ms. degette: thank you. did you personally author any of these documents, mrs. clayton? mrs. clayton: no. ms. foster:, no. mr. lennon:. no, mr. norton: no. ms. degette: have you spoken with anyone on the documents about what the documents contain? mrs. clayton: not to my knowledge. ms. foster: not to my knowledge. mr. lennon: not to my knowledge. ms. degette: who have you spoken with? mr. sukhia: the folks--mark bell. that might be t ms. degette: that's from the majority staff? the speaker pro tempore: yes. ms. degette: for the documents listed in the index accompanying the packet as coming from a quote, procurement business, have you spoken with that procurement business about the documents? mrs. clayton: no. ms. foster:, no. mr. lennon:. mr. raben: no. mr. norton: the no. the speaker pro tempore: mr. sukhia: that's why there needs to be an investigation. ms. degette: do you have any firsthand knowledge of how the procurement business in question created the documents used in today's exhibits. mrs. clayton?

ms. degette. >> thank you so much. following up on the last question, i'd like to stipulate him that i believe as most members of this panel believe that strong encryption is really article ii our national security and everything else. but as i said in my opening statement, i also recognize that we need to try to give law enforcement the ability to apprehend criminals when criminals are utilizing this technology to be able to commit the crimes and to cover up after the crimes. first of all, mr. sewell, i believe you testified that your company works with law enforcement now, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> thanks. and i think that you also acknowledge that while encryption really does provide benefit both for consumers and for society for security and privacy, we also need to address this thorny issue about how we deal with criminals and terrorists who are using encrypted devices and technologies, is that correct? >> i think this is a very real problem. let me start by saying that the conversation we're engaged

ms. degette brought to my office. that would be the case here as well. there are a number of unanswered issues i think a competent investigation should and could pursue. for example, how much does the abortion clinic receive for an abortion from a client. is that the from the patient? insurers? medicaid? other sources. what, if any of the services provided to the client, the woman who the abortion is committed on, are unbundled and build to insurers including medicaid? what is the actually cost of the abortion? what are the amounts over and above the cost? where do they go? how are they accounted for? what is happening to the profits? how does the abortion clinic notify the procurement technician of the fact of abortions? it appears the procurement business technician is embedded in the clinic and given access to private information before the abortion client is on scene. >> i am running out of time. mr. sukhia, you wanted to comment earlier. real quickly. >> thank you very much. the federal provision is a federal provision. no all of the talk about stat

ms. degette, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr.hairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. issues surrounding encryption and particularly the disagreements between law enforcement and the tech community gained significant public attention during the san bernardino case but i'm not interested in relitigating that today. as you said, mr. chairman, the conversation needs to be broader than that one case. let me state unequivocally that i like you, and the rest of us hear today, recognize and appreciate the benefits of strong encryption in today's digital world. it keep ours communications secure, critical infrastructure safe and bank accounts from being drained. it also provides each one of us with significant privacy protections, while encryption does provide valuable protections, it can be used to obscure the communications and plots of criminals and terrorists. and increasingly great risk it's our task to find the proper balance between those competing interests. we need to ask both industry and law enforcement hard

ms. degette for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. to follow up on the chairman's questioning, the problem really isn't default encryption, because if you're limited to default encryption, criminals could still get encryption, and they do. isn't that correct, ms. hess? >> yes, that's correct. >> right. so the problem is that criminals can have easy access to encryption. and i think we can stipulate that encryption is really great for people like me who have bank accounts who don't want them to be hacked, but it's just really a horrible challenge for all of us as a society, not just law enforcement, when you have a child sex predator who's trying to encrypt, or just as bad, really, a terrorist. so, what i want to know is, what are we going to do about it? and the industry says that if congress forces them to develop tools so that law enforcement with probable cause and a warrant can get access to that data, that then will just open the door. do you believe that's true, ms. hess? >> i believe that there certainly will be always no such

ms. blackburn: what do you mean by foundational? mrs. degette: to take an exhibit b1. exhibit b1, appears to be a chart. it has three boxes. an between the three boxes, there are dollar signs and arrows going back and forth. there are questions and so on. i do not know, i do not know what information this is based on. i do not know, i would like to know how this was created. if you look at exhibit b2, for example, exhibit b2 appears to be taken from some website. this is a document that stem express is saying they think might have been taken from, not from the company but from someplace else. not talking about fetal tissue. but i do not know where that comes from. the exhibit is not identified similar comes from. but i suspect that the witnesses today, and the majority intending to use it to talk about the so-called sale of fetal tissue, exhibit three is just again something from a website. we do not know the source of that. exhibit four appears to be a bar graph. and what it says, "procurement strategy." and that it has a bar graph. exhibit five, revenue growth. and i