clinics. the supreme court indicated that the texas law was unconstitutional, indicating that the separate work that you do, dealing with people's right to choose, is a lawful act and has nothing to do with federal funding, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> and the supreme court has indicated that abortion by law is not illegal. in those cases. >> and i know a lot of these are still on appeal. i do think since we both come from texas, i think it's
6:09 am
important to know that when the state of texas shut down the texas women's health program and planned parenthood's ability to serve women, there were 25% fewer women in texas that are receiving care as a result. so i think that's why it's so important that we don't ever put politics ahead of women's health. >> let me get these last two questions in. as a member of the house judiciary committee, we deal a lot with the fbi. let me just ask you about mr. delayeden's work. is he a member of the federal bureau of investigation, to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he an fbi agent to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he a member of the department of justice? >> i don't believe so. >> has the health and human services ever investigated you per se about your medicaid reimbursement, meaning something you have not been able to answer or file another filing? >> we follow all the laws at the state and federal level every day. >> so he has been engaged in an investigation, has no
6:10 am
authorization, is not a member of the fbi, which i recall dastardly and deceitful. are you aware that mr. deladen has pleaded the fifth amendment in some cases that he's engaged in? >> i have read that in the paper. >> are you aware that it has been checked that mr. deladden stole the identity of the president of the feminist club, have you heard that? >> i have also read that in the paper. >> and let me cite not you, but rh realty check. would we then say that we're here today to speak about the facts, and therefore are you saying on the record today that planned parenthood does not use any federal funding for anything that is not authorized under the laws of the united states of america? >> we follow all the laws at the state and federal level, and whenever we find issues, we take care of them and address them. >> i thank the gentleman and the
6:11 am
committee for its courtesy. i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. a few questions. i'd just like to clear up some things. first of all, you talk about the percentage of women who are low income served by planned parenthood. i am under the impression that if you have a younger person, a 21-year-old college student or even a 16-year-old high school girl, that for the purpose of defining income, you leave out the mother's income. so, for example, if a billionaire's daughter made $5,000 last year came to planned parenthood, she would be considered low income, is that correct? >> i would have to check on that. i don't know of any billionaires' daughters that are coming to planned parenthood, but i'm happy to look into that and to address your question. >> okay. i'm saying for the purpose of the family planning waiver, i think it's pretty well publicized that both high school kids, college kids, for the
6:12 am
purpose of determining income, they look at -- they're considered a family of one despite living with parents, is that true? >> i'm happy to check on that. and i think at a lot of high school or college women, they may at that point -- they don't have the resources of their parents and a lot of women do come to us because they need family planning but can't talk to their families. >> okay, the next question i have. when i look at cities around me that have a planned parenthood clinic, usually they're medium sized cities. 20,000, 30,000, $40,000. usually in those cities, as a guy, i could go to many clinics locally that have all the machines that one would need. all of these clinics, as far as i know, take medicaid dollars. so you could go to any of those clinics to get any medical service you could. i guess what i'm getting at is, in my opinion, if planned parenthood disappeared tomorrow in those towns, there would
6:13 am
still be three or four or five clinics or hospitals providing all the medicare -- all the medical care you would want. and quite frankly, providing superior care to people who were on medicaid. >> i think we do provide superior medical care. >> i'm saying superior care in the sense that on medicaid, without the deductibles and co-pays, it'sial usually better insurance than people have. i guess what i'm saying is if planned parenthood were not around in those cities, with the exception of a couple of abortions clinics, there would be three or four other clinics available to do any women's health or men's health or health of any nature whatsoever. don't you feel that's true? >> well, i don't. and i have been to wisconsin a lot. obviously you know more about wisconsin than i do. but i know we have 22 health centers in the state of
6:14 am
wisconsin. and last year we provided -- or the most recent year we have figures, we provided health care to 65,000 people. and actually, i think we were the largest -- don't quote me on this, but i will check to make sure, but largest family planning network in wisconsin. so that's pretty hard to replace. >> well, no. you're not answering my question. if you have a city in which there are four full service clinics that you could go to, and a planned parenthood clinic, i would assume that the planned parenthood disappeared, you would have four or five other clinics to deal with anything that medicaid paid for. >> well, we just haven't seen that to be true. i used the example of the state of texas where they eliminated planned parenthood as an option in communities, and 25% of women lost access to care. so i actually don't think the-- there are a number of reasons people go to planned parenthood. it's personal choice, as well as availability and the services we provide. we are the provider that we
6:15 am
think best meets their health care needs and i do think that's what's at stake here. >> okay. you emphasized before the lack of ability of access to health care for minorities. do you feel that you have a special role to fill there? >> i'm sorry. it's very hard to hear you. >> before you emphasized that you felt there was a lack of access of health care to minorities. do you feel that you have a special role to play there? >> we have a special role to play for anyone who is underserved, and that includes folks of low income, folks of rural america, folks in areas of the country where there is less public health care access. so it really is all across the gamut. >> one more question and i'll come back to the prior one. in wisconsin, all of the planned parenthood clinics are in sizable cities in which there are, as far as i can see, probably multiple other medical providers. is there anywhere in the country that you know of, any metropolitan area in which planned parenthood offers services in which there are no
6:16 am
other providers to take medicaid dollars? >> it's just beyond what i know. i can't really respond to that. but i think, again, if we're in 22 communities in wisconsin, which we are, according to these records, that's a lot of -- i'm not saying those aren't all decent size cities, but that's a lot of rural community as well. >> i thank the gentleman. now i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, ms. richards. planned parenthood action engages in political activity, is that correct? >> the planned parenthood action fund, which is a separate corporation, does. >> and you're compensated by that organization? >> well, i mean, i get compensation to reimburse my costs. >> yes or no. >> i'm just trying to explain. >> i understand. and i know how these things work. i think you've already answered it. it's, what, 31,000? >> i don't have the figures for
6:17 am
last year. but whatever my compensation was, it is for work that i do on behalf of the action fund. >> where does planned parenthood action get its funding? >> private donations. we have eight million supporters in this country and a number of donors from all over the country. >> and is there any money from planned parenthood that goes to planned parenthood action? >> the planned parenthood action fund, which is -- it does advocacy and it does electoral work. there is advocacy -- >> i know what they do. i'm asking -- >> well, i'm trying to be responsive to your question. >> for brevity sake -- and out of respect, for brevity sake. >> as you know, for a 501c organizations, they cannot do the majority of the work as electoral work. that's under irs code. >> i understand that. >> so i think between 65% and 75% of the work of the action fund is nonelectoral. >> and you also have a pack, is that correct? >> yeah, i was just going to --
6:18 am
yes, there is a federal pac. >> and just round figures, what did it spend in 2014? >> how much the federal pac spent in 2014? i can get that for you. it's obviously public record. i just don't have it for you. >> where does the pac get its money? >> it raises its money from individuals. >> are you compensated by the pac? >> i don't believe i have ever been compensated by the pac. although i know that the federal law requires if you are doing work on behalf of a federal candidate, i believe you actually have to -- your time has to be paid for by a pac. >> do you have any oversight over the pac, any managerial responsibility? >> sure. >> you're supposed to be compensated if you do any work for the pac and you need to check that out. i want to go to this. in 2004, you founded a group called america votes a grass
6:19 am
roots organization focused on elections. how many of these organizations collaborate with or are inco incorporated into planned parenthood's -- >> you're asking me about a job before planned parenthood? i'm sorry, could you restate the question? >> how many of these organizations are collaborating with or have been incorporated into planned parenthood's political operation? >> i really don't know. >> so i would assume that some do because you don't answer? it's either yes or no. >> i think you asked me how many, and i said i don't know. a lot of these organizations work together. we could get more information for you. >> that would be helpful. you've got these high paid executives. interestingly enough, 44 of your highest paid executives make more than any cabinet member. 28 of them make more than any member of the cabinet. that's over 200,000.
6:20 am
you've got another 11 that make over 300,000. that's more than anybody in the cabinet. any supreme court justice. the chief justice. you've got four that make more than the president. not counting you. are any of them expected to make political contributions? >> by who? i'm sorry. >> by you. >> no. >> do you direct political contributions to candidates? >> the pac does. >> do you have any input on who gets -- >> no, there is a pac committee that votes. >> are you on that pac committee? >> i'm not on the pac committee. >> do you have any input? >> no, the pac committee votes. >> so there's no collaboration between you and the pac committee? >> i haven't sat on a pac committee meeting for a long time. >> all right. >> we operate -- we meet the federal laws and restrictions. >> i appreciate how you want to
6:21 am
answer this. your pac advertised itself as being non-partisan. yet in 2014, 100% of the contributions went to democrats. in 2012, 99% went to democrats. >> i actually don't believe that's accurate. >> that's what's reported here. >> i'll go back and look. we support -- we've done work on behalf of -- anyone who supports women's rights. >> mr. chairman, i'm reclaiming my time. i just want to point out that it's not non-partisan. and that you've given almost -- i mean, in every case, almost every dime to democrats, including to nine members of this committee. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we welcome any republican who supports women's rights and women's health care access. thank you. >> the gentleman yields become. we'll now recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a couple of questions for ms. richards and i'm going to yield whatever is remaining to
6:22 am
the chairman. peter welch sits right down there on the other side, he's a gentleman from vermont, a democrat. peter and i do not agree on very many issues, but there's not a more well-regarded member of our body, i don't think. and the evidenced that today by making it crystal clear that he makes an effort to understand the analysis and the conclusions of those who may have a different position from the one that he holds. do you understand how some of us may at a base level disagree with you on the origin of life. do you make that same effort to understand that my friend from vermont peter welch makes? >> i fully respect and i think i spoke to this in my opening statement with the chairman, that i understand people have different feelings about whether abortion should be legal in this
6:23 am
country or not. i think it is important that it is legal, and we can disagree. i know thinking people disagree about abortion, and our goal at planned parenthood is to be judgment-free. and to allow people and women in particular to make their own decisions about their pregnancies. >> well, we're going to get to the judgment-free zone here in just a second. but you mentioned abortion. how about partial birth abortion. do you understand how some of us may support a ban on partial birth abortion? >> well, don't want to -- i'm not trying to be argumentative, but that was a political formulation, not a medical formulation. but i certainly understand that it was passed and is the law of the land. and planned parenthood certainly meets the requirements of that law. >> my question wasn't whether you follow the law. my question was whether or not you understand how some of us may be very much opposed to that
6:24 am
practice. that was my question. >> i understand how people can disagree based on their religious beliefs, their background, their own personal experiences. and i also understand that people sometimes change over time. and that's the human condition. >> are you suggesting those who hold a contrary view to you need to change? is that why you added that line, ms. richards? >> no, i'm just candidly in my ten years at planned parenthood, i have experienced myself, people who have picketed outside of our health center and then found themselves in need of our services and we try not to judge -- >> and i'm sure that there have been employees who grew tired of participating in the practices that they were participating in and they may have gone to the other side, might they? how about opposing abortions on the basis of gender or race. can you understand how people may support legislation that banned that? >> as i tried to say, i appreciate that people have a
6:25 am
lot of different views on the issue of abortion, and there's any number of different pieces of legislation you could describe, and i think fundamentally at planned parenthood, we take the position that we trust women to make their decisions about their pregnancies. i have made my own decisions as well, so i feel like i walk -- can kind of walk in those shoes. >> i appreciate the way you like to frame the issue, that you're the reasonable one, and those of us who have a contrary position are not reasonable. >> i didn't say that. >> no, that's exactly the last answer you gave. that's exactly what it was, much like your people evolve to a more advanced viewpoint, much like that comment was also directed -- >> those were not the words i said. i said sometimes people change their opinions. >> it's not always what you say. sometimes it's what you mean. in 2014, you disagreed with my colleagues 100% figure.
6:26 am
what percent of your money did go to democratic candidates in 2014 if it wasn't 100%? >> i told him i will look. i know that we support republicans across the country. and i wish there were more republicans -- >> name me some? name me some republicans in congress that you support? financially. >> well, i don't actually want -- in this public forum, i'm not going to raise their names because they have been such the target of their fellow party members, but i'm happy to provide that to you later. >> well, the donations are public. >> yes. i don't know in terms of federal office. i was thinking more broadly in terms of support for candidates across the country. i know there are republicans that we support. and again, we would like to support more republicans for office. we wish there was -- we don't believe that women's health or women's rights should be a partisan issue. >> and we don't think eating dinner salads and drinking wine -- we have a problem with
6:27 am
that, too. i think you can understand why we would be opposed to what we saw on some of the tapes. would you not? >> i think we may have -- i feel like everything i've answered, you see in a different way. so i respect your opinions and i am always open to listening to other people's opinions. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we will now recognize the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you, ms. richards, for being here today. i think it's down to you and i. >> no kidding. we could do this somewhere bri about your background. >> i'm a texan. i -- >> your professional background. >> oh, shoot, i thought you wanted to go back to the beginning. i was a labor organizer for many years with low-wage working women. i eventually had three kids and moved to washington, d.c., and i had the honor of working for leader pelosi for a period of
6:28 am
time on capitol hill. i started a couple of nonprofits and then about ten years ago i was hired to be the president of planned parenthood. >> do you have any accounting in your background, any finance in your background? do you understand -- i asome you understand well accounting? >> i have taken accounting courses as part of my -- fortunately my board has been very kind and offered me those kinds -- that kind of supplementary learning in my job. but i have -- obviously we have a chief financial officer. we have an entire accounting department at planned parenthood i work with closely. >> the reason i ask in a former life i was a public company ceo so i know a fair amount about revenues, expenses, overhead, costs, so i'd like to talk a few minutes with you about that. what's your understanding of overhead? >> well -- >> what is overhead? >> what is overhead? >> yes, what is overhead in planned parenthood?
6:29 am
>> generally it's the cost just to keep the organization going. is that what you're -- >> salaries? salaries? building expenses, rent? >> it really depends on -- it depends on what you're talking about. if we're in a grant it could be potentially overhead could be considered. it really just depends, but, yes, of course, all organizations and the one you ran as well we have an office. we have staff. we have electricity and -- >> it must be considerable on half a billion dollar corporation, overhead must be considerable, it has to be to run that organization. >> it depends on on your definition of considerable. we have a very dedicated staff and we provide health care to a lot of people, education to a lot of people and so, yes, it requires -- >> do you profit or make money on abortion services? >> so i think we've discussed this many times and i'll just try to take it one more time. i run the national office.
6:30 am
we do not provide abortion services. we have provided to this committee, if you're on the committee, all of the financial information about the national organization. our audited financial statements. our 990s -- >> do your providers do they make money, your individual affiliated offices, do they make money providing abortions? >> i think -- >> in general. >> in general? there is no general. i mean, we're a nonprofit. there's three sources of income. there are federal and public -- >> i'm talking about individual -- >> -- and there are -- >> if someone cannot afford to pay for -- what's an abortion cost? >> it depends depending on the state, depending on the procedure. excuse me? >> what if someone can't pay for the abortion? >> we raise private dollars to help women who cannot afford abortion er services if they wa an abortion and can't afford it we try to raise money to supplement the cost of an abortion. >> only through private
6:31 am
donations is you make up the difference is what you're saying. >> i don't, but our 59 affiliates have a variety of -- >> does planned parenthood or make money on reimbursement of medicaid services? >> we don't make a profit on anything. >> it depends on you how -- you have $127 million excess every year. >> medicaid reimburses and as you know across the country medicaid rates vary widely. in some states they come closer to paying for the cost of the services. in a lot of states we actually have to raise private donations to supplement what it costs for -- >> so you may make money on some medicaid reimbursement services, correct? >> i don't know that anyone does but i'd be happy to find out. >> i'm sure you're well aware it is against the law to use federal money on abortions. >> i am well aware. >> are you saying today with 100% surety that not one money
6:32 am
of taxpayer money is used to pay for abortions? yes or no, 100% surety. because that is against the law. >> the federal law allows for federal dollars to pay for abortion services in very rare instances, rape, increest and t life of the mother. we don't use federal money except for those that are permitted by law. sorry, we were talking over ourselves. i didn't hear you. >> the profits generated from taxpayer funded sources such as medicaid reimbursements are any of those profits used to help cover the costs of abortions? >> and i don't believe there tax i will absolutely -- we can go through all of our 990s happy to go through with the committee but i don't believe there are any profits from me medicaid services in this country. as i said that's one of the issues we're addressing here is
6:33 am
there are too few people willing to take medicaid patients because often the med cade payments do not pay for the cost of birth control, a pap smear, a breast exam and the like. >> what's critically important is how you -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back. >> now recognize the gentle woman from tennessee miss black for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to sit in this committee and thank the wntion for being here today. you stated that hr 3134 the defund planned parenthood act of 2015 would and i quote block access for folks who deserve high quality compassionate care close quote. now, miss richards, i would like an opportunity for you as i ask you these questions to give you an update to change these false claims. so, i wrote the defund planned parenthood act of 2015.
6:34 am
so let me tell you what it does do. it does not -- it does not -- reduce public health funding by a single dime. and it would, in fact, increase that funding for community health centers by $235 million. were you aware of these facts when you made that statement? >> congresswoman, we've discussed many times today that, in fact, the congressional budget office estimated that if women were denied the ability to go to planned parenthood 390 -- >> reclaiming my time you said it would block access. it would block access. >> our patients -- >> yes or no, miss richards, do you acknowledge that community health centers outnumber planned parenthood clinics by roughly twif-1? >> i don't know the exact number. i know there are more community health centers than planned parenthood. >> you will acknowledge they
6:35 am
outnumber planned parenthood clinics? >> i'm happy to acknowledge that. >> do you acknowledge the facilities funded under my bill provide a broader range, these facilities provide a broader range of services, than what is offered at planned parenthood, for instance, mammograms? >> i'm not an expert on what all family health centers provide. we work in close collaboration and often they send us their patients that the they can't see for birth control. >> you will acknowledge that you do not provide mammograms which was acknowledged in this committee today? >> we've never made any -- >> they do actually provide mve. >> what i said i don't know what all the community health centers provide. we're clear about what we provide at planned parenthood and the number of women who voluntary choose to come to us. >> reclaiming my time. knowing the house passed bill actually increases public health funding and redirects those federal dollars to clinics who
6:36 am
offer more preventive health care than planned parenthood you can't substantiate your claim that the bill blocks access to care. it does not block access to care. now, i do want to just end this by -- >> we disagree. >> -- by saying that you had a statement that you made that quality affordable health care is your entire mission. and you made that statement. i actually wrote it down when you made it. why would you not make an executive decision, then, to temporarily discontinue your abortion services which only represents by your testimony 3% of the services that you provide and continue providing what you consider to be your entire mission of 97% of the services provided? >> well, because abortion is a legal service in america and we think it's important that women do -- you quoted me as saying quality affordable health care and that includes access to quality and affordable abortion services as well. >> but you acknowledge that --
6:37 am
do you say that abortion is health care? >> yes, it's a health care service for women three in ten women in this country have accessed abortion at some point. >> you define it as health care? >> absolutely as women's health care and women would agree. >> if i'm a nurse and you look at medicine abortion is not health care. it is not considered to be health care. now, let me turn -- >> we simply agree to disagree on this matter. >> let's look at the definitide. let me finish up here because you've continued to say that the videos were doctored. are you aware of a report that just came out today that has been released by colefire that shows in their report and they say the forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by the central for medical progress are authentic, have not been manipulated and
6:38 am
analysis scrutinized every second of the video recorded during the investigation and released it to a date and found only bathroom breaks or other nonpertinent footage had been removed. i would say if you were to compare the two companies now that have done this investigation, you see colefire has reported on every second of those released audio and video investigation footage as opposed to the fusion report which only had four full length videos. so i think this discussion, mr. chairman, is still yet to be had about just what these videos do show and the fact that they perhaps coming from fusion are not doctored. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle woman. the end is in sight. you've been exceptionally kind with your time and generous. we have a couple of cleanups that we need to do here a couple other questions and we'll be concluding. we'll start by recognizing the
6:39 am
gentleman from ohio. >> has anyone from cms or hhs contacted you or any of your board members or staff? >> since the videos surfaced. >> july 14th has anyone from the health and human services or cms contacted you or anyone on your staff or board? >> i don't know. it's a -- we have a very big staff. >> has anyone from the inspect general's office at hhs contacted you, anyone of your board, anyone of your staff? >> if you're going to ask me about everything, we have a big board and we've got a very big staff so i'm happy -- i can't really answer. >> has the attorney general of the united states loretta lynch contacted you? >> no. >> anyone in planned parenthood? >> i don't know. >> you don't know? >> i have hundreds of staff and we have a very large board. >> anyone from the justice department contacted planned parenthood since the video surfaced? >> i don't know if you are
6:40 am
asking about everybody in planned parenthood. >> if the justice department would contact planned parenthood it seems the person in charge of planned parenthood would know the answer to that question. >> we have a very large staff. >> you are testifying the videos and funding and everything else in front of a congressional -- >> mr. gordon -- >> there's potentially four crimes, potentitentiapotentiall changing the procedure to solely obtain tissue doing this without patient's consent and performing partial birth -- there's potentially four federal crimes and all i'm asking has the justice department contacted me. >> what you asked me whether they had contacted me you asked if they contacted anyone on planned parenthood. >> you are representing planned parenthood. have they contacted planned parenthood? >> i said i will find out. i don't know. >> since the videos is your faced have you had any conversations with the president of the united states? >> no, i have not.
6:41 am
>> since the videos surfaced have you been to the white house? >> no, i have not. >> how many times have you been to the white house? >> during what% of time? >> since mr. obama has been president? >> that's been seven years i'd have to get back to you on that. >> our count shows that you and your senior board and staff have been to the white house 151 times in 6 1/2 years i'm curious that's why i asked the question if you had been to the white house since the videos had surfaced. >> i have not. >> you will get back to me about whether the justice department has contacted you. >> you listed a lot of different people. >> i'll work with the committee staff and work with my team. >> i thank the chairman. i yield to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i want to follow-up very briefly on the line of questioning that mr. clay had earlier this afternoon. he asked you if any -- if there were any federal funds being
6:42 am
used in what he termed the tissue transfer program. do you remember that question, ma'am? >> be honest, it's been a long day. >> he did ask you and my recollection is that you said no. you paused. and you said not that you were aware of. and then he continued the questioning. that caught my attention because it struck me that the answer to that question should be an unmitigated no, no, that you or aware of. >> i certainly don't believe so. i've been here for several hours and so just being -- trying to be -- just trying to be very careful. >> okay. are any federal funds being used in relation to what we have described here today as the tissue transfer program? >> i do not believe so. >> okay. sense that is other than an unmitigated no i'm going to ask you some follow-up questions. have you done any investigation to find out if federal funds have been used in that program? >> i don't believe they have been and so there hasn't been
6:43 am
any need for any investigation in to that but i'm certainly happy to get back to you on it. >> i asked you if you had done any investigation, you said no. >> well, because i don't think it's -- >> fine. your motivation, you may not care -- >> i did not say i do not care. >> you could say you don't have time but the point of the matter is you have not done any investigation on this point, correct? >> that's not what i said, i said i'm not aware and i'm absolutely happy to get back to you. it's not because i don't care or i don't pay attention. >> let me ask the question again. have you done any investigation as to whether or not any federal funds have been used in the tissue transfer program? by the way, who is the bald guy sitting behind you? is he a lawyer? >> i'm a lawyer. >> okay, that's fine. what is your name, sir? that's fine, i just want to know who you are. >> the questions go to the witness. >> okay, then i'll ask the witness. >> i'm happy to get back to you.
6:44 am
i think i've answered it as many times as i can answer and storm that my answer isn't satisfactory to you. i've been here five hours now and i'm trying to just make sure i am responsive as i can be so -- >> okay. so, just so the record is clear, because there's a young lady here making a record of this. i'm going to ask the question one more time and you can give me the answer that you deem to be responsive to this question. have you made any investigation in to whether or not federal funds have been used in the transfer of fetal tissue or fetal parts? >> i have not made any investigation to that specific question. >> okay. thank you. >> i think -- >> -- that federal money is being used for that program? >> i don't believe so. >> but that's not based on an investigation, is it? >> i feel like we're kind of -- i think we just keep repeating
6:45 am
the same question. i don't believe that was a question. >> it will end the discussion today but it certainly won't end it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. >> a few things just for follow-up. just so -- we've had an hour's worth of discussion. there are some things that we would like to follow-up so i'd like to go through that list as we conclude and recognize mr. cummins and i will wrap up. we would like to get the name and number of affiliates that receive the majority of the receivenues from abortion servi. if there's clarification as to what we are looking for let me know, but that is one question. >> i am just going to try to write it down as we go. >> you got plenty of staff to write it down. i don't mean to have you to write notes but if you have a question i want you to ask me as we're doing this. we are looking for the amount of revenue by affiliate for abortion services. so you have the -- it should be
6:46 am
pretty straightforward. we would like to know which affiliates provide which services. >> i believe you have but we're happy to provide that. >> we want to make sure we've got it chris crystal clear. we have portions but we don't have all of it. >> okay. >> the names of organizations and the countries that planned parenthood gives -- gives funds to overseas. so based on the tax returns and reports, you're sending money to overseas, some of them have been listed as investments, some have been listed as other things. we'd like to get some detail and specificity as to how much is going to which countries and what those are for. is that fair? >> i really have to talk to my team about that, but i will. >> is that -- okay. >> and i'm happy to talk to the committee staff about what it is we're trying -- >> a lot of this will be
6:47 am
followed up with committee staff but i want to make sure we're on the record what we're asking for. we obviously have some concerns about the planned parenthood action fund. so, we're trying to get to the duties performed and compensation received for all planned parenthood or affiliate employees. this could be either by -- for the planned parenthood action fund or for either of the -- i believe there are two 527 organizations. one of our concerns is the shared services and the sharing of employees between political activities and nonpolitical activities. and we would like to understand how broad based that is. >> okay. >> okay. the cost of reimbursement for both contraception and abortion and abortion obviously breaks down into in clinic as well as the pill. >> actually, there's a lot of other kinds of contraception, too. >> yes.
6:48 am
contraception i left as broad as i could but -- >> i'm just saying i think it's important. i'm not sure we really got much into that conversation about how birth control -- how many different kinds of birth control is now because it's one of our specialties. >> help us understand what services and money you're allocating and what the costs of that because there were some points that should be helping to drive down those costs and we're just not understanding the ratio. >> i think there was some -- >> it needs clarification -- >> it was clear that folks weren't aware of the various costs of different kinds of contraception. >> exactly. that's where we need help. not right now just as a follow-up. we would appreciate the travel seems excessive to us. now, we're looking at it from a far. there may be a very plausible explanation. but when you have a nonprofit organization who says they're trying to put every dollar they can towards women's health and people are buying first class tickets and getting private
6:49 am
aircraft and chartered aircraft, we'd just like to have an explanation of that. >> i have no idea where that's coming from but i'm making a list. >> it's in the tax returns. that's where we see it. there's boxes to check for certain things and we would appreciate some clarification. >> happy to provide. >> a list of political organizations planned parenthood collaborates with including the names and compensation received of shared employees. i think i covered that in general. but i'll keep going. you understand what our question there is. and then if there are political donations to democrats and republicans, i think most of that is probably financial is probably publicly disclosed but if you could help us with that.
6:50 am
>> the questions that you have to answer and the information that you have just been asked to provide, i cannot help but think about the irs. our republican friends said that there were certain organizations that people in the irs didn't like. and then they decided they said it was unfair. and i understand what they were saying to go through and ask the same kind of things that he's asking you for. i just want to make -- it just hit me as i'm sitting here and i'm listening to all of this. i think it's something that we ought to give some serious thought to. miss richards, i want to thank you for your testimony. you know, as i was sitting here i was just thinking about questions and questions that were asked of you earlier.
6:51 am
and the implication was in even asking the question that you do not respect those who may have a different view with regard to abortion. and, you know, i think that that is such -- so -- so unfair. because i think -- i have heard very few people in this congress ridicule us, one group believes that a woman should have control over her own body and should be able to choose abortion if she likes, she and her family, you know, and her god, if she makes that decision. and then there are other ones who don't believe in abortion. i have not -- and i've been here
6:52 am
20 years. i think we basically respect each other's opinions, period. i mean, is that right? you respect -- because a lot of this is a real personal thing, am i right? >> absolutely. it is. >> but there's one thing that we seem to be sort of glossing over and sort of moving around, it is the law. i mean, it's the law. you may not like the law. but it's the law. you are doing what is within the bounds of the law. and, you know, there are a lot of things i don't like. a lot of laws i don't like. but i still live in the united states of america. and there's a system of government. and i -- i -- as a lawyer and as a member of the congress, i'm sworn to uphold those laws. i might want to change them. i'll do everything in my power to change the ones i don't like,
6:53 am
but in the meantime that's where i am. so, i just want to make sure that, you know, that nobody walks out here saying, oh, you know, because people have differing views does not meanwhimean you don't respect the other person's view. i've never gotten that impression from you. i've read a lot of things you've written. so, is that accurate? is that a fair statement? >> well, i hope i've showed today, i have total respect for this congress. i have respect for people of different points of views and i really think that's -- it is important that we show respect for people who may make different decisions in their lives. and i think we need less judgment and more empathy in this country for people who may simply have different circumstances that we can never know about. >> now, mr. chairman, i just have a few questions of you so
6:54 am
we'll be real clear. i would just like to ask a couple of clarifying questions to help our members understand what the next steps are. republicans announce they plan to establish a new select subcommittee and i don't know how much you know about all of this but i've got to did to take over this investigation. the question will that subcommittee have jurisdiction going forward or will the oversight committee continue this investigation of planned parenthood? do you know? >> it's the intention of the committee to pursue under the duly issued subpoena and obtaining all the videos. according to the information i have from the speaker, the body will consider a bill -- i think it's a bill. maybe it's under a different structure. next week for the formation of this select panel. may be empowered with subpoena authority. we're not sure. haven't seen that yet. but the speaker indicated this morning that that will come
6:55 am
before the body next week. >> as we both know when the select committee was created all the standing committees had to turn over all of their records to the select committee. is that what we are going to do? is that consistent with what you know so far? >> i don't know. >> all right. and do you know whether this new select committee, subcommittee, will be given additional taxpayer funding to investigate the planned parenthood? >> i don't know the structure. i don't know the length. i don't know the powers and i don't know the funding. >> my last question, and i was unclear on your response to a question on this earlier. do you plan to invite mr. delideon to testify and if so, when do you plan to do that, if so? >> we need to "a" clarify the disposition of the videos. given that they're a temporary restraining order, we need to have that loosened up.
6:56 am
when we obtain all of those videos, we'll work in partnership with you and develop a plan on how to deal with those. i don't know what the structure of the new select committee, how that affects it. but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. the first step is to obtain all the videos and i'm glad to see you agree with us. >> definitely. the reason i'm asking because all of the democrats on this committee have requested them and if our committee is going to yield to the new select subcommittee, then we may consider withdrawing our request. but if our committee is going to continue in addition to the select subcommittee, then we may very well insist on our rights to have mr. delideon testify. can you shed any light on this? >> again, the first step is getting all of the videos and at that point we'll make a determination. >> we'll submit our september 21st letter for the record and i look forward to talking with you
6:57 am
further about this issue as we've been working together extremely well but i want to make sure i protect our members' rights. >> very good. i appreciate that. >> last but not least, miss richards, i want to thank you for your cooperation. you have been extremely cooperative. we have not always had that. you got a lot of compliments from up here about the cooperation you have provided, and we really do appreciate it. on behalf of so many women, people like my mother-in-law and so many others, i want to thank you. because i know of so many women who if it were not for planned parenthood would be in a terrible way. and so thank you very much. >> miss richards, again, thank you for your participation here today. you've been very generous with your time. i think you've honestly tried to share your thoughts and perspectives. i know it's a hard and long day.
6:58 am
but we do appreciate your willingness to voluntarily come and provide your testimony in advance. all the things we look for. we do appreciate that. with that, the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> windows cyber hacking -- when does cyber hacking become an act of war. the government is still work its
6:59 am
way through that issue. he testify on implementing a cyber strategy. and later a hearing on the threat in russia how will affect regional stability. t 2:00overage is a eastern on c-span3. toour coverage of the effort defund planned parenthood continues next "washington journal." funding for the government expires tonight. the senate plans a 10:00 a.m. vote, which includes funding for planned parenthood. the house is likely to vote on temporary spending. sarah -- by of the xavier becerra will weigh in on
7:00 am
the change of gop leadership. and then congressman john fleming on federal spending and funding for planned parenthood. ♪washington journal" hiis n host: good morning. welcome to "the washington journal" on wednesday, august 30, 2015. the last day of the fiscal year. congress must pass a budget to keep the government funded until they can agree on a larger budget at the end of the year. tune into c-span2 for that debate. in the house, it is expected to follow suit on a so-called clean resolution, meaning no language defunding planned parenthood. watch the vote on c-span. we will talk to