i will be looking forward to doing that. i have a statement that i will put in the record so that we can get to our witnesses, but the most important part of my statement is that i think we have a constitutional problem on our hands. our former colleague alluded to it himself in his statement. it is found are "to section one -- article two, section one. i refer all of the distinguished lawyers on this community. i am sure we will have enough time to go into this.

the second consideration i would like us to keep in mind as we go through this important hearing is that the reins act may not be tailored to the problems that it is supposed to address. we have got some big problems with whether this is feasible. the feasibility of this act -- well, let's put it like this. this would affect every law on the books. it is not perspective, but it would involve every lobby that is on the books currently. now, i don't want to suggest that the congress is not up to

its work, but do you know how much time that would take? to go through all of the loss to get them -- the regulations to the loss of kate by the house and the other bodies? it does not seem -- it does not seem very probable that that could happen. so when you consider the fact that we don't have the author of the bill testifying, and we are glad to see you, of course, but we also don't have the administration testified. why isn't somebody from the administration here?

i mean how can we be doing this -- i have been told by staff that we are going to try to report this bill next week sometime. chairman, i would like to, with all due respect, ask an opportunity to discuss with you the possibility of an additional hearing on this matter. >> w the chairman would deal, this is an oversight hearing, as we know. there will be a legislative hearing subsequently. >> okay. well, that is consoling. i am glad -- now, this is a great new process of order. redo the oversight hearing first and then we have a hearing on the bill. that makes a lot of sense.

why don't we have a hearing on the bill first? we are over setting the condition that has caused the bill to be created. is that right? >> this is the oversight hearing. the legislative hearing will be scheduled. >> okay. all right. now, well, i don't have that ask for another hearing. there is calling to be another hearing on the bill. i am glad to know that because i have got a witness or two in mind that i would like to have part take with all the other distinguished friends of us -- of hours that are here today. i think you very much, the chairman. >> thank you. >> i yield back the balance of my time and ask my statement be

included in the record. >> and all statements of the members of the subcommittee will be made a part of the record without objection. we are pleased to have our panel of three witnesses with us today. as has been mentioned previously, mr. mcintosh, good to have you on the hill. now practices in washington focusing on issues before congress and the executive branch. he is a graduate of the university of chicago school of law, a commodity graduate of yale university. professor jonathan adler teaches at the case western reserve school of law where he is the director of case western center for business law and regulation. a visiting professor at new york university school of law. professor also serves as senior adviser to the group. get to have each of you with this, and we will start with mr. mackintosh whom we recognize for five minutes.

>> it's a pleasure to be back here. >> turn on your mike. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be back. i am learning the technology. thank you, mr. kaelin and conyers for your remarks. let me commend the community for taking up this question and the oversight hearing of the regulatory process in the urgency for looking at other ways of making it work better to reduce the cost of regulations. i want to commend representative davis for his work in introducing the reins act. when i was a member the speaker asked me to chair a subcommittee on oversight just on regulations the government reform committee. we looked at a lot of the different regulatory programs and the overall cost on the

economy. i have to say, as i was preparing for the testimony today after i receive the invitation i was startled that the magnitude of the cost of federal regulations. one and three-quarters trillion dollars cost imposed on the economy throughout 15,000 per household and in particular on jobs where for large businesses it cost $7,700 per employee to hire a new employee to follow the regulatory dictates of the various federal programs. for small businesses it is even more, over $10,000 per employee. as mr. cohen pointed out those are the costs. the need to look at the benefits of regulation when you are making policy decisions. congress does that as it passes laws. the agencies are required to do that under longstanding executive orders.

the problem that i see that has happened, and report on the congressional review act as a way of addressing that, that balancing act of the particular type of mandatory requirements that it said in a regulation versus the benefits this not come back to congress for review once legislation has been enacted and the regulatory agencies have been empowered to act. we passed in 1995 the congressional review act as one way to increase that formally, but as was pointed out earlier it has only been used one time, and it is difficult for the political configuration to work where typically you have got to have a resolution of disapproval go through both the house and senate and signed by the president. i think the only time it did work was when president clinton's administration

proposed a rule and congress acted and prevented a bill about that regulation. and so you saw the political baton being handed from one party to the other and willingness for congress and the president to act. the reins act strikes me as an excellent way of really strengthening that effort. it is not applied to all regulations. this carefully tailored to major regulations that have a significant and major impact on the economy. in many ways it addresses some of the constitutional questions that come up from time to time in the various regulatory programs. specifically whether congress has delegated too much authority to the regulatory agency and needed to retain some of that authority in the legislative branch in order to perform its article one dvds. and also as i . out in the

testimony there are some enhancements for presidential authority under article two. mr. conyers mentioned article to section one where you have a unified executive because the bill applies to both regular agencies and the executive branch and also the so-called independent agencies with the president would have some greater authority over as a result of the reins act. it is also carefully tailored to fit into what this committee is an expert at. that is thinking about the processes that should be used for federal regulation. it merely says congress is going to withhold part of its delegation and give itself an option to approve the final result before that has the force of law. it is in addition to the minister procedures act and carefully written to be narrowly tailored to fit into that procedural change. the parties still have their

rights under the administrative procedures act for other problems that may come up. so i commend the committee for taking this up. i urge congress to favorably consider the reins act and i will be glad to answer any questions when you need me to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee for the invitation to testify today. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss measures that congress may take to enhance regulatory accountability. this is a tremendously important issue. federal regulation is accumulating at a rapid pace per decade. in 2009 alone federal agencies by last over 3500 new federal regulations. the growth of regulation is imposed to contain cost american consumers and businesses. according to estimates that have been mentioned several times already total cost of federal regulation exceeds the trillion and the purchase $2 trillion per

year. substantially more than americans pay each year in individual income tax. in so far as regulation is imposed they operate like a hidden tax. just like taxes regulations may be necessary, they may be important to address public gills or provide public benefit. these benefits may be important and it may be worthwhile to have these regulations, but it does not mean that they are free. regulations, like taxes, impose substantial costs and generate substantial benefits and makes it that much more important that there be political accountability for federal regulatory decisions. increasing the scope of federal regulation has been facilitated by the allegis said the practice delegating substantial amounts of legislative authority and policy discussion to administrative agencies. all administrative agency authority to issue regulations comes from congress to read such delegations may be expedient or even necessary at times, but it also has cost.

excessive delegations and undermined political accountability for regulatory decisions and allow regulatory agencies to adopt policies that do not align with congressional intent or public concerns. all too often federal regulatory agencies use the statutory authority to pursue policies that are unpopular or unwarranted and all too often congress is unable or unwilling to do something about. this is magnified by the fact that the agencies are often exercise in the authorities granted years if not decades ago. one example that has been discussed already today, the epa is currently implementing regulations to control greenhouse gases under the clean air act even though congress has never explicitly voted to support such regulation. ratted the epa is utilizing the authority enacted decades ago. the clean air act basic architecture was enacted in 1970 and it has not been significantly modified since 1990. the greenhouse gas regulation is warranted. this is a decision that should be made by congress, not an

executive agency acting alone. the reins act offers a promising mechanism for disciplining federal regulatory agencies and enhancing congressional accountability. it requires congressional approval before economically significant rules may take effect in charge that congress take responsibility for that handful of regulations, usually seven dozen per year and impose major cost and hopefully also provide a major economic benefit. adopting an expert at it alleges that the process much like that used for fast track trade authority interest transparency and prevents a congressional review process from unduly delaying these regulatory initiatives to be such an approach can enhance political accountability without sacrificing the benefits of agency expertise and specialization. requiring regulations to be approved by a joint resolution presented to the president also satisfies the constitutional requirement of by cameras and. the simple provision is similar to proposals made by then the judge steven briar. he noted that a congressional

authorization requirement is a constitutional way to replicate the function of a one house legislative veto requiring congressional approval with the option of new regulatory initiatives imposing on congress the degree of this possibility. the act provides a means of curbing excessive or unwarranted regulations but is not an optical regulatory measure supported by the public. agencies are generally discharging their obligations in a sensible manner. the reins act will have the affect. the public supports regulatory initiatives. the act will not stand in the way. it would enhance the legitimacy of the regulations approved by congress and make clear that such initiatives command the support of both the legislature and executive branches. above all else remains act provides a means of enhancing political accountability for regulatory decisions. thank you again but and i am open to questions. >> and the beat the red light eliminated. i commend you for that.

>> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to testify. as is clear from my reinstatement i am not a fan of h. r. ten. it is presented as necessary and desirable to come back and out of control regulatory process, but the bill in my view is not tailored to the problem that is intended to solve. it is not well founded and we will have serious advert unintended consequences including fundamentally changing our constitutional structure of government. we have heard a lot this afternoon about the cost of regulation. everyone is setting one and three quarter trillion which is the high end of an extremely controversial estimate. very few have talked about the benefits. monetized form. as someone who does, and i was the former administrator during the clinton the administration,

i do cost-benefit analysis. beckham both sides of the equation. omb during both the obama administration and the bush administration filed reports to congress in which it monetized and quantified the cost and benefits and consistently over time demonetized benefits exceeded the cost. a substantial amount, consistently producing net benefits for our economy and society. we cut back the rules and we lose the benefits. second, not all rules, not even all major rules are like. h.r. ten in its infinite wisdom pigs and the migratory birds rule because without that rule, which is a major rule you cannot shoot the birds as they fly to and from canada. there are lots of other rules. the industry, the regulated

entities want and need rules that provide guidance, rules that provide predictability or 74 their operation. i had given my written statement. there are rules that give life to programs, programs like agricultural subsidies, small-business loan guarantees or medical reimbursement without the eligibility and accountability provision which, in the form of rules, major rules you don't have a program. even though congress has authorized it or modified it, no rules, no program. other major rules may be good because they reduce burdens. the osha rule, the infamous the notion that everybody scorns passed a rule on cranes and derricks which reduced burden. it minimize the cost. industry had asked osha for a negotiated rulemaking and supported the clarification. all of these rules would be cut by the h.r. ten net.

now, supporters say there won't be any effect. they will all go through. with respect our experience during the hundred 11th congress to at least with the senate suggests that it is not easy to be the drafters of h. r. ten changed hr3765, its predecessor from allowing ten hours of debate on the debatable issues to two hours of debate to be deep and still have a quorum call. the vote and if you have not debatable motions which easily could exceed 4-5 hours to read for the 65-95 rules major roles each year the senate is not going to find that time. has been unable with respect to find blocks of time to process nominations of administration officials or even judges. so the result is give rules, meritorious rules, import rules will not get through even though months, in fact, years have been

spent with enormous resources devoted to of sorting out the science and technical difficulties with public participation, with analyses of all sorts of aspects, with numerous checks dropped the agency, numerous checks draughty a ministration and subject to judicial review. what happens if the senate does not get to the? all of the time and effort and resources to go for naught. the same rule cannot be modified once it is final agency action without starting of rulemaking process over again. to say there is no affect is not to understand the administrative process. at a minimum h.r. ten introduces additional delay and uncertainty to an already lengthy and complicated process. finally for the reasons i set forth in my paper i believe there are serious constitutional issues that are raised that fundamentally challenging the separation of powers, the

principles our founding fathers incorporated in the constitution. i sketched out some of the articles. i here people referring to justice priors, the speech, since 1983 and his response there has been a lot of on the supreme court. and the test is really critical. i know that i have only five minutes. my light is red. i think you, mr. chairman, but i do hope that somebody will pursue this during the questions so that we can look at some of the existing law and practice in this field to protect you very much. >> witnesses for the testimony. we will now have members questioning the witnesses and we will apply the five minute rule to ourselves as well to read at recognize myself for five minutes. mr. mcintosh, in your view what current regulatory efforts most highlight the need for reform.

>> one, the regulation of carbon, and my memory was that we tried to present to the previous epa the full legislative history of the clean air act amendments that made it very clear that carbon was not to be regulated. there was a lot of back-and-forth, but ultimately the courts have forced their hand. but to me that says an example of where if congress had a procedure in place they could reassert that intent even when the courts are driving the agency in a direction that, perhaps, the agency itself was not initially intended to get down. a second one would be the net neutrality regulations, the fcc has proposed.

i think there will be a lot of litigation about the agency exceeding its statutory authority. i think if congress had a procedure in place where they could easily pass that bill i think you would see bipartisan support for a bill nullifying that regulation under the reins act procedure. i think that would save a lot of time and expense and uncertainty in the private sector as that litigation altman against ford. i think talking to my partners to specialize in the sec pact that it is very likely to be thrown out. once again, the example of how congress could effectively ensure there is economic progress that is made by paying attention to and having a part to play in that regulation. >> thank you, sir. professor adler, an improving upon the congressional review act is not requiring congress to

approve a lease some agency rules the next logical step and in taking that step what are the keys to assuring that the reins act or a similar reform remains constitutional under the rule of ins. microphone. >> side. i keep forgetting that. i do think it is the next logical step. a mechanism that forces congress to say yea or nay to a substantial regulatory proposals is the next logical step to ensure that there is political accountability for major regulatory decisions to be in terms of the constitutional question at think ins is very clear that all that is required is bicameral presented. supreme court has said explicitly time and again that it is at schematic of their work that all authority from the federal agency to adopt such regulation comes from congress and that agencies have no such

authority. so unlike mcmorris verses olson with enforcement authority, arguably in some contexts there is some residual and inherit executive authority or some authority that executive agencies may have. there is no inherent authority in any federal agency to issue regulatory type rules absent a congressional delegation. if congress wants to delegate less, if congress wants to put conditions on the exercise of delegating authority it certainly can't do it not only did judged by your note this in his 1984 lecture, larry tribe who was until very recently an official in the obama justice department likewise said that a requirement of the sort will be purely constitutional. the last point i would make very quickly, mr. chairman, is that we have seen this already in areas that are far more sensitive to regulation. in the trade context using the sort of process for fast-track trade authority is arguably far

more -- of far greater intrusion on executive authority than anything regarding domestic regulation. implicates the foreign affairs authority and i don't think many people would argue that fast-track trade authority. >> trying to beat the red light if i may. pardon me for cutting you off. professor, you indicate that executive orders already constrained agency discretion and promulgate too many rules, but those orders have not prevented a flood of regulation and can be withdrawn by the president, cannot? >> mr. chairman, executive order can be withdrawn by the president or his successor. 12866 has been in existence since 1993, september of 1993. while there may be as flawed in your term, rules that have been issued, as i said, omb has documented during the bush and

administration as well that the benefits exceed the cost consistently over time. i would just mention that mr. smith mentioned the recent last week, president obama reaffirmed the executive order in his own executive order and, in fact, the very first sentence says that in order to promote the public health, safety, and the environment while protecting economic growth innovation and job creation, the first sentence of his executive order. so i think the record should be clear. >> and my time has expired. recognize the distinguished and and for mr. -- tennessee, mr. kaelin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciated. let me ask you one question. as i understand it mr. davis introduced this in the 111th and 112th congress.

was it introduced to your knowledge before that? >> last year. >> in the hundred and 11th, but before that? mr. adler? >> i don't know the exact same language, but similar types of proposals have been proposed at various times. >> that required a positive approval by the congress? >> yes. >> when? 1984. >> let's come back to recent history. >> i don't know prior to the last congress when the last time such a proposal had been introduced. no then congressman dick smith for michigan has an article about legislation. >> when was that? >> i want to say it was 96 or 97. >> yeah. how about mr. mcintosh, do you know of anything? >> i'm not aware. >> basically during the bush years it was wonderful and nobody thought about this. executive authority was great and we did not need this. it's only been since mr. obama

was elected president that we need to do this. this seems to be the situation. for eight years it was wonderful with mr. bush. let me ask you this question. at think it was mr. adler. he said this will not present a problem. do you understand in the senate that they held up 50 or 60 judges? a blue slip, do you know what a blue slip? can you imagine the senators? that is the last don't ask don't tell. they still have that in the senate. how is that going to work? all of these regulations they do a blue slip. anita park. done. don't you think that is going to invite basically what i would think some nefarious type -- well, one senator can hold it up. mr. adler, is that right? one senator under the rules we know today can hold up rules and regulations? >> in the way that the rules are to be applied they can. was lives are a courtesy. they are not applied to legislation to read my read of

the bill would not allow a hold a joint resolutions because mr. adler, are you suggesting that we can write a bill over here that will restrict the change in sec rules? >> i think if the house and the senate both passed a bill that is signed into law by the president that codifies changes to the rules for both chambers as has been done for the closure commission, fast-track trade authority,. >> you understand that one senator can hold up the bill. >> if the rule -- if the rules allow, yes. i also know that there are probably about a dozen examples of the house and the senate passing legislation limiting the rules to prevent those polled by limiting the date and requiring them to occur. the two most prominent examples are with the closures commission and with fast-track trade authority. >> thank you, sir. let me ask you a question. you were here when we read the constitution. did you watch us read the constitution from the floor? >> actually, i did. >> you did. and did you hear -- i don't know

who read it. and sure it was somebody. article two, section one, something about all power being invested in the executive to carry out the laws. tell us a little bit about what that means? can they have the ability to execute our laws without rules? could they do it without having any rules to back. >> i think that is a serious problem. article -- section one of article tool, all executive power in the president, that power includes the power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that is a quote from the constitution. that means that when congress passes the law it is up to the president and the subsequent presidents and the subsequent president after that, whether they agree with that law or not to carry out the law. now, for over a century

administrative agencies have been implementing or carrying out the law by issuing regulations. that is how it does. and so for that reason i believe that an attempt by congress to strip the president of that authority with respect to major rules is tantamount to the act of congress on using chief justice rehnquist for morrison versus olson but of one branch self aggrandizing at the expense of another branch. again, we are using chief justice rehnquist's words. the act of congress which would impermissibly interfere with the president exercised if his constitutionally appointed function. these are serious questions. i would not be so presumptuous to say that i know how the supreme court would rule. if they want to invoke justice briar i would refer them respectfully to justice scalia

as well who has been among all the justices the guardian of the president's power. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> he did not violate it too badly. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i would like to make my own statement part of the record with your consent. i want to thank all three of our panelists. mr. mcintosh, i will start -- >> without objection. >> that you, mr. chairman. what in your judgment is the proper balance between the executive branch and the legislative branch it comes to rule making and enforcement? >> well, let me point out that the administrative procedure act also constrains how the executive branch writes its regulations, the processes it must use before they can have the force of law. so there is a long tradition in

our modern history of congress asserting constraints over how the president's and the executive branch can issue regulations. it is fully compatible with that for congress to say before this regulation that you are proposing, mr. president, or the agency, it has to come back to congress and said they're for congress to give its approval of the content of that regulation. i'd think it is fully within congress's power to do that. i would point out that for the century prior to the last century there were no regulatory authorities were bodies and the president was fully capable of exercising his duty under the constitution to take care that the laws were faithfully executed. so i think this act, perhaps, is -- it would be humorous to say that it goes as far as to restrain the president's

executive authority because it simply does not do that. there are ways that you can argue that in fact it enhances it as i mentioned earlier by the city the so-called independent agencies because his signature on the bill approving the regulation gives him control over those agencies and policies that they develop. >> mr. adler, i may have heard you incorrectly, and if i did i want to give you a chance to correct. i wrote down that you said 30500 regulations promulgated in the past. >> 2009. the exact number is 3503. of those i think -- a don't know the exact number, but several dozen or major. the 3500 number was all regulations. >> all right. i am just a prosecutor. forgive me for not knowing much about civil law. with a violation of the regulation be evidence of negligence in the civil suit?

>> that depends. >> on what? >> the nature of the regulation. there are instances in which that could be evidence. >> are there any criminal penalties connected with the violations of federal regulations? >> there often are criminal penalties associated. >> how can congress abdicated its responsibility for criminal enforcement to a non elected into the? >> well, i think you hit on the key issue here. congress for expedient has delegated loss of authority to administrative agencies to develop rules of conduct in a wide range of detailed and complex areas. i think what we overlooked is that it is ultimately congress that is responsible for that authority. especially when you have rules that are going to carry criminal sanctions or as in the case of the reins act that are estimated

to have a substantial effect on the economy which is a proxy for a meager policy decision that will affect a large part of the country. it is certainly reasonable to say that we should make sure that people who are the source of the legislative power in the first place, congress, where all legislative power is vested under article one of the constitution, is accountable for that decision and that members of the congress -- public know whether or not they are represented, believe that imposing that sort of rule is not a good idea. >> you do not challenge the constitutionality of congressional oversight, correct? you don't even challenged the wisdom of congressional oversight. >> i endorse it. >> when you mentioned that there are constitutional infirmities in the spill which as i read it is congress reclaiming its responsibility / authority for oversight, what do you mean by constitutional infirmities?

>> at think the reins act goes well beyond oversight. the chairman talked about in his opening statement fine-tuning the regulatory system. i think the reins act is a blunts and -- blunt instrument that goes well beyond oversight. what it says is that congress must affirmatively approved an action that is already delegated and on which a lot of work, effort, and resources have been spent in refining and developing and issuing a rule. >> but you would agree with me that congress can reclaim the delegation in the first placed. >> and that is through the congressional review act. it satisfies the bicameral and present part, and it says congress is saying you cannot do that. it is very different from saying before you do anything in this area you must come back, even though we have already delegated to you come and get our permission. >> what is the constitutional distinction between the two?

>> at think there is significant. >> i apologize, mr. chairman. >> i think there is -- icy significant difference between the two. that is why the congressional review act was originally crafted as it was to be a change of the law, not a filter before which implementation -- implementing a pre-existing law can go forward. >> sig you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman. my ex prosecutor colleague asked why the congress does not enforce the laws. well, as mcintosh and davis and i know, we passed the laws. we overset the loss. we do not enforce the laws.

the federal agency called the department of justice enforces the loss. so that is my criminal-justice lesson for the day. now, this one and three quarter trillion annually that has been raised here, i would like to ask, how does that comport with the issues of the congressional budget office which has a different set of figures here to mack of indy said that major

regulations promulgated over the ten year time frame between 1998 and 2008 are estimated to cost between 51 and 60 billion. >> i would love to answer the question, but i know the red light will go off before i even get halfway there. the one and three-quarters comes from a study that was presented in the mid-90s. immediate raise all sorts of flags, both assumptions, methodology, etc. crs did a very careful analysis which i would commend to you that shows the different problems that exist. now, congress ordered omb to do the same thing, to do a real study. what omb did is to come up with a number which was a very large number, but much smaller than the numbers. congress in its wisdom said do

the cost and do the benefit. so as you talk about the 43-$55 billion in cost they found 128-$615 billion in benefits. if you used the highest in the the cost, the lowest end of the benefits you still have that benefits of $703 billion. >> let me ask you this. who was it that made this authoritative statement allegedly about over a trillion dollars? do you know? >> it originally came from a tom hopkins study. then and gentlemen whose name -- >> mr. adler, do you know? >> i don't know off the top of my head, but i would note that the omb numbers that have been referenced exclude non major rules which are over 90% of the

regulations that are finalized each year. compare those numbers with the other estimates. >> mr. mcintosh, do you know? .. >> in the literature have cited as they discuss the cost of federal regulation. >> so everybody said -- somebody said it and it's in a study somewhere. so that's about it, half? ms. katzen, joined to add anything to this? >> summoner uses the name mark crane is tom hopkins and i think they are the co-authors of this 1.75 trillion. .> all right. question let me ask this question. is

if this r.e.i.n.s. act, which is high up on the list of our new leadership's agenda is the fourth piece of legislation introduced, what with this do to health care reform? how would you take an enormous f piece of legislation like this? and i think obamacare is going to be a congratulatory remark i? history.woul how would this affect the? o would match a stop in its if tracks? >> it depends on what members of regulations necessary to implement that law, then it majority>>

.well, wait a minute. the majority of the congress already passed the bill, and the president signed it into law. >> congressional opinions change. congress repeal statutes, alter statutes, and one of the problems is you don't have legislation introin last year. >> can i ask unanimous con acceptability for one -- consent for one minute here? thank you, sir. now look, gentlemen and lady, you know to challenge a regulation all they have to do is walk into the nearest federal district court and sue away, and we have registrationlations that get reviewed and modified or kicked out. what's wrong with that? >> nothing, but courts don't

review the policy merits. courts don't ask if legislation is a good idea, is this something american people support? what courts look at is the nonpolicy questions. were the rules followed? those are two separate questions. you're responsible for the policy questions. >> look, we just passed the health care months ago. you mean we got to go back and look at it again? >> i think when you have major legislation and agencies implementing that legislation -- >> you know what -- >> [inaudible] >> so like to me now it sounds like a back door way of legislating again, and when they are charged with actually just making the rules to implement a bill already signed into law. thank you very much, plirm, for -- mr. chairman, for your

generosity. >> thank you, chairman. i want to follow-up on the comment made by mr. conyers when he said the individual who is objecting to the rule is sue away. who pays for that? who brings that lawsuit? usually it's the small business owner, a farmer, a gentleman objecting to that regulation? i'll ask mr. mcintosh that question. >> you're right. it's the private party affected by the legislation, and their recourse is in fact very limited in that they have to argue that the agency failed to follow its own procedures or acted capriciously not that they disagree with or they feel it's unfair that the regulation imposes burden say on wheat farmers, but not on corn farmers, and the law says to the agency, the department of agriculture, you go and allocate what should be planted on the

land, and, you know, do it in a way that maximizes the return for agriculture. well, if the farmer who is adversely affected by that wants his day in court, all he can say is, well, sure, they allocated it, but they didn't give me my allocation. the courts say sorry, you lose. they had to make that decision. i think the later remark reflects correctly what the act would do is say that decision who gets what allocation for what crops to do should be a legislative decision, and so in many ways what the bill does is correct a constitutional deficiency that's inherit in the regulatory program where the accountability for legislative decisions like those never comes back to congress. >> yeah, and correct me if i'm wrong, mr. mcintosh, the

bureaucrat creating the rule -- >> no, he's a civil servant, a person appointed by the president. >> when i talk to my small business constituent or farmer in the district and he objects to the policy, i can't go to him, well, we'll help that guy out the next time around because we disagree with that policy. he's essentially stuck with that rule other than the courts available to him? is that a fair assessment? >> his political recourse would be to join and vote enough members of congress to change the law or to vote a new president who would change the regulation, direct his agency. >> okay. i appreciate that. there's been a lot of objection that i'm hearing in this testimony that one of the problems is the workload that would be put on congress, finding the time to go through and develop that. wouldn't we face that same problem through the enabling

legislation and amended the eni believing legislation, isn't that a tremendous workload on congress? no one objects the congress would have the authority to do it, do you? we could change the enabling authority and clarify what we meant from congress. no one objects from that? >> nope. >> that burden on congress would be bigger i would argue. am i far-fetched on that conclusion that it's a huge burden on congress? >> yes, it would. i mean, back in 1995, we thought about doing that, address a lot of regulatory problems, and some of them were dealt with, and others didn't. let me give two seconds so brag about you all. i think congress can handle the burden. the senate continues to mystify me -- >> you're not alone. >> people in the body say they get things done by unanimous consent ultimately, but i think it can be done. >> thank you. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you.

the senator from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. adler, isn't it correct that regulations that pertain to clean air, these are the regulations that you're speaking of being able to stop? >> well, any regulations that are made. >> yeah, air quality, water quality? >> the examples i gave weren't -- >> no, no, no, i just want you to answer the questions. air quality, water quality; correct? >> yes. >> what about food safety? >> i think members of congress should be willing to vote to be held accountable. >> what about drug safety? >> i think members of congress should be held accountable by voting on whether or not those regulations are a good idea. >> what about financial reform. >> again, congressman, i don't think members of congress -- >> that is covered under these

regulations that are brought to bear on big business and industry. >> yes, and -- >> primarily. >> primarily, and -- if they were accountable -- >> and so things like the health and safety of workers, do you want to be able to stop those kinds of regulations from becoming the force of law? >> no, i want my member of congress to have to vote on that decision. i want to know -- >> well, well, tell me now, you contend that $1 trillion per year is what all of these regulations cost? how many new regulations are promulgated yearly that have that economic significance? >> that's the agate affect. between 2000 and 2009 the major

of major rule -- the number of mayor rules affected is between 80 and 90 a year. >> okay, and you're familiar with the attributes of the senate? >> yeah, yeah. >> in terms of them doing their work? >> yeah, and -- >> and you stated the fact that one of those attributes is not the ability to move quickly; is that correct? >> i agree with that. >> you've heard that before, and you know that to be a fact, suspect that correct? >> it's correct. >> the senate does not move quickly. >> the senate has to be moved to quick -- has to be forced to move quickly. >> in that obscure regulation you think would be enough to cause them to set aside all of the judicial appointments and other important treaties that need to be ratified, all the legislation that mr. mcintosh gives us credit for producing here in the house, but because

of an obscure regulation, they would certainly spring into action. is that what you want us to believe? >> i don't think a regulation dealing with air or water or financial that costs more than a billion a year is an obscure regulation. >> well, let's talk about obscure regulations. who would decide or how would it be decided that a regulation should be subjected to the congressional review under the reigns act? how -- >> the executive branch's cost estimates would determine. >> who brings that to the attention of congress? >> the agent has a procedure where that information is automatically transmitted to both houses of congress with the regulation is finalized. >> who would do that? >> i'd have to check.

i think both -- >> would it be the u.s. chamber of conference? >> the agency does it and the comptroller and the accountability office is responsible for submitting that and within three days legislation is automatically reduce in both houses. >> there's some ability for politics to infect the process of actually producing the legislation there. >> actually, no. the way the act is -- there's no amendment -- >> it would be a government bureaucrat that would do that? >> i spend 5 lot of time on regulatory policy. i'm more worried about backroom deals and agencies than up or down slots on the -- votes on the floor. >> how do you get politics, mr. adler, out of the rule making process? aren't we by subjecting the rule

making process to congressional dictates, aren't we by the very nature of what we do here in the house subjecting these rules to politics and -- >> rules are -- >> and influence, political influence with campaign contributions and whatnot? >> rules and public and private behavior are things officials should be held accountable for and all members of congress vote up or done is far less subject than ma manipulation than in the halls of regulatory agencies. your small home owner is not spending time at the usda lobbying on regulations. i don't know how members of congress feel. >> we just want to remove all regulatory action here in congress, less government, let's cut government, cut regulation, and let's allow the members of

the u.s. chambers of commerce and other large members of congress that run out business and others that run out in society and whatever will be, will be. i appreciate it, thank you, sir. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. blacks. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank all of you here for being here today. yes, my first question is to you sir, it acurs to me that not only the process here, but the mind set in which agencies write their regulations could be one the most significant advantages of this legislation because if i were the director of agencies and knew it was subjected to the scrutiny, that congress was going to approve it, i would be careful on how i wrote it. i would make sure it's regulation that has common sense

and could stand the legislative process itself, so with that, sense it only requires congress to approve major rules, but it could affect and change the culture of the agency, in what way do you think that improves rule making, or do you think i'm all wet here? >> no, i think you're exactly right. the prospect of having the work product that the agency does in developing a regulation be scrutinize the and debated in congress and voted up and down will have as it does on every other decision the agency makes where congress expressed an interest has an impact on their thinking and calculation about it. that provides more accountability ultimately to the citizens who vote on members of congress. that same accountability is in the national review act, but you

can still by having a discharged position in the house to stop a rule rather than the presumption being that it goes forward or 30 members of the senate can have it discharged position. the mere prospect of a debate even if everyone assumes that won't pass, i think can also have a sal ewe story effect on the deliberations. i'm encouraging members of congress while you're deliberating the act to use your authority under the congressional review act as well, but, again, it comes down to sunshine which mr. adler mentioned, bringing things out into the public debate has a tremendous benefit on all the actors involved. >> well, thank you, sir. i know there's going to be and already manifest here debate as to the constitutionality of the legislation. i for one am fundment tally convinced it's constitutional, but i want to be open to

potential dissentre ..e who cite article 2 section 1 of the constitution are obviously citing that executive power should be invested in the president, and some of us would cite oral one section one and regulation is certainly has a lot of the same characteristics as legislation, so if you're going to make that case, it's important to consider, but in constitutional terms, mr. adler, is there any critical substantive difference between the act and a statute that treats new regulations as proposed recommendations to congress for legislative action? >> i don't think there's any significance difference and both are constitutional under the existing president. >> i wanted to find out what is your -- why do you postulate this is constitutional? is there anything you would

point out in particular? >> a couple things. the resentment requirements have to be satisfied, both satisfy that. i think that the supreme court made clear repeatedly in numerous opinions as have lower courts all authority to issued regulations must be granted. there is no residual authority to issue regulations that comes with other grants of authority agencies. it is not something seen as inherently executive. it is something that for the most part, the federal agencies did not enjoy until the 1970s,. there were exceptions, but the presumption was unless agencies are granted the authority, the legislative type rule is an authority they lack. and congress is not obligated to have that authority, and if congress wants to restrain that authority as it does here, there's not constitutional problem, and it doesn't create the sorts of concern that might be raised if, for example, congress sought to impose similar limits on the exercise

of prosecutor discretion or other things closer to the core. >> i understand. that's a good answer. quickly, then, justice breyer and profession tribe of harvard supported the view that the act is constitutional. i know you know that, but can you specify why you think mr. adler is wrong or professor tribe and judge breyer is wrong? >> that's an open invitation, and the light is red, but if i may answer? >> briefly if you will. >> i will try. i think justice breyer who was then a judge, not a justice, is engaging in what he often does which is extremely creative, more theoretical than practical analysis in this article which i have read very carefully, and i think one of the most important things is that his --

he sees as a replacement for the one house veto which was invalidated and he saw it as a case by case going through each of the statutes rather than an across the board blanket provision, but most importantly, when he finishes, he makes is very clear that it is neither practical nor desirable. he questions the wisdom of it. if you read the article, it's we could do this stuff and think about these things -- >> in other words it's stupid by constitutional? >> but this was before the last several decades of supreme court decisions in morse server -- and a few other cases that separation of powers has a lifeon. they are looking on a functional basis. >> the time expired. >> yes, sir.

>> the gentleman there illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm still relatively new here, but i learn something new every day. today i learned it's not good when someone is not elected is enforcing our laws, especially criminal ones, so the next time a police officer stops me, i'm going to say who elected you or fbi agents or state's attorneys or just go on down the line. in the end, the only person who is legislated in the executive branch is the executive. at the county level, that's a state's attorney, but there's some delegation. this isn't 1776. it's a far more complicated world, and ladies and gentlemen, i would respectfully suggest or defie you to say i'm not thinking about regulation today. when i got on this commuter airliner, i'm not going to wonder or worry about how many hours of sleep that pilot got last night. come to my hometown in chicago,

the more bidty and mortality capital of the united states for asthma don't think about regulation or if you drink the tap water in chicago which has chromium levels, not in the lake, but in the drinking water, three times higher, in the new legislation. you can decide now or when you have your eggs in the morning, a million cases of salma kneel la last year? i understand, well, we all understand, that the president was trying to trike a balance here that -- strike a balance here that over a 200 year friction over the executive branch and the legislative branch, and it gnaws on you when you don't like what they do. you want to change the rules when it bothers you, so i looked at it.

i talked about the president striking a balance, mr. mcintosh, mr. adl erk r, how many rules do you think this president's epa has proposed or finalized in his first 21 months? just to guess if you want. >> major rules or all rules? >> all rules, epa only, clean air agent acts. >> just under clean air? >> yeah. >> just under clean air acts, probably under a dozen. >> much higher. it's 87. i was appalled. i couldn't believe it. who could be more liberal than that. look at the clinton administration. first two years, what do you think his numbers were? 115. just shows a trend here. look further, george w. bush, first two years, 146.

146. i mean, mr. mic into be, you used -- mcintosh, you used the expression, i don't want to misquote you, but the courts forced their hand on carbon. does that mean you just disagreed with them? >> no, what i meant by that was the court, i think, incorrectly interpreted the bill. >> but isn't that -- back to the constitution, you are disagreeing with two out of three branches. doesn't the constitution say that the executive enforces and the supreme court interprets, and they interpreted. you're upset with both of them now. >> well, at the time, the executive branch did not share the court's interpretation, and i think there was a fair amount of evidence in the legislative history that congress didn't intend that when they passed the clean air act amendment. >> well, if i could, sir, please, let me read the language

you had a problem with, section 202a1 which in judgment causes -- talking about carbon here -- that causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. we're talking generalities before, but now we're talking specifics. you don't think that language implies that there could be a problem that someone in the epa could interpret to epa danger the public's health or safety? >> no. that section of the clean air act was intended to give epa the authority to regulate when substances that were at the time that bill was passed not known to the problematic for the health become known to them, but at the time, people knew of carbon dioxide, and i would recommend you check with john who was the author of it.

they did not intend for that provision of the clean air act to give authority for epa to regulate carbon dioxide. they talked about it in other parts of the bill, decided not to give that authority. the language you cited i think is also a really important point for another issue that is very key to this whole debate, and that is how specific should congress be when it delegates the legislative authority to the regulatory agencies, and there's always been a debate back and forth about whether general lang like the language you cited is appropriate. the consensus is that it has been and the clean air acts and the language cited there, but i would point to you in an article that i referred to in my testimony by professor at boston university, gary lawson, where he points out if you had the goodness and niceness act and said to the regulatory agency,

prom mull gait rules for goodness and niceness and figure out a punishment, that would be too broad a delegation. somewhere in there there's a spectrum and the constitution says no, the legislature can't delegate all of its legislative authority to the agencies. the reins act gives you the protection of going against that and major regulations go back to congress and there's back for a vote. >> i apologize for the gentleman's time expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. rolffs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's interesting when we talk about the regulatory environment. what i learned is if i want to be profitable or if i want to make sure that i got the right environment, i try to manage my risks, and there's some insurance risk, the market risk, the resource risk, but one of the things i learned is the

regulatory risk that exists is almost not manageable, and the reason it's not is because there's no trends. there's no way to anticipate what the regulatory environment will be if you want to start a business. in my particular state, there's a water criteria that the epa is drying trying to im-- trying to impose that the ago industry says it will cost part time jobs, lose over $1 billion annually, cost the fertilizer industry $1.6 billion in manufacturing cost. it seems to me this reins act would allow at least some sense of risk management over the regulatory environmentment wouldn't you agree? >> certainly. >> with regard to more imposition of regulatory schemes, i'm reminded back years ago when i was in the legislature and this is on a

smaller scale, but i was active in a boy scout group that had a summer camp, and they had the property for 50 years, but they wanted to put on autohouse there for the camp. they had no running water or electricity, they had to get architectural drawings, approved plans, the dep had to soil sample, and by the time they got anything in order to meet with the regulatory system, summer camp was over. what it taught me though was logic and reason is not always there. i know that hr10 exempts camping, hunting, and fishing, but without logic and reason, i think you also lack accountability, and one of the things, i want to ask you this, would not the reins act allow for a greater sense of accountability to where it should be belong in congressional oversight of the regulatory environment? >> as i said earlier, mr. ross,

i strongly endorse the notion of congressional oversight. i have no qualms whatsoever with your committees calling up -- you call them bureaucrat, i call them committed career civil servants and political appointees at the agencies and ask them, what are you doing and why are you doing it, and what's the support for it? i think that's appropriate, but i would answer your earlier question differently. if you are worried about no trend, his answers to mr. johnson's question was that there is no trend. last year, congress passed a health care bill. this year it's going to be implemented, but it's coming back up, and if just one house decide they don't like it, then it's not going to happen, and in two years there's another election and maybe the other chamber will feel differently, and the ability to predict what each election, and elections do

have consequences, i believe that and agree with that, but are you going to change then every two years the possibility that the rule is on, the rule off, the rule is on, the rule is off. i think that leads to more uncertainty, less predictability. >> so you suggest that the status quo is more certain in terms of aseesing the regulatory risk? >> it's a process. you pass a bill. you then turn it over to the executive branch to faithfully carry out the laws and to issue the regulations. i agree with mr. adler, and agency is not a free agent, cannot do whatever it likes. it can only do what congress said, but if congress says set the levels at this level, and the agency does that, it is faithfully carrying out the position that congress enacted. >> don't you agree in terms of accountability that you have a greater degree of accountability where you have elected

representation? >> yes, in the initial statutes that was passed that authorizes the agencies is one that is fully accountable because it was by and passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, and the fact that now one house may think differently about it, does not lead to greater accountability. what about the other house that may like the idea? you got gridlock. you got problems. i think those problems create greater uncertainty. >> but with regard to gridlock, and again, just to point out quickly here. in terms of the bill, the content of the bill says within three days of the regulatory rule that senate shall introduce their joint resolutions so there would be an expedited fashion. i take issue with you being gridlock there, but i see my time expired. thank you. >> thank you. on behalf of us, we want to thank the witnesses for the testimony today.

without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit additional questions for the witnesses that we forward to the witnesses and respond as promptly as possible so they are part of the record. without objection all members will have -- >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous concept to enter doo the record the crs report on total costs and benefits of rules. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit any additional materials for up collusion of the record on behalf of all of us, thank you for your expertise, time, and your participation. this hearing it adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

now a news conference with nato secretary-general anders fogh rasussen. he discusses this 30 minute even the state english-language portion of the news conference. [inaudible conversations] >> hello. thank you for coming to the first press conference this year. the secretary-general will start with introductory remarks then he will take a few questions and then we will move seamlessly to the reception so that you can have a more free-flowing exchange over. but first things first,

secretary-general. >> thank you. first of all, may i wish you all a happy new year. i think the last time i saw so many of you was of the lisbon summit where we sit out the nato agenda for the next decade. building on that summit, and i am determined to keep the momentum and turn the lisbon agenda and action before we meet at the next summit in 2012 in the united states. i at 33 release this year. first, paving the way for a sustainable transition in afghanistan. second, moving ahead with nato reform and third, engaging more effectively with alliance

partners. first, afghanistan, this spring we will see a new state of our engagement in afghanistan with the announcement of the first provinces where afghan security forces are ready to take the lead. in 2010, we got the strategy and the resources right. now we have to build on those and get transition to afghan security right. last year we made changes on the ground and now we need to ensure those changes are durable. our training mission has made

significant progress. there are now over 256,000 trained soldiers and police. the biggest growth in the history of afghan security forces. and this is not just about quantity, but also quality. we have tripled the number of army leadership schools', and we have launched an intensive literacy campaign and it's just the start of a long and vicious process. we can already see the results. recently afghan soldiers made up over 60% of the forces involved in our toughest operations in

kandahar. most critically, this means continuing our work on training and educating the afghan security forces. this is a key priority. more than ever, this is our ticket to a successful transition process. let me stress that i do not expect 2011 to be easy. we will continue to drive deep into unchartered territory, and we expect continued violence as the enemy fights back. but i'm certain the future will be determined not by the insurgents, but by the people of afghanistan.

decisions on transition will be taken by the afghan government in consultation with nato touraco led coalitions. these consultations are well under way and anticipated. we can expect decisions on where and when the process will begin to read now moving to my second point, nato reform. i will put a hit with the implementation of the decisions taken at the lisbon summit regarding the agency's military command structure and the package of the most critical capabilities. these reforms will improve our

defense capabilities and ensure that nato is making the most efficient use of resources. at the lisbon summit, we agree to reduce the number of agencies to three. in march i will present options for the new agency structure for ministers to approve. our aim is the implementation of the agency reform can be completed within the next two years. at the lisbon summit, we also agreed on the framework for a new nato command structure. a command structure that would be lean, more efficient, and more affordable. we are now working out the details including the geographical locations of the

command, which defense ministers will approve no later than june this year. this year will be an important year for partnerships. it has decided the lisbon summit, nato intends to further deepen and expand its partnerships organizations with whom we share common security concerns and can cooperate for the benefit of international security. we will work to consolidate relations we have by putting more emphasis on political and security consultations relevant for our missions and our

partners. bye focusing cooperation on support or a democratic defense reviews, capacity building and the operations we undertake. we are not alone in facing emerging security challenges such as terrorism, proliferation , cyber, energy or piracy, and neither can we deal with them effectively on our own. so we will seek to develop a dialogue china and india and other key actors around the world. we will also give priority to further developing our valuable cooperation with partner organizations, not least of

course the united nations and the european union. no doubt in 2011 will be a challenging year. but i believe challenges make us stronger. and with that i'm ready to take your questions. >> and before you do please don't forget to introduce yourself and your organization. >> secretary-general, in a few days it will be between nato and russian general states, general headquarters, so my question is do you expect these systems is there any prospect of country partnership in this area, and the second question i didn't

understand, russia is a partner of nato and the development of their theater missile defense system, in this demonstration in germany i think. >> first of all, we have a regular dialogue with russia on missile defense, so i would expect missile defense to be an issue and an item on our agenda in the meetings we have between nato and russia. it's a gradual process. you will recall we decided at our summit in lisbon to initiate what we call a joint analysis as

to how we can implement practical cooperation on territorial missile defense, and we are about to start that the analysis. furthermore, we decided to start practical cooperation on theater missile defense. we had such practical cooperation until early 2008, and in lisbon we decided to resume practical cooperation including joint exercises and we would ensure a high degree of transparency in that process with russia. >> david from reuters. secateurs, wanted to ask about

uzbeckistan. there's been considerable controversy about the visit to brussels and the leader of uzbeckistan. can you clarify who extended the invitation? did nado invite him and can you explain why it is so important for nato to have a dialogue with uzbeckistan despite the controversy on human rights? >> i have a meeting with the president later this afternoon. it is a meeting decided on request, the president of uzbeckistan, and i find it quite natural to have this meeting. uzbeckistan is one of our partner cultures, and within our partnerships we have a continuous dialogue with our partners including a dialogue on

democracy and human rights, and that will also be one of the topics of for discussion this afternoon. furthermore, in addition to the fact that the uzbeckistan is a nato partner, we also share interests as regard to the development in afghanistan. as you know, uzbeckistan is a neighboring country and we cooperate with the central asian countries as regards to our operation in afghanistan and among other elements of that cooperation we agree on a transit facility back in 2009, so these are the reasons why i'm going to have a meeting with the uzbek president this afternoon. >> jam from bloomberg.

lisbon you voiced concern about the impact that the defense cuts, especially in europe, on both the alliance operations and the transatlantic solidarity. has anything happened since to change your view and what impact will the cuts in the european defense budgets have on operations in afghanistan? >> first of all, the development since lisbon hasn't changed my position on the contrary. i think it is of utmost importance to stress the need for what i would call a coordinated adaptation of defense budgets. as a politician, i fully realize that defense budgets must adapt as other government projects adapt to periods of economic

austerity but it is of utmost importance that we follow because i sit at the summit in lisbon that we cut fat while at the same time build muscle, and the approach is to invest in the most critical capabilities to reform our structures and systems with the view to making our armed forces nor deployable, while at the same time reducing a costly overhead and investment in stationary non-deployable facilities. so my position is exactly the same. and of course this will be a topic in my consultations and

discussions with the allied nations during the 2011. >> secretary general, on afghanistan you repeated the beginning in the spring. but given the tensions we've been seeing in afghanistan between the parliament and the president and the difficulty of even getting the parliament open, how confident are you the afghan political elite can guarantee the political stability the would be needed to transition to in effect? >> first, let me stress the importance of a timely opening of the afghan parliament. i think it's four months ago millions of afghan voters cast their votes and serve strong political leadership in their country, so i think the time is right for an opening of the afghan parliament.

that's my first remark. second, i have confidence in the afghan authorities. i would expect them to live up to the necessary conditions for transition. the transition period is a vision a person out lines himself last year and the road map we agreed on the bill was been some that and hopefully see completed by the end of 2014 is in accordance with the vision outlined by president karzai. i have discussed this issue with the president on several locations and i feel confident that the afghan government and the afghan authorities in

general will step up to the plate and ensure the transition can take place in a successful manner. >> taking the above questions from the center so we will go to the left -- >> first one afghanistan [inaudible] report in november on the situation on the casualties in afghanistan. they said that it was deadliest year for civilians and they ask from air strikes and the other side of the ask to protect [inaudible] by national security forces. do you think that situation is better now [inaudible]

>> the american troops would go. first of all, on afghanistan let me stress that the issue of civilian casualties is a matter of strong concern to us, and we have done a lot to minimize the number of civilian casualties, and actually we have succeeded in reducing our so to speak share of civilian casualties. according to statistics from the united nations, more than 17% of civilian casualties are caused by the insurgents, by the enemies of afghanistan because they don't care about civilian casualties.

we do, and we have issued their tractors with the aim to diminish the number of civilian casualties. unfortunately, during 2010 we saw an increase in violence in general, and unfortunately it also led to an increase in the overall number of civilian casualties. we shouldn't be surprised that we see more violence in afghanistan taking into consideration what we have sent. more soldiers give more fighting. we are now attacking the taliban heartland, and the fight back. this is a reason why we have seen reports of more fighting, but it is actually a part of a worse strategy to areas of afghanistan to provide the basis for the afghan government to

deliver services to the afghan people. we are in afghanistan to protect the civilian population, so we strong we regret the casualties and we will continue to do all we can to diminish the number of civilian casualties. >> sorry, on kosovo, yes we will and a gradual process reduce our military presence in kosovo from what is called bet three to 82, i would expect the gate 2 to be part of the first of march. the gate 2 represents around 5,000 soldiers compared to gate 3 about 10,000, and as a part of this adaptation, we will also

see a reduction in the number of french troops as well as reduction in the number of troops from other countries. >> we only have time for a few more questions so the people who had their hands up the longest. >> can you give more information on who is taking part, are they showing future capacities and keep the peace or trust -- can you give more details? >> i'm not in the position to give you more details maybe afterwards we can provide you with a more detail briefing. >> latin radio.

>> [inaudible] tomorrow they will sign final contract and this has been a deep concern of nato members and the concern -- how concerned are you that particular deal well not further negate the issues especially concerning georgia. thank you. >> yes. first on the issue as i have said before we consider it a bilateral arrangement between france and russia. we take it for granted that this arrangement will take place in full accordance with all international rules and regulations.

and we also take for granted that russia will not be in any way use this military equipment against any nato ally or neighbor. >> can you give a bit more information out of the cooperation that you have planned with d e.u.? what new areas you've got planned? i would sense that defense is one and if it is, who would do well on the cyber defense, and if there are others -- also i didn't fully understand can you clarify the missile defense what you are going to be presenting to the defense ministers in march? i didn't understand that when you mentioned it before. >> first on the missile defense, what we are going to discuss at the nato meeting in march it is a nato defense ministers meeting. we will discuss command and

control mechanisms as regards to our missile defense system, how could we imagine these mechanisms to be implemented within a nato base missile defense system. so that's the item on the agenda for defense ministers meeting in march. what we also stress in that respect for transparency in russia, so the russians will be informed about our considerations in that respect. >> [inaudible] coming back to the visit to nato, you have explained

regulations, but at the same time the opinion will be thinking that you are saying hello to a president has been qualified especially this moment this morning by the worst human rights defenders of the world and the same time you were asking the public opinion to support the fight of nato in afghanistan to support democracy. so there is nothing between these two? >> thank you. >> let me stress that in is a very important part of our partnership's programs to have a dialogue with our partners on human rights, space principles and broad reforms of societies.

this is the reason why these issues will also be subject to discussion on the meeting this afternoon, let me repeat there are two reasons why i have accepted the request for the meeting. first, it is a partner, and like other partners, we are of course prepared to meet to help continue this dialogue and the second is actually we share the interest in the progress in afghanistan and to that end, we have a chance at pacelli through

rich uzbeckistan please an important role for operation in afghanistan, and i keep in mind the interest of our soldiers in afghanistan. we go to them that we do our utmost to ensure that we can provide necessary equipment for their daily operations in afghanistan. so i think based on experience that it will be possible for me to strike the right balance to discuss human rights and democracy and at the same time the transit facilities and others elements in practical cooperation that can be to the benefit of our operation in afghanistan. >> thank you for a much. that concludes the formal part of this meeting, so i would ask you all to turn off cameras and recording the equipment but the

secretary-general will be staying here, so you will have an opportunity to speak to him on the more formal basis. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> abortion opponents were on the national mall earlier to protest the anniversary of the 1973 roe v wade supreme court ruling that legalized abortion in the united states. speakers include members of congress and religious leaders. this is about two hours. >> whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ through the perlious fight

♪ ♪ or the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare ♪ the bombs bursting in air speed gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh say does that start spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ or the land of the free

♪ and the home of the brave ♪. [cheering] >> welcome to the march for life, 2011! [cheers and applause] leedy stand gentlemen, i want to introduce to you now -- [cheers and applause] nellie gray, president of march for life. ell [cheers and applause]pr >> welcome to welcomees to the everyone. t the look at the beautiful weather wr have today. [cheers and applause] we had a very short time and lot uanted to put a lot of people ob but we had some restraints onraw how much time we could have come so we are going to get right into the principles and thte wod that we came to do on this day,

the 23rd annual march for life, and to begin with begin with, -, we are coming in here is why we are the march for life today. we are reminding our officials that an estimated 3,000 innocent preborn children are being killed every day in america, and that adds up to 50 million, or an estimated more than 50 million innocent preborn children killed in our country. this is an evil in the same country which has in our declaration of independence that we have an inalienable right to life in doubt by our creator. it's also we'll learn from the

nordenberg trials to the genocide is a crime such as this is a crime against humanity and cannot be made legal. we ask our government, we come to our government in washington, d.c.. we ask our government to overturn roe v wade now! [cheering] something like an incremental strategy that has been used to protect our country, but the strategy has gone on for 38 years, 50 million preborn children have been killed. it would be evil if there was only one child killed and therefore we come to protect all innocent pre-born and borneman b.c. right to life, existence at

fertilization. no exceptions and no compromise. we stop the genocide now. [cheering] and so, to begin, to begin our program today, we want to introduce the roman catholic bishops for a comment and also -- give me that comes before. the opening prayer, archbishop -- [cheering] he will have several here and they will be introduced also by the cardinal.

[cheering] >> thank you. thanks. much. welcome all to the march for life. i am archbishop kansas city, kansas. you are no longer in kansas. [laughter] and i am also a member of the u.s. bishop pro-life committee. it is my honor to open the rally in prayer on behalf of the catholic bishops in the united states. this year rather than having a big group on stage, the large number of bishops attending the march are out there with you. they are people. the bishops want to be able to march with their parishioners and with you to go to their elected representatives. so most are not up on the speech with us today. but in a crowd this vast it is a

challenge to find our groups. so we ask to be put on the beginning so we can get with them, but we do have a few with us alongside. we've arch bishop henry of hartford connecticut. [cheering] this should samuel of fargo north dakota. [cheering] bishop murray of youngstown. [cheering] and i representing the cardinals tonight who was the celebrant of one of the masses, the chairman of the committee could not be here for this event because he is with the young people. so let us pray. lord, creator of life, you have

blessed us with the privilege of bringing new life into the world. open our hearts and minds to recognize your special gift of children and your great love for each of us created in your image and likeness. help expecting parents to welcome the priceless gift of their child's life. consul parents who have lost that gift through abortion and lead them to forgiveness and healing through your divine mercy. teach us to cherished and to care for family and friends until god calls them home. help us never to see others as burdens. a week in the hearts of judges and justices. it may never used their authority to the price the people of this country our right in protecting innocent human life. by our elected officials to defend each and every human life through just laws, in spite your us all to bring our faith in to

public life and to speak for those who have no voice. plus us all as we march this day, by us as we encourage and challenge our leaders and their responsibilities to build a culture of life in our country. me our efforts be a prophetic witness that will open , change hearts and bring healing to our land so wounded by the tragedy of abortion, in spite your of the many thousands of young people here today to become great leaders and proclaim the gospel of life. we've of the intercession of blessed john paul ii come a champion of life, and through your son, our lord save your jesus christ, we offer this prayer to you, our heavily father, the god of cizik, abraham and jacob, a amen.

thanks and god bless. [cheering] >> to get the large numbers we have here. we come from every state i guess because we love our home and our country, and our country has been known to have to fight for its existence and its principals and in doing this are supporting from every place with all sorts of energies and activities

supporters of life has been and is now the ninth in columbus. yes, a big round for the knights of columbus. [cheering] they are indeed the ones helping us materially and spiritually and so forth and by putting this all together and it's because we are thinking about not only our own homes and religion and our country, but in addition, we are thinking of ourselves as americans and we are thinking of ourselves as laughing our country and here to lead us in he pledge of allegiance supremd ..s. >> thank you, nellie for inviting the knights of participants and for all you've done for the pro-life cause over the past 38 years.

it's an honor for the knights of columbus to principate and to stand in solidarity with all of you in the country and even from other countries to stand in support of life. before we see the pledge your would like to reflect on two very important words in the pledge of allegiance. under god. it was the knights of columbus to organize a nationwide effort in the early 1950's to insert the words underdog in to the pledge and to a successful conclusion in 1954 when the congress passed and president eisenhower signed a bill changing the pledge to include these words. the knights of columbus along with millions of other americans recognize then as now that the words under god and the pledge of allegiance carry enormous meaning. no these words are not a prayer nor are they an establishment of religion. rather, they reflect the idea held by our founding fathers and

understood by most americans for most of our history that just the governments must conform their laws and policies to natural law and objective truth. the [cheering] awards under god represent an accurate summary of this country's political philosophy and understanding of our historical national identity that has been reaffirmed thousands of times by courts, legislatures and presidents that our rights come from god, not from the states and that governments are accountable to nature and nature as god as our founding fathers expressed it. 50 years ago this month, right behind us, the newly elected president john f. kennedy in his inaugural address summarized our common beliefs as follows. the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of god. that was a remarkable statement 50 years ago in 1961.

today we give to fight to defend that principle but we are fighting and in many cases we are winning. we are winning because what we believe is true and the truth still matters. [cheering] by coming to washington today, all of you are bearing witness to the truth about the dignity of the human person and each person's god-given right to life. now will you please join me in saying the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the united states of america. and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you. [applause] [cheering] >> you know, the reason we are

trying to overturn roe v wade is because it is a wrong decision by our supreme court. it provides eisel unfortunate activities in the country, the intentional killing of human beings. and our fema this year -- theme this year is to protect the life of bourn and preboard human beings and existence at fertilization, no exception and no compromise. now because we have the roe v wade, we have a victim's of roe v wade, and standing behind me now as you will see or a group of people who have unfortunately participated somewhere along the way in abortion and recognize that abortion is indeed evil and they are a victim, a very prime

victim of abortion for the pre-born children but also for themselves, and so the silent purpose here to tell you that roe v wade is not assistance for anyone. it is evil. [cheering] >> hello everyone. i am the executive director of priest for life and the co-founder of the campaign. [cheering] hello i bring greetings from the father frank is a pastoral director and helps with the women's healing. since founding the campaign into this country we have had over 700 gatherings in ten countries and 5,000 people have given testimony worldwide. we want you to take these stories come go to our website,

silent no more awareness not work. abortion is not good for women, it's not good for the babies but it's also bad for the women. let's destroy the myth of the other side. listen to the women and come to the supreme court. thank you. here is my cofounder, god bless. [applause] [cheering] >> we are so honored to stand on this stage. these women and these men stand here because the understand that the abortions that they chose didn't solve a problem for them, it created more problems. we are here today standing courageously with our "i regret my abortion" sign and "by three grad lost fatherhood." jesus christ on the cross has given us freedom from the guilt and pain, and our message from

the campaign is to say to anybody out there if you have had an abortion you can join us. you do not need to live in the pain and shame you have lived with we are not trying to deal to anybody into feeling something they don't feel. but if you are feeling that, if deep in your heart when you hear those words apportion it feels like in life turning in your stomach like it did for me, then we want you to know help is available. forgiveness is available. go to our website at as janet said, silentnomoreawareness.org and find the help and then you can join us in being silent no more. if you are a woman is pregnant and thinking that abortion is your only choice, please know that we will help you. we don't want you to go down the same road we did we understand abortion is eisel as nellie said from firsthand experience.

take our experience and save yourself the trouble. it is not a good solution. we are the consumers of the product and here to tell you the product is not good. so listen to us. we will be at the supreme court after the march is over or as you are marching by. over 60 of these men and women are going to tell their testimony. we've got 1200 more testimonies on our website and hundreds of videos. helpless spread the message because together being silent no more will end abortion. god bless you. [cheering] >> it's very appropriate that we have with us people from silent no more today because within the past few days, we have had several situations throughout the united states which call for our attention and prayers, and

even now when i tell you the reason for our being here is to bring the principles to our government and it is appropriate to have that now because unfortunately, our president has apparently issued a statement talking about his consideration that roe v wade is a proper interpretation of our constitution. [booing] so we are here to tell the united states president that intentionally killing pre-born children or anyone else is not appropriate interpretation of our constitution. [cheering] we are bringing of the message to you, mr. president, and we would be glad to work with you.

we bring this message to you with love. we are taught to come to our enemies or to our neighbors with loved, and therefore the love that we have for you, mr. president, as the president of all of the people including the pre-born children is that roe v wade shall be overturned. [cheering] another victim of the whole issue, someone making decisions about who should live and who should die has been experienced by the next speaker as teri schiavo's brother, paul, to introduce him. >> good afternoon pro-life america. [cheering]

we want to thank nellie gray for getting us this opportunity to speak to you today. my friends, euthanasia follows abortion just as night follows day. our current administration is going to actively try to promote the killing of our sick and elderly disabled brothers and sisters. we need to let them know america does not want death panels. they can call it by any name they want but the result is the same. it kills people. only god should have the right to take the life, not doctors, not nurses, only god. [cheering] america doesn't want death and starvation of its people. america doesn't want health care

rationing. please come join us in our efforts with equal determination to fight against euthanasia as we do against abortion. i am here with a family of teri schiavo, the woman who was court-ordered to death. she has a message for you today. bobby. [cheering] >> thank you. good afternoon. i am here to tell you we are all at risk because there is a deadly prejudice growing in our nation. just like the countless number of unborn children being killed every day, those with brain injuries, the elderly and the chronically sick are also being deliberately killed right now as we speak. every single one of us need to understand that the same people and the same organizations that are behind the abortion agenda are also responsible for untold

number of persons being held by euthanasia and our nation every single day. we need to fight against euthanasia with the same determination as we do to protect the unborn child. that is why my sister teri schiavo was court ordered to be starved and dehydrated to death in march of 2005. my family established the life and hope that work to defend the rights of our disabled brothers and sisters and fight against euthanasia occurring in the united states and abroad. please join us. we need your help now more than ever especially with our current health care debate. please go to our website, terrisfight.org and learn more about this issue that will affect every single one of us. thank you, nellie gray, for getting us this opportunity to speak to you today, and thank you to all of our pro-life friends. may god bless you.

[applause] [cheering] >> we have wonderful support from the clergy and more and more becomes available to us and we are so thankful for all of the support we have. to introduce the orthodox church of america, father. [cheering] >> thank you, nellie gray. hello, pro-life america. [cheering] it gives me great joy to introduce to you the hundreds of orthodox christians for life who have joined in to become a permanent part of the march for life. the seminary and the dean of author alexandre, house the seminary's from st. vladimir

father chad, and the bishops from the church in america who've gathered here today to show their support for the march of life. i present to you the bishop of philadelphia and the dalia c's of eastern pennsylvania. bishop michael of new york and of new jersey and new york. jericho the bishop of pittsburgh and western pennsylvania, and we have with us bishoped elect of the diocese of chicago and of the midwest. it is my joy to present to you the orthodox church of america, his be added to the most blessed jovana archbishop of washington,

d.c. metropolitan of all american, the to the canada who will say a few critics to pro-life america. .. who creates a culture of debt, which creates a culture of despair, which contends a generation of women to sell featuring, two decades of guilt, two decades of despair. what cannot produce the dirt

this? there's so much that is linked nk with this, whether it's belowsss of sensuousness of morality that has fallen by the wayside, whether it is the advocacy foror euthanasia, all of this is that culte of culture death which leads to despair for which we must fightl again.e we can call it whatever we want to. use we can use whatever euphemisms we want, but the murder oftherhy persons, whether those weren the children in the world, whether you're it's the same thing. it's murder, and we have to stand against it for the sake of our country, for the sake of our nation, for the sake of our integrity. as christians, we provide -- we have the solution for this

country. as christians, we provide a way out of that culture of death and despair. through repentness, there is a way out of the grief, out of the self-hatred and despair, but we have to communicate that message to a culture that is intoxicated with its own pleasure. brothers and sisters, let us fight against that heedennism, that selfishness which is at the very core of the destruction of our people and of our nation. it's at the very core of the self-destructive behaviors which come out of a behavior of

abortion. there is forgiveness for those who have sinned. there is forgiveness and healing for those who have fallen. we stand for that as well. let us give thanks to god for this message of goodness because it's that message that our culture so desperately needs to hear. may god bless you as you continue your resistance in this fight for the very life of our people, the very life of our nation, and may god belies you abundantly, the glory of jesus chris. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] >> as i said at the beginning,

we came here to bring the life principles to washington. i've already made a statement to the president of the united states as our executive branch. we all started communicating with the congress, and we have much to be appreciative of today because there are things helping us a bit. the most important thing is what can we do, and we can enact legislation to try to stop the evil, all of it, and some of it, and here to introduce the members of the house of representatives is the honorable chris of new jersey. [cheers and applause] >> nelly, thank you for your

extraordinary leadership over these years and the march for life. my wife and i are pleased to be here to join tens of thousands of people in the walk for life. ladies and gentlemen, america got another wakeup call last week with the arrest of an abortionist in philadelphia who was charged in the killing of a woman and seven babies who were aborted who briefly survived, and killed them by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. to the tens of thousands of young people here today defending the youngest people in america know the killing in philadelphia and all abortion is violence against women and children. they know the only thing, the only multibillion abortion industry produces is victims, and that women deserve better than abortions. love, honor, respect, and

welcomes post aabortion women who are silent no more. our children no abuse when they see it, and we and all of us demand an abortion end in order to sanitize the abortion, the multibillion abortion industry dehumanizes and weakens the most vulnerable among us. this acceptable bigotry, this prejudice against a child in the womb has been despited for decades even with advances in technology underscoring the fact that an unborn child is often a patient in need of care just like anyone else. despite the amazing windows to the womb with ultrasound iming, as you know when public funding

is unavailable, the number of abortions drop by 25%, so last week with the full and unequivocal support of speaker john boehner and the rest of our leadership team all of whom are here, more than 135 members in all including a democrat, dan lepenski, we introduced the tax funding for abortion, a governmentwide prohibition on taxpayer sub sigh dation for abortion and conscious attention from health care professionals. [cheers and applause] my friends, we need your help. we need your help in purr sueding -- persuading president who put abortion in obamacare not understanding a flawed executive order to get this legislation passed, and let us commit, finally today, in persevering

prayer, with fasting, and hard work to ensure the human rights of all regardless of age, race, religion, disability, immaturity, or condition of dependency. god bless you all. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm roger wicker from mississippi. [cheers and applause] it's an honor for me to be here on behalf of the pro-life member, of the united states senate. [cheers and applause] in a few moments, you will meet a bipartisan group of pro-life house members. we're here today to say we are honored to be here at this march for life. we are honored to stand with you. you know, the crowd keeping pouring in and people continue to get off busses. this is a great outpouring from

all over the united states of america. thank you for enduring the cold for the unborn today. [cheers and applause] to many of the pundits, to many observers in the press, we are a curiosity to them. they wonder why we are here, wonder why we come out here year after year and endure the cold and stand for life. i'll tell you why we are here because rowe vs. wade was wrongly decided and rowe vs. wade led to a three decades long holocaust in the united states of america, and it amounts to a stain on our national conscious, and it's time for it to end. [cheers and applause]

the fight is sometimes hard and sometimes lonely, but we are here today to say we're not going to a abandon the fight. [cheers and applause] sometimes it's defensive in nation and heaven knows we've had a lot to defend in the last two oar three years including abortion in the health care agent, the assistance bill is always a fight, taxpayer funding for abortions, we always have to defend against that. last year, we successfully defended against an effort to expand abortion to our military clinic, and we were able to do that on a bipartisan basis and to stop that provision from being including in the authorization bill. [cheers and applause] tomorrow, we take a defensive, and i like that a lot better. tomorrow, i will be introducing

the life at conception act a lot with a number of pro-life members of the united states senate. [cheers and applause] we're going to say life begins at conception, and it's time for the 14th amendment protection to be afforded to the unborn. thank you for standing with us. help us on this act. god bless you all. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon. i'm erik cantor, majority leader of the house. which have i stand -- i stand here with both members on both sides of the aisle. i stand here with the majority whip from california, the republican congress from texas

-- the policy committee chairman, tom price from georgia, and many, many others. we stand with you for life. [cheers and applause] i want to thank all of you who have made the trip here today, and i want to salute you for coming out in this bitter cold demonstrating how strongly you feel about this cause. i especially want to thank and recognize the eight busses that made their way up 95 from my hometown of richmond. thank you from virginia. [cheers and applause] for the past two years, the life community has suffered the consequences of being completely out of power in this town. bit by bit, we have seen

unfortunately too many who tried to weaken the moral fabric of our country against the will of a majority of the americans, an agenda was jammed through congress that forces taxpayers to fund abortion and embryonic stem cell research and repeal protection from health care providers. now the tide has turned. [cheers and applause] thanks to your support last november, there's a new majority in town. [cheers and applause] our majority has been reenergized by a strong crop of pro-life advocates with the leaders -- with the cleerdz like chris smith.

we also have the biggest and the most pro-life freshmen class in memory. [cheers and applause] our majority has pledged to institute a permanent government wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion. [cheers and applause] this is a big at the top of our agenda in the house. we know we've got an uphill battle in the senate and in the white house, but i can promise you one thing, the people's house will stand unapologetically for life. [cheers and applause] we will do everything in our power to make sure that our values, that your values are reflected in the law of the land. thank you all again very much

and god bless. [cheers and applause] good afternoon, i'm kevin mccarthy from california; the majority whip in the house p representatives. [cheers and applause] it may be cold out here, but i want to tell everybody's heart is warm because we celebrate the sanctity of life. i may be a member of congress, but one of my proudest moments for my wife and i is to be parents. like many of you who cannot think of a more special moment when you first see that ultrasound of your child or see your child coo or take their first steps. we want everybody to have that opportunity. when you look at the eyes of a newborn, you know the power and grace of our maker. "everyone shall stand and confess the

greatness of the miracles of god." [cheers and applause] they will realize what an amazing thing he does. as you heard from our leader, erik cantor, is this congress deciding there are no adorations. as we pursue this, the republican team in the house of representatives will stand hand in hand with you to work to ensure that not one penny of tax dollars are spent funding abortions or abortion coverage. [cheers and applause] as we leave this place today, i would encourage each of you to never forget the words of the great congressman. he said, let the innocence of the unborn have the last word. let their innocence appeal to

what president lincoln called the better angels of our nature. make it clear once again that there is justice for all even for the tiniest, most defenseless in our land. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> republican conference chairman from dallas, texas. [cheers and applause] there's a place in dallas called the dallas preeing pregnancy resource center. great ladies counseling unwed mothers. they put little footprints on the bulletin board every time they save a life. last time i was there, there were 40 or 50 footprints on the bulletin board, and they said, congressman, we're going to buy some more bulletin boards. [cheers and applause] in small ways, making a big

difference in saving small human lives. let us all resolve here in a big way to change the heart and mind of our countrymen. let them know that life is a gift of the creator, that as a matter of constitutional law, as a matter of science, as a matter of faith, there is no more fundamental right than the right to life. [cheers and applause] god bless you for what you do today and every day. [cheers and applause] >> tom price from georgia, privileged to chair the republican policy committee. today we honor the most precious gift of life. we give voice to those who have no voice. we challenge our society to

protect and defend those most innocent among us. nearly four decades sense row v wade, our fight endures because our fight is for the cause of liberty and life is timeless. there is nothing more fundamental than to defend our humanity than to defend life, so today we rededicate ourselves to protect the sanctity of life and all of the activity that dedication peals. god bless you, and god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon. i'm dan, a democrat from illinois. [cheers and applause] i am a democrat for life sign out there? if we are going to change this

country's laws, we need to have pro-life members in both parties. [cheers and applause] it's not easy being a pro-life democrat. there are people who dent want me there, but i tell you, i have said i will never back down. [cheers and applause] i ask all of you to do the same, and i thank you for being here today. thank you for bringing your voices here to washington to help all of us. we need your help, and only by all of us staying together, can we change the heart and minds and laws of this land to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn. as ronald reagan said, # if you diminish one category of life, the unborn, you diminish all human life. thank you for being here today, it's great to see the new pro-life generation here.

[cheers and applause] we're going to keep on working on this and fighting for the unborn until our mission is accomplished. thank you, and god bless. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm jim brenner from wisconsin. when i was chairman of the house judiciary committee, we wrote and passed a partial birth abortion that was held unconstitutional by the supreme court. that's the only time since rowe vs. wade that the supreme court actually restricted abortions. the rest of the stuff has all been on the per riff yal.

we tried last year to prevent abortion coverage and lost it the last minute because of switches of members, some of whom are not with us anymore because they sold out life. [cheers and applause] this year, we ask all of you to back hr3. this will shut the door permanently once and for all to having your tax dollars being used to fund elected abortions. [cheers and applause] abortion is wrong, but it is just as wrong to force people who morally objected to abortions to pay taxes for this insidious procedure. [cheers and applause] that's our job in the next two years. the house will pass hr3. let's all get to work on the senate. thank you again.

[cheers and applause] >> hey, welcome, warriors for life. [cheers and applause] one of the freshman class. [cheers and applause] i'm married to a beautiful pro-life woman, rachel. we have six children, and we are here with all of you. [cheers and applause] i'm pro-life not because i read it in a book, but because i lived through an unplanned preeing pregnancy and experienced the unplanned joys that come from the joys of a baby girl. children are our nation's greatest resource. they are the circumstances in which they are conceived. you know what? you guys are out here bearing the cold weather, you and may be ignored by the media, but you know what? you are peeking truth to power. keep up the fight. game on.

[cheers and applause] >> good morning everyone. my wife and i and two daughters are a pro-life family. [cheers and applause] this is a day that the lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it. which have we know from hebrews if we are per sis tent and perseverance and join the race before us, i say to all of you out there who are cold and weary, i encourage you that we have right and we have history on our side. [cheers and applause] now, in this new year, now as we begin this new congress, be encouraged as well that we have a new freshman class in congress to gin us in the march, the race, and get us over the finish line of life. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> i'm louis gomert from the

state of common sense or some call it texas. let me borrow from abraham lincoln, only do we hope, ferchtly to we pray this scorch of boring may pass away, yet if god wills an america suffers until all the wealth piles by the abortionists, 38 years of killing innocent babies shall be lost as was said 3,000 years ago, so it still must be said, the judgments of the lord are true and right all together. with mall las towards none, chart for all, firmness in the right as god gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds from abortions, to care for those who shall have undergone an abortion, and for all those suffering from those losses, to

do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting in to the abortion test among ourselves and our communities. may god heal our land and bless america. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> i'm from the 5th district of ohio. i want to thank you all for being here today. your voices are going to be heard just like they were last year: the american people spoke, and look what happened uptown here. [cheers and applause] we have a great freshmen class. i tell you what, their voices have to be heard at home, even if you know we're pro-life, just call us. we want to hear from you. you have to call everyone. get your friends and neighbors. look around you. if everybody here called ten people, think what you could do. we're counting on you. the unborn are counting on you.

can i count on you? [cheers and applause] well, thanks very much, we look forward to seeing you up on the hill. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm congressman thompson from the 5th district of pennsylvania. how many of you are from pennsylvania? [cheers and applause] all right. well, it is colder today, but you warm my heart for the unborn. this is my second term and i represent the middle part of pennsylvania, and yes, i'm pro-life. [cheers and applause] yes, i believe pennsylvania is pro-life -- [cheers and applause] and i vote pro-life. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the four bills we have already protecting the unborn, and i want to thank and timely yes, congress hears you. they heard you in november, and we have to seize the opportunity. thank you for being here. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> jim jordan from ohio. you all know the old story and

scripture. when the israel lites were against the philistine and the giant walked out and issued a challenge. who will fight goliath. the israel identities said he's too big, we can want fight him. david said, he's so big, i can't miss. [cheers and applause] keep truth on our side. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> i'm jim from louisiana, great to see you here today. as a physician, a father, and a grandfather, it's a privilege to bring life into this world. you know, you hear it said that a woman should have the right to choose. what about the right of a newborn to life, love, and the pursuit of happiness? god bless you all, and thank you for being here today. [cheers and applause] >> i'm congressman tim from

michigan's beautiful 7th district. [cheers and applause] i'm glad to be back. they sent me home in 2008, but sent me back in 2010. talk about having new life. i want to stand with you because i know you stand with the unborn, you stand with people who desire life, you stand with the old people, you stand with my grand kids and my kids, but most importantly, we need to remember that we stand with the one who said the thief comes but to rob and steal and kill, but i come to give you life, and life abundantly. stand for that for all. we're on god's side. we can't miss. [cheers and applause] >> patty. i'm pro-life congressman from texas. [cheers and applause] there was a sign that said life is god's greatest gift.

america's number one goal should protect it. god bless you, and god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> maryland, where are you? [cheers and applause] yeah, maryland is a really blue state. with all those maryland people here, america is on the march for life, aren't we? thank you for coming. for 18 years now, i've been the only representative from maryland. i'm glad to tell you in the 19th year, the delegation doubled. dr. andy harris joined us. andy? [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. i want to say hi to my son, my daughter, and i want to thank all the students for life, the future of a movement. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> well, thank you i'm steve from ohio. thank you all for being here. there's a buss load from senate

tie, cleveland, and all over ohio. thank you for being here. let me recognize my mother who has 27 grand kids. if that's not pro-life, i don't know what is. thank you for coming here to protect and defend the sanctity of life. we need your help and it will happen. thank you all for being here. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> i'm another one from the great state of ohio. how are you doing? [cheers and applause] hey, i am so proud to stand with you today looking out across the sea of humanity here and all the faces of the young people. it tells me that you get it. i don't know whether you've heard this or not, but what you're hearing today is not a political statement. it's a passionate statement, a statement that says we stand in favor of life. we're going to stand and proclaim the sanctity of life. you're going to be able to count

on me and all the rest of these talking, but you keep doing what you're doing because what you do is as important as what we do. god bless you. let's protect the unborn. [cheers and applause] >> from the state of missouri -- [cheers and applause] six children, and this is the 11th march i've seen and probably the best one yet because we got about four times more congressmen here. [cheers and applause] tonight, if you were to fly over korea, you would see a sharp contrast. in the south, there are lights. in the north, darkness. our early founders dreamed of a shining city on a hill, a light to people around the entire world.

it is our -- is our nation going to be according to that dream a nation of light or be a nation of darkness? our founders asserted that there is a creator who grants all of his children inalienable rights first of which is the right to life, and it's the purpose of government to protect life, and if government fails to protect life, government is a failure. [cheers and applause] today, the abortionists among us still snuff out life. the little lights that are extinguished leave us darker. we will not cease in our enterprise until every tiny little light can shine in safety, and until we restore the dream that we should be a

shining city on a hill. god bless you all. [cheers and applause] >> i'm greg harper from the great state of mississippi. welcome, you look great. let me tell you that under the leadership of our governor, many pro-life laws have been passed. they designated mississippi as the safest place in the united states for an unborn child. [cheers and applause] we've gone from seven abortion clinics to one that is now part time. let's stay in the fight. which have >> hello, everyone. i'm chuck, a freshmen from the great state of tennessee. [cheers and applause] thank you for coming out in the cold. look around at your friend and neighbors from all 50 states. the united states of america is the greatest nation, the world has ever seen. we are one nation under god, and

we will stay that way, but i will say this, i will say this, something mars our great conscious, and that's roe vs. wade. it was a bad law then, it is a bad low now, and we will get rid of it in our lifetime. go back to your towns, cities, villages and look hard rt do not give up the fite. look at your friends and neighbors, we're on the right side of the issue. the rights come from god, and that's what the great united states is here to protect. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm steve, one the freshmen, and i'm from florida. how's everyone doing today? [cheers and applause] it's great to see you. you warm my heart. three years ago, our family, we

found out that my sister-in-law carroll and brother shane were going to expect a baby. we were thrilled to add to our numbers, and i'll tell you, when we found out that michael was going to be born with down syndrome, that did not stop our excitement. [cheers and applause] we began to pray that god would prepare our hearts, that we would be everything that he needed us to be, to be the family, so blessed, so lucky, so fortunate to be the one that michael would come to live with, and i will tell you when he was born, we prayed god for his blessings for we know and believe in god's word for i knew you when i formed you in your mother's womb according to jeremiah. according to psalms you are

wonderfulfully and fearfully made. i i believe that. as a country we hurt and experience pain because of our disregard for life. with life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. we can obtain that only when life is secured. god bless you and this great nation. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm martha representing alabama's second congressional district. [cheers and applause] i am unapologetically pro-life. i, too, believe that we are fearfully and wonderfulfully made, that each of us were knit together in our mother's womb by our awesome god. i want to say thank you to my sweet family member who is here

today, rebecca. i want to tell each of you thank you so much for making the journey here today to defend those who can't defend themselves. keep up the good fight for the unborn. god bless each of you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm mike from the great state of kansas. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] kansas -- [cheers and applause] kansas has been for so many years a battleground on the issue of life. kansas has been a place where there's a central focus. we always know this in kansas, that the right of life can't be given to by the member of congress or taken away from you by nine folks on the supreme court. [cheers and applause]

we know life comes because he gave us life and made us in him image. thank you so much for coming out here today. god bless you all, and let's keep up the fight. thank you all. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm marlin from the great state of indiana, and i brought my pro-life team, my wife, christie, our son, payton, and our youngest son presston, and i want to give a shoutout to the county in indiana who traveled out tonight to be here today. i'm a freshmen congressman, and this is an amazing sight to see, and i want your picture from up here, okay? payton. i believe that this generation -- [cheers and applause] i believe that this is a generation to see the overturning of roe vs. wade

because we are winning in the hearts and minds of america. we may not win all the dime in washington, d.c., but across this country, we are winning. keep up the fight. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> hello, i'm bobby schilling from illinois' fighting 17th. this is my wife christie of 24 years, and together we have 10 children. [cheers and applause] the day after the presidential election, two of my daughters came to the room and asked who won, and when we told them, they started to cry. when they left the room, i said to my wife, we got to do something. here i am. [cheers and applause] when our friends from the other

side tell us they want the right to choose, please, challenge the sentence for them. the right to choose, kill their unborn chill child, we have to stay focus, keep the faith. there's a planned parenthood in our area. there's also a -- what is it? a woman's choice center. i always have to have my better half with me, but i got to tell you, the lady when i visited there what they do is bring women in who are looking to have an abortion, and they had one and they were doing the sonogram, and the baby was just laying there, and all the sudden before they are done, the baby put on a show for mom, and that baby is born today and is 18 years old. keep the faith. we have to get this done. stay focused. god bless you. god bless america. [cheers and applause]

>> good afternoon, ken from kansas -- [cheers and applause] >> it's a real honor to be here with my wife and four adopted children. how about a shoutout for adoption? [cheers and applause] yeah as you can see, our children don't look like us, but these are the children that planned parenthood doesn't want. can we stop planned parent hoot? yes, we can. yes, we can. the state of kansas in 1850 was called bloody kansas. today, we are at the heart of the struggle for life. in 1850, the supreme court

decided black people were not human. they decided young people aren't human. we are here to change this nation, and we will change our country. yes, we can. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> hi, everyone, i'm jeff from nebraska, and i'm pro-life. [cheers and applause] i'm so sorry, my own five children are not here with me, but as i look out at you, i know one thing. you are the new generation of pro-life leadership. you are the new generation of civil right leaders. you know that women deserve better than abortion. you know that abortion is not health care, and you know that abortion takes lives # and distorts the genius of