not too long ago being pro-life was just kind of accommodated. now, it's a mission. city with us. help us. thank you for coming and thank you all for being pro-life. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> hi, bill forest from texas. [cheers and applause] today reminds me of a story about johnson from my hometown of bryan, texas. he was the directer of two yores of planned parenthood. she was watching an ultrasound and decided she had to leave, and later on she submitted our res flags, walked across the street, and worked for a coalition for life in bryan, texas. [cheers and applause] like ab by johnson, each of us are faced with a decision, and it should be our decision to protect, defend, innocent lives of all more thans including those of the unborn. thank you, and god bless you.

[cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm frank and i represent the great state of new hampshire. i'm a member of the freshmen class and proudly calls himself pro-life. we do have the biggest freshmen class that is pro-life, and the other thing we get to do from new hampshire is make sure that every candidate who runs for president assures us that they will protect life and defend life. help me in new hampshire elect a president who will overturn roe vs. wade. thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] >> i'm jeff landrey from louisiana. thank you. thank you for taking to the streets and marching for the

sanctity of life, praying for the unborn, thank you for your inspiration. always remember that all human beings are created equal and are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights among which is the basic right to life. thank you, thank you. [cheers and applause] >> hello, i'm from the great state of tennessee and the mountains and until two years ago, i was practicing medicine. i'm an obstetrician and gynecologist and delivered almost 5,000 pro-life babies. [cheers and applause] i found out it worked well when you deliver your own voters. it works out very well. [laughter] the great tragedy, the great tragedy of two weeks ago in tucson, the first scheduled event i had following that was a pro-life march in tennessee on a

cold day like today. we prayed for the injured, those who died, and for the unborn. i will make you this solemn promise. with every breath left in my body, i will fight for life. will you join me? [cheers and applause] god bless you and thank you so much for being here. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. i'm steve pierce from knack, one the freshmen coming here to defend life. [cheers and applause] the most courageous agent of a single individual is not to participate in the lie. thank you for not participating in the lie, and it is not a lie. thank you very much for that. [cheers and applause] >> you know when the israelites came out of e gent, they spent 40 years in the december ser. my friends who worked 40 years

and counting, it's time to get out of the wilderness. i will guarantee god will lead us across the jordan river and turn away from not just funding abortions, but the practice itself. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm randy from illinois. it is great to be with you today. i am one of almost 100 new freshmen sent here on mission. we have been cement with a mission to fight for life, to fight for truth. almost # 0% of us -- 90% of us are pro-life. that is exciting. [cheers and applause] i'm here to follow in the great footsteps of a mentor of mine from illinois. i'm going to fight for him, fight for life, and together, standing together with god's help, we will come back here one day and celebrate victory. god bless you all. [cheers and applause]

>> i'm steve king from iowa, and [cheers and applause] we are pro-life america. [cheers and applause] for 38 years, americans have come here to pray and march for life. thomas jefferson said a generation is 19 years, that's two generations that have been year. millions of americans come here k # make friends, march, and go across america and do the same. we will see the end of roe vs. wade in our time. which have you have elected a pro-life congress, and now we need to elect a pro-life president and a pro-life supreme court, and we're coming back here to celebrate the end of roe vs. wade and getting back the sanctity of life. god bless you. >> good afternoon, everybody, i'm from the great state of

illinois. [cheers and applause] proudly one of four pro-life freshmen elected from president obama's home state. [cheers and applause] i'm here to deliver one simple message. this loud, ram bunk, exited class is here to fight the fight with you. which have -- [cheers and applause] we will not be quiet. you are the inspiration. you are the movement. keep rolling, keep marching, and things will come our way. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> hello, i'm victory haarslar for the great state of missouri, and i'm proud to represent the 4th district and also the vast majority of american women who

are pro-life. [cheers and applause] we are the mothers of this country, and we respect the value of life, and we have one message for a certain woman who was speaker of the house last year. she does not represent us. [cheers and applause] we will prevail in thisde witast get weary and if we keep up, we shall reap the harvest, so thank you for coming. let's keep on keeping on. we can do this. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm anne marie from the great state of new york. [cheers and applause] after spending 30-plus years in the pro-life movement, i am so proud to stand here among you. you are the hearts and the souls

of the pro-life movement. don't give up. keep on fighting. understand the difference you make in your country. we are blessed to have you here today. thank you for making the trip down. thank you for your commitments to the right to life, the most fundamental right we have. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> i'm congressman bill, a freshman member from the second district in michigan, and yes, michigan loves life. [cheers and applause] well, not only am i a proud freshman member of the congress, but proud husband to natalie and proud dad to five great kids in michigan. we have been involve involved in this. my church is a right to life, my wife is on the pregnancy center

board, but i have to tell you this is an awesome sight. to see this many people, i took a picture, i'm putting it up on the facebook. how many people were there? we have proof right here, folks. [cheers and applause] i know it's cold. you have been out here a long time, but there's a lot of us. isn't that a good problem to have? [cheers and applause] that's right. but, you know, it's not about young and old. it's not about rich and poor. it's not about catholic and protestant. it's not about christian versus jew. this is about doing right veer sus wrong. we are here to speak for those who have no voices. keep up your fight. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon i'm lee terry from nebraska. [cheers and applause] thank you for being here. when u see you hear, i see the

values of america are represented. we all know that the greatest civilizations have a moral code that recognizes humanity and humanity is recognizing life from conception to natural end. that's what we need, and i want to thank you for being here to fight the fight. we know you got our backs when we are up here, and we got yours when you are home. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> i'm james langford from oklahoma, and i'm honored to be pro-life. as a feshman, i am one of them. we stand here to represent and will be standing up to say this country is inherently pro-life, and we need to speak like it is and move forward and show that it really is. [cheers and applause] next nay senior thing is to be able to communicate to a

generation who is so careful to not throw away a plastic water bottle, but will throw away an infant, we should say to them we have common sense and look at the womb. that's not just a fetus, but a baby. we need to stand with them and say that's life. stand with us on this. it's an honor to stand with you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm steve from ohio. what i want to know from everybody else out here is how do we get all the noticey people from kansas up front up here? that's what i want to know. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] okay, okay. i'm a freshmen sort of. i was here for 14 years and went home for two years, and i'm back. one of the things i'm

particularly proud of in the 14 years i was here is being the author and principle sponsor of the ban on partial birth abortion. [cheers and applause] it is now the law of the land, and you know, chris smith, one the first speakers up here, i know there's a lot of us, and we're almost done, but chris smith talked about that horrendous case about that doctor in philadelphia who destroyed these innocent human lives, and he's being brought up on charges, and the newspaper article i saw it on back home called it a house of horrors. well, i got news for you. what happened in these abortion mills around the country, they are all houses of house of horror, every one of them. i'll conclude with this. last saturday, two days ago, january 22nd, of course was roe vs. wade day. it's an important day to me too

because it's the day i was born. every year, i can't help but think on that day how many innocent unborn lives have been snuffed out because of that horrendous decision, and we are going to reverse roe vs. wade in the country, and it's going to start right here. [cheers and applause] so god bless each and every one of you for being a part of this. it's so important, and please stick with it. never give up. we will prevail. god bless each and every one of you. god bless your families, and yes, god bless the united states of america. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm dan null webster from the great state and sunny state of florida. [cheers and applause] i served in the state legislature and i was interviewed one time by a reporter who was doing an in-depth study of the pro-life movement. she asked questions about my

mom, dad, faith, and my business. at the end she said i have a last question, and that's this. given all these things i talked to you and asked you about, when is it that you became pro-life? i told her at conception. [cheers and applause] thank you for coming today, and for honoring life that does begin at conception. keep up the work. god bless all of you. [cheers and applause] >> i'm congressman trent franks from arizona. you know, recently the president gave a speech. he said all of us should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to the expectations of our children, and i believe that to be true, but, mr. president, we cannot do that while we stand by and watch 4,000 of them be killed every day. mr. president, there is nothing liberating about killing our children. mr. president, america has not

yet fore saken her unborn, and in two more years there's another election, mr. president, and by the grace of god, we will see roe vs. wade fall in the ashes of history. [cheers and applause] god bless you all. [cheers and applause] >> i'm congresswoman jean smith from southern ohio. where is ohio? you know, ladies and gentlemen, this fight did not just start 38 years ago. when people like barbara and jack from cincinnati, ohio said everybody has the right to life including the unborn. this cite started well over 150 years ago when folks like elizabeth stanton, susan b. anthony, sarah norton, and alice pall who fought for women's right, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right

to run for public office, and the right of the unborn to have life. elections have consequences. you have given me girl power. we have eight new republican pro-life women. thank you. [cheers and applause] keep up the fight. two years from now there's another election. let's continue the pro-life trend and make this whole town pro-life. god bless you and the usa. [cheers and applause] >> i'm mike, i'm from i understand, and i'm pro-life -- from indiana and i'm pro-life. we gather with hope in the

shadow of a new pro-life majority on capitol hill. [cheers and applause] .. will not stand for long. you know there could be no

lasting prosperity without a moral foundation of the law, and as the focusing on spending what we agree. let's start by hot denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad. [cheering] one more item on spending, the largest abortion provider in america should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under title ten. the time has come to deny any and all funding to planned parenthood of america. [cheering] thank you for braving the cold one more time and saying to the heart of our national government we will fight on for life. we will fight on for the unborn and the broken hearted. we will fight because we know as thomas jefferson said, god who gave us life gave us liberty. and god is just and his justice

cannot sleep forever. and we know this: we will win this fight because the deepest desire of every mother and child to the coffers to protect their child even at the cost of their life, and the american people will need this right. we will restore this in the flight to the center of american law because every american knows in their heart this is the greatest nation on earth because we acknowledge the god-given right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and a fee on a legal right to life. thank you. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> i am thadeus michaud her from the great state of michigan and alumnus of the try catholic central high school.

[cheers and applause] first, coming from michigan, on a truly have to say that i am enjoying the warm weather here in washington. [laughter] and on a more serious note, we understand that the right to life is not a republican or democratic issue. it is a human issue. so today before you, and to my constituents in michigan's 11th congressional district who have entrusted me in this office to serve them ali reaffirm my commitment to defending innocent human life and creating a culture of life here in the united states. thank you all for what you do. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon. i am a congressman from alabama's fourth congressional district. [cheers and applause] it is great to see so many pro-life congressmen here.

[cheers and applause] let me just say this, we are for a new day in congress with of these newly he elected members of congress who tell you life and want to protect life. thank you for standing up for life and being out here today. there are rallies held all across this country. i had the privilege to be in alabama over the weekend and speak at a pro-life rally. there are marches being held across the country, but most fall, thank you for the prayers that you pray for the unborn. it makes a difference. thank you for bringing for this congress and legislators across the country that make the decision and the protection of the unborn. may god bless each and every one of you and may god bless america. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, pro-life america! i'm mark kelly from pennsylvania, part of the stealer nation. [cheers and applause]

i'm with my grandson george, my granddaughter, vivian, and my wife, vicki. in 1776, thomas jefferson said we hold these truths, all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. if we knew in 1776 hauer important life was, we certainly know in 2011 that the same thing holds true. while the temperature may be cold, our hearts are warm and our passion is hot. god bless you and god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> perhaps the greatest moral issue we face in this nation is the killing of 4,000 babies

every day. god cannot and will not bless this land while this is going on. we have to stop it. we have to stop it now. [cheers and applause] i am appalled now from georgia, represent the 12th congressional district. [cheers and applause] when i was elected to congress i promised the first bill i would introduce was the sanctity of human life act. it was and will be until we stop this tragedy and this horror that is going on in america. but the greatest political force in america today is in the body in the first three words of the u.s. constitution: we've people. you will stop abortion. talk to your senators, talk to your congressman, did your friends, everybody to demand that we passed a personhood bill so that those pressures on born

children, human beings, will have the right to life and be protected as you and i are. that's going to be the key. it's up to you. will you join me in fighting to get the right of personhood to those on born children? will you! [cheers and applause] we've got to do it. go to work. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> congressman chris smith again. briefly to make an introduction to the fight to defend the unborn child and their mother from the exploitation of abortion is global as you know. lawmakers everywhere are engaging in a fight. we have many today. we are privileged to hear from dr. anna, the chairwoman of the european parliament of women's rights and gender equality committee. a great defender of life. doctor? [applause] [cheering]

>> [speaking in native tongue] i came here with my husband and our grandson, oliver come to bring you a lot of greetings from pro-life organizations from slovakia and several countries of the european union. [cheers and applause] but i came from europe to tell you also that europe is dying out. our population is shrinking, and our government are not doing anything to change that. there are many people in europe who believe family and career is a fair choice. to many people who think pregnancy is an illness and motherhood should be treated as a disability.

every abortion is an example of how society has failed to meet the needs of women and children. but if we do not care about our most vulnerable members of society, our society will not be here today, not tomorrow. our government, and this is true about europe and is so much about the united states of america, our government spends billions of dollars to stop climate change. how much we spend to help mothers and fathers [inaudible] while taking care of a baby yet to care more about people. what every woman who chooses abortion, we have to ask why. and we have to address the issue, and i invite also from

the so-called pro-choice count let's work together here because their must be a way in. women deserve a choice here. it is the evolution of our time. it is an evolution for motherhood and family. god bless america, god bless your family. thank you. [cheering] >> thank you >> this looks like such a great day. hell are you feeling, have we gotten to the congress of the united states? [cheers and applause] y pledge now to the members of congress who have come to be with us today and give us support we will give them

support, too. i am interested in all of us coming together, the pro-life groups coming together and reducing one bill that overturns roe v wade, and then i pledge the support of all of you in getting your members of congress to sign on to that bill to overturn roe v wade. where do you stand on this? [cheers and applause] also, someone who is getting support throughout the march for life is pastor luke robinson from church and frederick maryland. [cheers and applause] >> god bless america. let the people of god say we will overcome and we will overcome jury -- very soon.

there must be no retreat, no troops and no going back words. we must move forward, and we must do it now. the word of god says if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray and seek my face and turn away from their wicked ways, i will heal you in heaven, for gifts. that is the promise of god. [cheers and applause] in the recent november 2010 elections, the american people resoundingly stated that they were pro-life. we voted in record numbers and every level to replace those who supported the killing of innocent preboard children by a terrible procedure, abortion. we must not retreat now.

we must move forward. we must stand our ground. there is no ground whatsoever or retreat or truce. we must hold our elected officials on the feet to the five-year. evin fees' young freshmen congressmen who are saying they will support life. we will give nobody a pass card because life is too valuable. we will hold them to the fire. with the republican, democrat or whomsoever. there are those like governor haley barbour of mississippi and governor mitch daniels of indiana who are saying that there ought to be a truce. we say to them when you're going to truce you all right. they are calling for a retreat

on social issues like the issue of life of the pre-born. these republican men i understand have an aspiration to become president of the united states. they must be stopped before they get to the gates. they must not be given the slightest opportunity to extend the killings of the unborn at any cost. the killing of children by democrats, republicans, tea party members or anyone else is totally unacceptable. we do not need another president who is insensitive and blind to the moral and social issues. [cheers and applause] president obama in the last two years in office has put many abortionists who year after year will still be their working.

we must move with dispatch and find someone who is in love with the culture of life and hates the culture of death. [cheers and applause] human life, human life is made in the image of almighty god and must be protected every step of the week. and every level. there must be no exception, and their must be no compromises. made for us to be silent, to be quiet on this issue of abortion. the question must be asked: how can we be silent when the market statistics on abortion from new york city held up that we are headed for destruction in this nation as a people we have lost

our way. how can we be silent when the and godly facts on new york city showed that 41% of all pregnancies in new york city ended in death? how can we come back when there are 60% of all african-american pregnancies in new york city ended in abortion? how can we be silent when 40% of pregnancies in the hispanic community in new york city were aboard it? how can we do something else when 72% of the pregnancies of 17-year-old girls were in did in the death of a child? [cheers and applause] when it comes to the african-american community in new york city out of every 100

pregnancies 60 children by and 40 live. that's a tragedy. mr. president, that's a tragedy! koln chris, that's a tragedy! we're is the president of change and? where is jesse jackson? where is al sharpton? where is the naacp? where is the black congressional conference? and where, for god sake, is the african-american church and the pastor? abortion is killing our nation. its impact on women of all races devastation. women are suicidal just to mention a few problems. a few weeks ago a woman of a

page called me and she said i was depressed. she said she had a psychologist and a psychiatrist. she said she has been by a nose as being manic depression and bipolar. i asked after talking for a while if she ever had an abortion. she responded yes i have but i don't like to talk about it. i said why don't you like to talk about it? she said because i am under the impression that the child may not have gone to heaven. i said is there any other reason you may be upset about having the abortion? she said yes, i can't have children now. abortion is not a friend to america. it's not a friend to women. it's not a friend to anyone. we must stop this in its tracks. no exception! no exception! [cheers and applause] this is not an isolated place

for this young woman. there are many among us, build millions of their suffering from the lobby that abortion is a non-hershel procedure. we must stop the lies and start the healing process. i told that woman there was healing. america, there is healing, but you've got to know that there is a problem. you've got to know that this is wrong. we must stand up and there is no retreat! [cheers and applause] deer is a crowd of folks out there, america, that meets the truth that we cannot stop until we are healed. we must see to it that no others are added to these terrible statistics. no, america, we will not be silent, and no, america there will be no truth to this until it is removed from the land. those that keep the record say that we have killed over

53 million children in america since roe v wade supreme court decision of 1973. the one blood of the innocent is crimes asking the question how long before justice will be rendered? how long will we find the killing of human life by organizations like planned parenthood and other abortion facilities? how long will the tax payers money do vicious things? when the justice rolls down like a mighty river may this congress, and i conclude, may this conference have the guts, have the guts to defund planned parenthood. [cheers and applause] and you and i are going to keep the five-year on this. we must not let them go. we must keep the fire on this. stop attacking human life in all

capacities to lead and made this country -- me this congress make abortion illegal once again and this country. god bless america and happy is the nation whose god is lord. [cheers and applause] >> is our government listening to us today? they should. the president is right there. the congress has been here. the supreme court, listen to us. and now all i welcome the young people who are going to help in pulling ourselves together as the generations ago from generation to generation.

we have a student program. here our student contest winners are here with us. thank you, nellie. ayman member of the doherty and it's my pleasure to introduce the contest winners in the poster. our high school winner meghan dorcy. our middle school winner [inaudible] our poster when our high school, amy fly. finally the poster winner junior high, francesca payne. they represent you out there. thank you. >> av your friend, a great supporter, is with us and you know him also.

>> shalom, pro-life america. [cheers and applause] god bless you, and god bless nellie gray. kofi longevity. i want to give a shout out to michael who 32 years ago brought me to speak to my first march for life. with the baby killing situation we are seeing the kevorkian the birth. this is a continuum of those who devalue pre-born through partial birth abortion which the late senator moynihan called murder. the liberals and, socialists who championed the killing of the people in the murder agenda don't connect the dots. when ultimately dr. kevorkian

them or their loved ones. god act measure for measure and this evil of abortion are often signing their own adult death sentences. that is the lesson of kevorkian and the culture of death. my friends, for 2,000 years millions of jews sit on the ground for the destruction of the temples and the loss of life. we need to put the limitations which includes a freeze of compassion that mothers who slaughtered their own children. i urge now at this moment all those who can to join me in sitting on the ground for 15 seconds in silence, prayer and contemplation to commemorate the hundreds of post bourn murdered babies and the 50 million pre-born visa aborted. i asked you to show america the cold morning and when we cry out

later don't lower the microphones. ten seconds. thank you. perhaps we have a spiritual share in the def of those babies. king david solomon 32 pledges to god he wouldn't sleep in his own bed at night until he found an address for broad's temple. we sleep in our beds comfortably as babies are being slaughtered, pre-born and post bourn. how many of the used today get a day off from school with a bus ride to d.c. so one day a year. thank you very much to the youth. but it's not enough. it's not enough. you've got to be doing it

everyday, every week. many adults, religious leaders, they do things once or twice a year. we've got to do a whole lot more civil disobedience. as thomas jefferson said, resistance to tyranny is obedience to god. how about those of cost jews and christians who give lip service opposition to the defunding planned parenthood, funding of abortion legal because it remains illegal because we are afraid of losing the money for the hospitals were the social service agencies or chastity programs which are included intentionally in the same bill with which we want to defund planned parenthood. the 501c3 cannot compete for the babies. [cheers and applause] i want to teach you how to be

motivated to do more for life. you've got to imagine that the beebee being aborted is your brother, your sister, your son, your daughter, your grandchild. imagine the pain that child is feeling as he tries to move away from the knife and the saline solution. motivate yourself. i understand and focus on the true evil and let's save more babies. we call upon the speaker boehner to defund the 350 million tax payers' dollars paid out yearly to planned parenthood. [cheers and applause] how are we going to do this? i'm telling you, congress is so sick sometimes you can cut it with a knife. listened come speaker boehner, please don't allow the budget item of planned parenthood to appear in committee. it shouldn't even at year.

have a strong hold a pro-life conference committee to keep it out of the reconciliation process. let 35 republicans we will not vote to pass any budget which contains any money for planned parenthood. [cheers and applause] speaker boehner, leader kantor and tea party members, if we only prioritize spending issues and not defunding abortion and deviance in the military, we will lose god's crease militarily and financially, morally and socially. join me. defund planned parenthood now. [cheers and applause] say it.

[chanting "defund planned parenthood now!] lisa and gentlemen, i will conclude by asking president obama, who is trying to impose his mark of cain, the first killer on our whole country. mr. president, what do you call the e.u. elimination of 50 million pre-born these? do you call it mass murder? do you call it genocide? do you call it slaughter. what should we call someone who votes to withhold medical care from a [cheers and applause] who survives a botched abortion? there is something wrong. my dear friends come to you want to know why the pro-life movement is somewhat static rather than more dynamic? because yesterday christine harkin of student for life and who sponsors the alliance

defense fund had no room at the end for myself and other rabbis representing 850 rabbis under the alliance for america. i was forced out by to hotel security people. never did the liberals or the abortionists do this to me. we are owed an apology. we have been siding with life for 32 years. there is something wrong with the childish behavior as a nellie gray said we've got to get together and unify. we have got to have unity and maturity. finally, i want to come and speak to your community. i want to get out to your colleges, christian schools. contact me by the thousands. its lead in the game. rabbilevin.com. if you sign the pledge on

godreignoverus.com blease where we will not vote for pro-abortion, provenience officeholders, if we do this and in the next year we get five or 10 million signatures, we will be heard. join me at the end of this march, where i will stand with a great individual who wants to show the pictures of the babies on tv at the super bowl, he wants to use the election to do that and i say 501c3 or not, i as a human being have the right to endorse a great pro-life champion, and i urge each and every one of you to start running a pro-life campaigns get sort now for congress. we want to have 100 people running for pro-life office in the republican and democratic party. join me in supporting. god bless you and god bless america. thank you.

and now chauffeur. [cheers and applause] do you think obama heard that? do you think john boehner heard that? and the walls will come crumbling down. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> we are a little bit over time and which is wonderful. i can't see the end of the people, the line of people pass

around 11th street. i don't know how many people we are today but we are in great numbers, and the reason we are here in great numbers is i had so many people to thank for all the work that everybody has done held in the states and kuran washington, d.c.. and for now we will have the closing prayer. >> thank you, nellie. in the name of the father and son and holy spirit, amen. as we conclude our historical and invigorating and define sanctified program, let us about our heads in prayer to the lord. we begin the march for life and we say thank, lord, for the sunrise of today, think you for the breath of life, for the grace to open our eyes to see

the beauty of creation. thank you, lord, for the things seen and unseen. we march and pray soften the hearts of our leaders, the 44th president of these united states, barack obama, the congress and the senate and the supreme court to see that all citizens born and unborn have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and must be protected. we begin the march for life and we say lord, we have come to the nation's capital as citizens and sons and daughters of the greatest country on earth. we have come to reclaim the halls of justice to the very steps of our supreme court, to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and to say that life is sacred from the moment of conception.

from my christian tradition and the orthodox church for over 2,000 years we believe and teach the dignity of human life and that life has been sanctified in the darkness of the womb by the virgin birth within and created a life of christ. goebel of mary becomes more spacious than all the have been. the incarnation of christ is the incarnation of a word of god. it is the incarnation of love. so the unborn in the womb are already adorned with the image and likeness of god. every bird is bringing each person from non-being into being, ceiling each person with a design and the infinite love. we teach he, jesus, is the light

of life, true god of god, there for every birth is a unique expression of god's love for humanity. and with this divine love, we embraced today the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the healthy and the sick, the marginalized and the victimized, we embrace the black and white, the religious and then on religious. we come together in this march as the people of god, and we come to be the last people of good will come and we marched to constitution avenue to light a candle and eliminate the darkness of rejection and despair. we come together as the march for life, for we are the great mosaic of america. today, in the hundreds and

thousands gathered as nellie said, we represent the heartland of america. we are the west coast. we are the east coast, we are the north, we are the south, united in the fabric and the title of life, and we shall the bleeding nation must stop if we are to survive. we are aborting the future sycophant spiritual leaders, we are awarding the future scientists, the future doctors, we are aborting our sons and daughters. let us about our heads and march and ask for forgiveness for a nation that is at war within itself. we pray for the founder of march for life nellie gray, for her continued good health and leadership. for all the spiritual leaders

gathered today, for all of the new political leaders who have embraced the sanctity of life and its noble and divine cause with internal consequences. so let us conclude and pray to the lord. [cheers and applause] ♪ stand beside herand guide her with light from above ♪ ♪ from the mountain to the prairie ♪ ♪ to the ocean, white with foam

♪ god bless america, ♪ my home sweet home ♪ ♪ god bless god bless america, ♪ land that ilve ♪ stand beside her and guide her ♪ through the night with a light from above ♪ ♪ from the mountain to the prairies ♪ ♪ to the ocean, white with foam ♪ god bless america,

♪ my home sweet home ♪ from the mountain to the prairies ♪ ♪ ♪ to the ocean, white with foam ♪ god bless america, ♪ my home sweet home ♪ my home sweet home ♪ god bless america, ♪ god bless america

♪ god bless america, my home sweet home ♪

we will hustle along and do the best that we can. when you see that red light appear that will be your signal that you have the last five minutes. we will not call in the u.s. marshal. the need to wrap up. the five met rule also applies to members of the subcommittee. we will try to adhere to that as well. i want to give -- recognize

mr. cohen for his opening statement. other opening statements will be made part of the record at the conclusion. is that agreeable with everybody? today marks the first year of the committee on commercial and administrative law. we were going to have mr. smith in the book is not here yet. he has provided our subcommittee with jurisdiction over a number of important matters that i hope our subcommittee will address during the 112th congress. it might be one of the most important matters -- strike that. let me put that another way. one of the most important matters -- i've lost my place. hang on a minute. to fine-tune our regulatory process, hence the introductory oversight hearing on the reins act. many have alleged that the obama administration has cast a cloud of regulatory uncertainty over

some parts of the economy. it is no secret that our economy is still soft, perhaps even dismal, unnecessary or unreasonable regulatory burdens would continue to drive business investments in my way of thinking abroad. examples of the need for improvement are prevalent in virtually every sector of government regulation. for instance, the department of health and human services implementation of president obama's health care reform. the financial aid, implementation of the national reform bill. the epa campaign against carbon. the fda approached a herbicide and the federal communication commission drive to regulate the internet and allocate spectrum. i only mention these examples because they are widely recognized and the fact of the matter is that fine tuning is needed across the entire regulatory horizon. our current regulatory regime has deep historic roots.

since the days of the new deal and especially during the 60's and 70's congress has delegated more and more of its legislative authority to the federal agencies. this has been done through broad and vaguely stated laws that allow congress to claim credit for addressing problems but leaving it to the various agencies to fill in the crucial details deregulations. the final risk of the wrong decision thus falls on the agencies and, of course, the economy and america's job creators. congress too often escapes but responsibility and accountability. the republican majority that came to congress in 1994 attempted to address this problem through the congressional review act. that act, you may recall them give the congress greater tools to disapprove agency regulations that harm the economy, destroy jobs or otherwise were counterproductive. over its history, however, the congressional review act has not

fulfilled its potential. during the hundred and eight and hundred ninth congress is the subcommittee on commercial administrative law examined ways to improve the congressional review act and better assert congress's authority over legislative regulations. one of the leading and ideas for reform was to amend the act to preclude regulations from going into effect until congress actually approved them. that is precisely what the fda does for the biggest regulations federal agency issue, those imposing a hundred million dollars a more in costs on our economy. today more than ever we must consider and enact reforms that vindicate congressional authority over laws. the reins act is front and center among those reforms. before reserving my time i would like to extend a warm welcome to our former colleague, congressman david mcintosh predicted to have you back on the hill as well as the other

witnesses. mr. kaelin, i said this before they came in, but it's good to have all the members, republicans and democrats alike on the subcommittee. now i'm pleased to recognize distinguished him from tennessee, memphis, to be specific. mr. kaelin. >> thanks you, mr. chair. i appreciate that. tennessee was originally north carolina. in some ways we are colleagues beyond and here. i would like to first pay specific attention to the new members and others somehow. the ranking member of the committee, the distinguished, venerable, honorable, legendary john conyers. >> nice to be with you. >> chairman smith and all the other members on the board serving with each of you as well. not legendary yet, but he is honorable and a few of those of the things. we will incorporate by reference. >> i did not realize that the chairman had come and. i did not mean to ignore you,

lamar. mr. conyers as well. chairman, get to see you. >> high heels back. >> thank you. i would like to start offering my congratulations to mr. koppel who assumed the chairmanship of the committee. and i was chairman he was as nice as anybody to me. everybody was nice, but he was particularly nice and i was always appreciative. an outstanding ranking member. you were together nicely. i live four to seven with them. i am honored to be working as ranking member, although i'd rather be working as chairman. that's congress. today's hearing provides us with the opportunity to make the merits of h.r. 10, the regulations from the executive in the yesterday act. it also gets a chance to discuss the appropriate role of their regulations in american life, a conversation i suspect he will continue after subcommittee. although they do not explicitly say proponents appeared to believe that almost all regulations are bad.

all their arguments focus on the purported cost regulations would impose on society based on this premise we have heard rhetoric about job killing despite economic growth and impaired personal freedom. such arguments do not seem to fully appreciate the regulations can also benefit the economy but police and reckless private-sector behavior that can undermine the nation's economic well-being. came very close to in 2008, lack of regulations. regulations facilitate economic activity by providing clarity for the applicable statutory language and leave unnecessary confusion or even litigation.

regulation that also serves societal values and may outweigh economic growth. they help protect the health and safety of every day americans including our children, our neighbors, our colleagues, grandparents and ourselves. the fact is that federal regulations help insure the safety of the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the products we buy, the medications are used, the cars we drive, the planes will fly in and the places we work. most americans take for granted the safety of these things because of the existence of federal regulations. the reins act friends to make it harder for such beneficial regulations to be implemented. under the act congress must approve a major role, one having an economic impact of $100 million or more, passing a joint resolution of approval through both houses of congress. the president must then sign the joint resolution of approval before the rule can go into effect. at the most practical level i question whether the reins act would work. i've been in congress line yet

to understand that the business force will not more often than not prevent us from getting true consideration and approval. even alternately enjoy the widespread support. as with the congressional review act underlying statutes that the reins act seeks to amend, this idea may seem better in the abstract than practice. a not ready to say the reins act is a good idea. i appreciate the attempt to concerts congressional control. there are separation of powers that i think been spoken to members of congress about recently. justice scalia lead that talk. can certainly be constitutional objections. we will hear from witnesses. there is a role for us, the executives, and the judiciary. i look forward to our witness testimony, working with the chairman and our other colleagues on the subcommittee.

i yield back the remainder of my time. >> at thank you, and i think you as well for your generous remarks at the opening. statements of all members will be made a part of the record without objection to rely and told that mr. smith and connors would like to make opening statements to be at recognize distinguished and a man from texas, the chairman of the full committee, mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman to be sticky for chairing this particular hearing which i thint important of the year. as you said, i also welcome our former colleague david mcintosh. david, i hope we get to talk more later on, but i appreciate your being here, too. the american people in november voted for real change in washington. one change that they want is to stop the flood of regulation that cost jobs and smothers job creation. from washington and congress make them more accountable. the reins act makes the change a reality. unelected federal officials for too long have imposed huge cost

and the economy and the american people through burdensome regulations. today these regulatory costs estimated to be a yearly -- nearly incomprehensible one and three quarter trillion dollars, roughly $16,000 per household. because of the officials who authorized these regulations are not elected they cannot be held accountable by the american people. the reins act range in the costly over reach of federal agencies that stifles job creation and slows economic growth. it restores the failure to impose regulations to those who are accountable to the voters, they're elected representatives in congress. the obama administration has under consideration at least 183 regulations that each would impose cost of $100 million or more on the economy. when businesses have to spend these vast sums to comply with this massive regulation they have less money to invest to stay competitive in the global economy and to hire new

employees. these costs get passed on to the american consumers. in effect these regulations amount to a stiff but unseen taxes on every american. last week in a new executive order president obama reiterated the existing authority of agencies call outdated rules from the books and consider impacts on jobs. this order sounded encouraging, but added little to the rules that already died the process of regulations. in the executive order distributive impacts and equity are specifically identified among the benefits to be maximized. job creation is not. the executive order is specifically written not to include regulations issued to implement the administration's health care legislation. echoes of independent agencies trust to implement the french financial reform was sufficient. it will call the environmental protection agency's drive to exercise authority it was never

granted. so the most burdensome and costly regulations are exempted. the executive order i hope not may have been all style and the substance. until it produces results it is just a string of empty words. we must watch what the administration does, not what it says. in 1994 congress passed the commission review at to reassert congress's authority over the relentless regulation of the federal government. the actors been used just one time to disapprove of regulation. the regulatory tide continues and rises even higher. the rains -- reins act is needed to reduce the cost of the flood of regulation, free of businesses to create jobs and make the federal government more accountable. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. mr. chairman, before i yield back entirely of would like to recognize a colleague sitting in the back of the room who has been absolutely instrumental in

promoting, advancing, and writing this legislation that we are discussing today. >> i think the gentleman. the chair is pleased to recognize the distinguished cinnamon from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you. i join in welcoming our former colleague mr. mackintosh tackier. it is very important. and i ask unanimous consent that the author of the bill, rep davis come forward. i think he should be able to make a couple comments about the bill. i would welcome his sitting at the table since there are only three people anyway. plenty of rumble.

>> mr. conyers, we are pleased to have mr. davis come forward. i don't believe he would be eligible to comment, but we will be glad for him to come forward to the table if you like. >> you say he can't comment. he can't comment on his own bill? the judiciary committee, the keeper of the constitution. >> well, he was not called as a witness. that is why i made that statement. >> reins act. well, i have a few questions i would like to ask him after the hearing then if i can. 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. >> well, if 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 thu 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? ..

>> let me ask this question. if this range act which is high up on the list of our new leadership's agenda, it's the fourth piece of legislation introduced, what would this do this health care reform? how would you take an enormous

piece of legislation like this and i think obamacare is going to be a congratulatory mark in history. how would this affect it? wouldn't it just stop it in its tracks? >> it depends on what members of congress feel about it. if the majority of those in both houses of congress support the regulations necessary to implement that law, then it goes on as before. the only thing that would stop it under the act would be if majorities in congress don't support those regulations. it ensures essentially that the american people get a regulatory policy that the american people want, and that's a great towards greater political accountability. >> 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 dissent here. those 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 ep 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.is two hours and 45 mu

>> -- this is sponsoring this event. i'd like to welcome you all to the a specialist fifa especially

distinguished speakers to the conference of executive action has organized in as many months. i'm also grateful to all of the iranian americans in the audience and some of you have been friends of mine for many years. nice to see so many familiar faces whose tireless efforts in defense of the cause of democracy have been an inspiration to all of us. as you know the regime proposed as the greatest threat to peace and security in the region and the world by virtue of its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and export of terrorism of around the world. therefore, we need to explore u.s. policies toward iran and developed policies that are going to be more effective in the future because we have many challenges at the iranian regime presenting to the united states and the world community right now. the nuclear clock is ticking

faster than the pace of sanctions. so the united states must do more. it must do it faster and it must do it better. with that i want to turn the microphone over to senator robert to accepted our invitation to moderate this very important and nonpartisan event today. during his distinguished career in both house and the senate, the senator was on the foreign affairs committee of both chambers. closely following the issues related to iran. he first served 14 years in the house of representatives from the state of new jersey and then was elected to the united states senate in 1996. he joined the leadership in the senate from the outset and headed the democratic senatorial campaign committee. senator torricelli earned his degree from rutgers university and later attended harvard university where he completed a

master's, public administration and 1980 and he will moderate this event this morning bob? [applause] >> thank you for that warm welcome and for this opportunity this morning. there is a great observation of wisdom not from an unusual source. winston churchill who once noted the united states can usually be counted upon to do the right thing after it has exhausted all other options. soon, the international community will meet again with a government of tehran to discuss the nuclear weapons program. all options have been tried. once again there will be an

attempt to convince using all forces of reason that comply with international law, common sense, and its own interest and abandon this folly. i have my own hopes for today's discussion of each speaker will pursue their own interests and observations that they see fit. my first would be that it is time to start debating the reality of the situation. an outlaw regime hell bent on weapons of mass destruction that is a threat not only to the western world but a direct threat to all of its neighbors of all faiths and background. it was perhaps said it best by president bush when he made it clear that nuclear-armed iran is

simply on acceptable under any terms. it's one thing for us to say it and it is another to devise a policy that will achieve at. economic sanctions in the world that firsts for oil and iran that produces billions of dollars is unlikely to be a coercive policy. reason and logic and the force of international law used against a regime that has murdered millions of its own, thousands of its own people, enslaved millions in a dictatorship and violated all forms of international behavior is simply not a realistic policy so for my first hope today would be this. between democrats and republicans, we can debate

whether the motion doctrine of the preemptive action was the right policy in a rock. but it is a policy and of itself that in a world of weapons of mass destruction be retaliation or action after the fact on any form is insufficient with a preemptive action as a necessity. indeed, if you knew that the iranian regime was capable of producing another holocaust having stated their belief that israel should not exist is the right and moral policy to act preemptively to deny those weapons. second, as a nation of many qualities that i love about america, sometimes they our

naivete, the willingness to look for hope over facts is a good american quality. but at some point it runs its course. my second hope for today's discussion is one of the policy with opponents of the regime who shares the iranian identity. does it make sense, does it have benefits that we continue to ostracize, label opponents of the regime as terrorists when the fact say otherwise. do we gain anything from political purposes of making these identities when we know it has no policy benefit and undermines the legitimacy of the opposition. let me pose this question. is it even possible to propose a

terrorist state and be a terrorist yourself, is it possible to be a terrorist if you are on armed and promoted the last decade under the perception of the united states army. it's time to deal with a reality we are not going to convince the iranian team to policy and undermining the credibility of their opponents is only doing service to the very people that would choose to oppose and must for our own security undermine in their nuclear ambitions. let us begin the discussion for the first speaker today it is might very privileged to introduce the 81st attorney general of the united states

judge mukasey was a united states district court judge, presided over the trial of terrorists who have been in prison for their role in 1993 bombing of the world trade center. attorney general michael mukasey. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and neal livingston for organizing the symposium to executive action for organizing at. and of course a great privilege for the microphone at this time. back in december i pointed out that we are at one of those moments in history when we know

that future generations will ask it is needed to advance what is good and oppose what is evil. if anything in the brief span of a month, the conditions we are here to address have become even more urgent. as before, the regime in tehran is the center of the threat of the terrorism threat against us and to deploy the western civilization as we know it's coming and to do so is possible by obtaining nuclear weapons. if oprah's is its own people, threatens its neighbors. it has made clear that if it gets nuclear weapons it will not hesitate to use them. there are 3500 members of mek to live on the border of iran near iraq is known as camp and even though it is referred to a camp, city would probably be a better description. these people fled iran and set themselves up near the border so that they can live and support

efforts to free their country. in 2003 when the united states invaded iraq, the residents of the camp surrendered their weapons. the weapons they had to defend themselves had accepted written confirmation from the commander of allied forces in iraq, general jeffrey on behalf of the united states that they were protected persons under the fourth geneva convention. from 2003 until 2000 line the united states protected the residence and fulfilled the solemn obligation we have undertaken in 2003. but in january, 2009, as some of you may know the united states turned over responsibility for safety and security to the iraqi security forces. before that transfer took place, general david petraeus said that the united states had been assured by the government of iraq that the residents would be protected and that he was proceeding with a transfer on the assumption that the pledge

would be adhered to. obviously the residents have been a great source of anxiety to iran which would like nothing better than to see them repatriated to iran or at least crippled so that they cannot pose a threat to the regime. iran has brought increasing pressure on the iraqi government within the past month. the situation of the residence of the camp have grown from perilous to guess where it. on january 7th, 2 days after a visit to baghdad by the irony in foreign minister, the residents of the camp were attacked by deflecting a the direction of the iranian quds force stationed in baghdad in cooperation with officials of the iraqi government and many were injured seriously. the iraqi security forces were supposed to be there to protect the residents of the camp had to turn a blind eye or actually assisted the attackers. even though the government of iraq promised the united states

it would protect the residents. those iranian forces supported by iraqi forces were placed at the gates someone under 80 loudspeakers better used to threaten and harass the residents day and night, 24 hours a day and to prevent them from sleeping. the psychological pressure has been ongoing for almost a year. medical care continues to be denied the residence and at least one patient in the last month has died due to lack of medical care. this is history repeating itself. we've seen this before. in june of 2009, nouri al-maliki, the head of the government, headed to iran for personal reasons and the next month in july of 2009 the iraqi security forces attacked residents. to add insult to the united states to injury suffered by the citizens that attack took place during a visit to iraq by defense secretary robert gates to be inside of the spot in the

face to the u.s. government and in spite of the solemn assurances given by the american military when the residence surrendered their weapons in 2003, and our secretary of state which was questioned about then said that the attack was an internal matter for the government of iraq and not a concern of the united states. while we are on the eve of negotiations on the iranian regime while our government and others, the history of the relationship between the united states and the iranian regime since the 1979 revolution can be summed up as a series of attempts by the united states to a diplomats to engage the iranian regime each attempt slightly less successful them the one that preceded it. i don't have to redo the entire year history but an important part of it begins in the 1990's during the clinton administration when the people's mujahideen organization of iran also known as the iranian was designated by secretary of state under u.s. law as a foreign terrorist organization.

that designation continues to this day. it continues to be as it was then unjustified. just as i did not have to review in detail the whole history of the u.s. government attempt to engage the regime or of tirana i don't have to review the entire history of the mek but we are entitled to ask what has it been in recent years. quite simply mek as an organization of both inside iran and outside iran that opposes the current regime, favors government is organized along space, secular, non-nuclear, democratic secular nonnuclear republic and i should add this is not one of the few organizations that fit that description. it is in point of fact the only one. as many of you know mek position has positioned the state department to be removed from the list of the foreign terrorist organizations. it's clear that the regime believes time is short and would like nothing better than to have

the residents of the camp driven out before they succeed being removed from a list it should never have been on in the first place. why is the timing crucial? of the residents were still there when the designation is removed the in the united states and the iraqi government will have no choice but to protect them. the designation gives those in the government to want to curry favor with the regime there only excuse for not protecting their residents. it's important not only that this designation be removed but it be removed quickly before iran and those acting on its behalf can wear down the residence and forced them to leave or in pose even worse on them. it is certainly helpful for the mek to remain a bone in the throat of iran and had a version to the regime because of its potential to undermine the regime, but the mek has been more than just a bone in the throat. it has provided valuable

information and intelligence on the iranian program to the united states. it is fair to say that the united states wouldn't have known a great deal of what it does now about the iranian program without information obtained by the mek including but certainly not limited to the nuclear facilities in iraq. a disclosure of which led to the beginning of the pressure on iran that arises from what is obviously a nuclear weapons program. here it bares mention that the mek has been removed from any list of terrorist organizations in the united kingdom and the european union. if the mek has posed no threat to any u.s. personnel or interest and in fact has been of affirmative assistance to the united states as it has it is not regarded as a terrorist organization in the united kingdom or the e.u., then why does it say on the list, why does it continue to be on a list? of such organizations. it's pretty openly acknowledged that the reason the mek was

placed on the list during the clinton administration was to curry favor with iran and to use the designation as a way of entering the dialogue with the regime. i'm sorry to say that even during the administration i served we kept it on the list of designated organizations of which by the way include the irg sea, the revolutionary guard corps out of the fear that if the mek were removed the iranians would provide them with weapons in iraq including ied, of course they are doing that anyway. these are misguided reasons for continuing to brand as terrorists a group of people who so far as anyone can tell how are interested only in bringing for their country the same benefits of freedom that we have. and also it doesn't work. the regime is now in the position of having the united states does it need is a terrorist organization. a group of iranians or a threat to that regime and the armenians

have the great work for them. what is the practical effect of the wall of an organization being on that list? and organization on the list is subject to having its assets in the united states seized. it's nearly impossible for the aretas asian to raise money in the united states because anyone who contributes to the organization could theoretically be prosecuted for providing material support to a terrorist organization. beyond that and particularly in the united states people are concerned about even appearing in a rally sponsored by something that they know is designated a foreign terrorist organization or given any help at all. people who are not aware of the details of the case including many iranians may feel reluctant to support the organization. and of course the continue designation of the mek has a foreign terrorist organization gives great comfort to the iranian regime by putting on the sideline and organization that is potentially a grave threat to the regime and it also provides

an added justification for the regime to execute mek members in iran and in doing so is executing terrorists. a 63-year-old man whose only crime was to visit his son was executed at the end of 2010 as one guilty of mt against god or terrorists. what is to be done? well, there's an ongoing case in which the challenge to the designation. in july of 2010 the court repealed for the district of columbia circuit issued an opinion essentially sending the matter back to the state department. and the secretary of state asking her to reevaluate whether the mek should remain on the list. the court did something more than that. it expressed a good deal of skepticism about at least the unclassified portion that was relied on by the state department and maintaining a list. without getting into the detail, the secretary of state may choose to base their

determinations entirely on classified information that he didn't do that in this case. she said she based her decision goes on classified information and on and on classified information and revealed that a lot of the non-classified information consisted of unsubstantiated and anonymous rumors as the liability was unknown and couldn't be tested. information the court wasn't impressed with and said so. if that kind of information is the only kind of information a secretary of state has then the decision would have no basis whatsoever. recently the state department has admitted it has no further on classified information to rely on to make its case and it is promised a scheduled meeting to discuss further steps. the secretary has acknowledged this is the first occasion the new administration has had to evaluate the designation. this is an excellent opportunity for her to learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them. as you are aware there is a

growing consensus in this country and outside of the need to the list and ever-increasing number of members of congress are supporting a resolution favoring that result, and there is great consensus outside of the congress as well. that is all well and good but time is not aware friend. as i pointed out, the regime has made clear that it wants residents of the camp driven out before the designation is removed. in a sense, this is about more than the case in the district of columbia and more than mek. this is the posture of the united states with the regime. when ronald reagan took office he was asked what the strategic approach would be to the cold war to dealing with what was then the soviet union. he said aces to st during the debate to a strategic approach would be we win, they lose. at that time there were people who dismissed that as empty rhetoric. even dangerous rhetoric. on the end, that vision wound up prevailing because it was supported by a sound understanding of the country's interest and how those interests are at their strongest when our

policy is consistent with our ideals. i take the case has been made that when they go to the street and put their lives on the line for freedom as they are doing now and as they did after the fraudulent election in 2009, called the response through those in the government to speak for us must be more than to remind the mullahs as we did the world is watching. the world was watching? the world has watched frequently while the war was committed and did nothing. the world was watching when they committed genocide and murdered in world war ii. the world was watching when the revolution was preston's eastern europe. the world was watching genocide rwanda and darfur. the world is watching isn't enough. we owe the people and the freedom that we stand for much more. what is necessary is to make clear in word and deed that we can offer more than condolences when things go wrong to people willing to put their lives on

the line for freedom. we must offer support and treatment and we must make it clear in the word and deed to the iranian regime that we stand with those who stand for freedom and demand regime change. an effective way to do that would be to enter the upcoming negotiations with iran having taken mek of the list of the foreign terrorist organizations which would show that we recognize mek as a group devoted to restoring freedom to iran and that we will not use mek and we will not let anybody else use mek as a bargaining chip. it has been said that it's not a favor to the organizations like mek to advocate for them because they can then be accused by the regime of acting as tools of the united states. there are two answers to that. the first is that whoever opposes the regime is going to be attacked as a tool of the united states regardless whether or not they receive assistance so they might as well get the help. second, we ought to let organizations decide for themselves what is best for them

rather than let them decide for them. in the middle of the 19th century, abraham lincoln refers to the united states as a last best hope of earth. i think that those words were not even true in the 21st century than they were when lincoln first spoken in the middle of the 19th. i think also that it is time we started talking and eating as if we believe them so that when succeeding generations consider the question that i presented at the beginning of these remarks of what we did to advance what is good and to fight what is evil they will find an answer that we and they can live with. thank you very much for the privilege of speaking. [applause] [applause] >> general, thank you for those

comments and principled stand. 28 years ago tom ridge came to washington as a member of the house of representatives. he went on in his career to serve as the governor of pennsylvania which we refer to as the suburbs of new jersey for two terms. and then as the first secretary of homeland security my friend, tom ridge. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction and for your very warm reception. i very much appreciate it. i hope it is not lost in all in attendance the significant bipartisan nature of the participants in today's forum. we are looking for things in this town for policy objectives

and out comes that we would like to be shared by both sides of the aisle, and i guess it's a very important and a visible statement that these republicans and these democrats work for republican and democrat administrations feel unanimously that the designation of mek should be lifted and should be lifted now. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i said this before in some of my friends have heard it but i will keep saying it until the designation is lifted, is not our ally and our collective efforts to prevent but tyrannical regime in tehran from becoming a nuclear power as a matter of fact, time is running out. we need to understand that. i would like to read you

something that was written and spoken in september of 1995. listen carefully. i wish to address a pivotal issue, how to confront this regime and the fundamentalism and terrorism that it fosters. the issue is key because of the international level, all approaches and policies, the move is religious terrorist dictatorship have proven futile. indeed, in many cases they have taken advantage of by the regime which has been the only party to benefit from them, september, 1995. president-elect, national council of resistance of iran. ..

and if they agreed to meet in december, knowing full well when representatives from the iranian government. and we're not inclined to discuss the nuclear intentions. one does wonder why everybody bothered showing up. because the only thing they agreed to do at that time was they agreed to convene again. in anticipation of the next meeting, which is in the next couple we, the u.n. ambassador has basically said that in regard to the u.n. and e.u.

sanctions that have been directed against iran for its noncompliance with u.n. resolutions with its nuclear program, the ambassador said sticks and carrots prove to be unsuccessful and that iran would not respond to political pressures are sanctions. they won't respond to political pressures. they walked on to sanction. the certainly be willing to meet over the next 16 or 17 years so every legitimate effort is well intentioned it made has proven to be quite unsuccessful. nothing has changed. time is running out. i'd be very interested in hearing the observations of my colleagues colleagues on the panel. in my judgment the western world presently faces no greater threat from iran. and i have any give them some of my colleagues do, but that is certainly my opinion.

you know, it's absolutely fascinating to me that when we talk about iran in this discussion, we don't understand when we talk about every and were about hamas, hezbollah, the militants are supporting in afghanistan and in iraq, al qaeda, the palestinian islamic jihad. so you've got iran and all of these circuits. and the only way is to do list this, give us the same opportunity in a very controlled and repressive society, which is using the mek designation to continue to imprison -- the press, imprison, torture and often murder. that's all we're asking. i asked a very significant political leader a couple years ago in the middle east, given all the challenges associated with the middle east, how would

you identify the top three priorities, the top three problems? genu at the individual said? iran, it ran and iran. as we take a look at the rest of the world trying to do with iran through discussions and negotiations, does anyone think he had stopped for a minute, pause for a second and their accelerated attempt to achieve nuclear weapon capability? does anyone doubt for a moment, given the fact they've ignored with great impunity to u.n. resolution after u.n. resolution? how many resolutions hesitate before the u.n. finally decided they were not being terribly affected and we have not been able to influence policy? it's a real challenge now for the united states, but the rest of the world cup in the multilateral organizations is great one of the great ironies in my judgment is every year, genocide appears before the u.n.

fascinating. he comes to the 90s states and is able to express an event in venomous latecomer rhetorical way, whatever he feels like that same opportunity to express personal feeling is lost to mek and the iranian opposition. what i think is another irony is iran maybe she would love to come to the united states. [applause] the inconsistency in policy is pretty difficult to understand. as for the designation needs to be listed. you know, the 20th century, our enemies are evil, but i think we all agreed they were fairly rational. they cared little for human

life, but they care great deal about preservation. they allow for a window of compromise for negotiation to access. today i don't think any exist with iran because we are fighting an ideology, not one single ideologue. the approach taken by the united states and some of its western allies has evolved during the past 30 years. again, the passage of time has caged in the need to consider in one form or another, different strategies. senator torricelli talked about somehow we ironies, which it's all right to be naïvely optimistic. you move in a direction you're hopeful it will perceive. there's been no change in the outcome he sought to perceive. at the end of the day, shouldn't you say to yourself, we need to change our approach? it hasn't worked. i think one of the best ways to

do it and i think would have a profound impact on the negotiations that are scheduled at the designation was lifted before the other countries met with iranian delegation. i would be a significant change of policy and from a different signal to the regime. it's interesting what happened in tunisia, isn't it? people took to the streets. quite quickly the administration responded in a very positive and supportive way of those voices of democracy, voices of change. interestingly enough unlike iran, the military didn't come to the assistance of ben ali. for whatever reason they stayed on the sideline. the administration applauded, wooed the effort to bring democracy and freedom to tunisia. they were fairly mute out your elections in iran. again, i don't quite understand the inconsistency in policy.

as we say time and time again both publicly and privately, resistance and the mek, they are not looking for money. they're not looking for arms. they just want the freedom to speak. i want to be delisted and take action into their own hands. we need to do that for them because time is running out. in the late 1990s, the curry favors the attorney general mentioned u.s. declared that people associate dean of iran to be a terrorist organization and many outlets followed suit. a goodwill gesture at the time, many people have said they were involved in that decision. based on a strategic goal of entering project to talks. and they say this and i suspect it and then you can all agree on. goodwill gestures have no impact on those people or countries who have no idea what goodwill is all about or unprepared to extend it. you may hand -- you may extend

an open hand to try to resolve the challenge. but on the other and if there's fist, it's very unlikely you're going to be able to reach a peaceful and pass on those issues. time is running out. a policy must be changed. the strategy of peaceful engagement, well-intentioned, has been totally ineffective entire project is. i would say this and i hope everyone listening in this administration with the western world are well, and nuclear in which i've western diplomacy or even more tragically from the failure western well. one would think that more than any other part of the world, the west understands the tragic, unthinkable consequences of appeasement. there're some pretty profound lessons of appeasing repressive regimes that the western world has paid the consequences in both treasure and lives. and so we must reject is inconceivable in an insert any

notion that a terrorist supporting nuclear armed and threatening iran could somehow be restrained to recalled were strategy of deterrence. i believe a nuclear iran would become an even global scourge, more emboldened, more destabilizing and more threatening. having the opportunity once again to share these thoughts with such a distinguished panel in such a distinguished group, i had an occasion to look at the 10-point plan for future iran which was announced again five years ago, 2006 briefly. from our point of view, the ballot box is the only criteria in legitimacy. it will give you a short stint, abbreviated version.

when a pluralist system, freedom of parties and assembly. and iran of tomorrow we will respect all individual freedoms. in a free iran of tomorrow, we support and are committed to the evolution. for the iranian resistance, well-established separation of church and state. any form of discrimination against followers of all religions and denominations will be prohibited. we believe in complete gender equality in political and social rights. we want to set up a modern legal system. it goes on and on recognizing the importance of the rule of law and due process. we are committed to universal declaration of human rights and unless other covenants and conventions. if you took a look in the u.n. charter, you would see the existing iranian regime violates them everyday. the new iran accepts an embrace, promotes and supports. we recognize private property, private investment in the market

economy. a foreign policy would be based on peaceful coexistence, international regional peace and cooperation as well as respect for the united nations charter. and finally, we want the free iran of tomorrow to be devoid of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. [applause] that's the iran the resistance, people associate dean, mek has fought for, believe in. remember, they relinquish their arms. we have to send a message to a maliki and the iraqi governments. the united states proves handed responsibility of protecting these individuals who are protected under the geneva convention to you. how can you tolerate this love

beakers? and what about these incursions that have precipitated challenges instead of camp ostroff? we must heed the admonition. and promised to protect them under the geneva convention. right now one wonders sincerity of that initial promise. i'll conclude ladies and gentlemen with just a couple of additional thoughts. i spent some time with some older iranian women when i was in paris in december. and we sat down and through the interpreter we had conversations with them. and i wish i could take those were going to make the decision and the state department over to be with them or have them come

over and listen to them very, very carefully. these older women carry pictures pitchers of spouses and has been, children and grandchildren some of them were apprehended in , imprisoned, tortured and killed and some were simply apprehended and tortured and knew who knows, perhaps awaiting execution. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is something we embrace in our declaration of independence. it just seems to me that mek is asking us to do in a cd list. the e.u. has let at this designation and said no, the u.k. has looked at the designation and said no comments

inappropriate. her court letson said it no comments inappropriate. listen to the cries of these women in the pleas of these women about their families, representing all families and the thousand thousands that have been murdered because they are part of the democrats resistance. and also listen and learn from the lessons of time. the strategy hasn't worked. within a 97 as a goodwill gesture has not affected a single change in their approach. has not take celebrated, removed or interrupted their intentions to become a nuclear power and certainly had no impact as he take a look around the world, particularly in that region. hamas, hezbollah and other challenges not only to the united states, but the western world around the globe. so we say to all those in the state department involved in making the decision in this administration, it's about time.

lessons of history in the pleas of these mothers and wives should be listened to now. the list that mek and let them -- let them take the voices of freedom to the street and do what they need to do to bring freedom and democracy in the kind of iran that would live in harmony and the peaceful coexistence with its neighbors in the region and the rest of the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, governor, very, very much. from 1997 to 2000, general anthony served as commander-in-chief of the united state central command. he was elected in 2002 as a special envoy of the united states to israel and the palestinian authority.

if there is anyone who can speak with a nonpartisan authority over the reality of the situation in camp ashcroft, and it would be general. general, welcome. [applause] >> thank you. first, limiting the people of this very timely and important conference. you know, i know you'll realize you are seen not only bipartisanship was mentioned. uic and leadership from our congress, administration past and present, from our military and from our intelligence agencies and law enforcement. you have an spectrum here that

feels the same way. i think what you're going to hear appear is a continuous set of comments, much like you've heard already. i need to remove the mek from this list of terry's and indeed to support the opposition groups and understand who they are. i want to begin a little bit they may be giving military perspective. because obviously that is my role in my experience in all this. i was the commander of the u.s. central command before that the deputy commander back in the mid-to-late 90s in the year 2000 as was mentioned. when i first got the u.s. central command, my biggest concern was we were going to have an incident with the iranians islamic revolutionary guard maybe that would trigger, miscalculates and escalate into something very serious. they continuously challenged our ships. they jumped into it. the preacher breached medication was very hostile and i always imagined them were in the middle

night i would get a call saying one of the captains of our ship retaliated in what he believed was an attack on his ship, does deliver branding and bumping of things we couldn't tolerate now and barely could tolerate now. but in light of what we overseeing the uss cole and other things that have occurred since then, that would be not even acceptable. there is a limit at which you would not even be able to accept those ships coming close to you. we went through this for a number of years. we were following what was then called the dual containment policy. the dual containment of iraq and iran. what was confusing a thing for me i clearly understood iraq and the measures we had to take him i didn't quite understand iran. because although we had a stated policy, there weren't any clear containment measures we were involved in. 14 years ago, 1997, i think we began to believe something that has never come to pass, but we've come to it since then. we begin to believe with the

election of president have to be that maybe things would change. he resists grant ovulate looking individual, seemed like there may be an opening or opportunity, even though the ship of payment are hired although not from a became more personal. i remember president clinton trying to get a grasp and understanding if there was real changes in a real opportunity. another of us meant in this town from state department, department of defense and other agencies, looking to see whether judgments were on this and looking to see if there'd be a reciprocation. if you remember back in those days, we took small steps with restrictions on carpets and pistachio nuts. we sent chris ayres and other kinds of social interaction. and unfortunately, there was no

reciprocation. i remember sitting in conference this in attending a regional forum, where we had the minister of defense and the foreign minister from iran president. an acid rhetoric, anti-american, anti-anti-west, the threats that were made, not only to us, but those in the region, that welcomed our friendship, our cooperation in our lives. it was clear there was a surface façade of maybe a warming, a more rational government. the you scratch the surface. it wasn't really true. because you support, believe it or not the islamic revolutionary guard gave to saddam as saddam tried to violate the sanctions on the gas and oil sanctions that we have put on to prevent two ships from getting out and selling it outside the u.n. restrictions.

the islamic revolutionary guard were actually hoping, providing protection, escorting an iranian territorial waters. and the threats across the gold continued. even to this day, his many friends in the region who maintain friendships with the senior leadership out there. i can tell you those occasional trips by president ahmadinejad and those on the surface may appear to be family. as one senior told us on the other side of the god there's always a point of making a final not so veiled rant about support for the u.s. are aligned with the relationships. and what that means in the region. it's clear that this regime in iran has always sought to be hegemon and the region, to be dominant in that region. the m. oif, the threat they've made, the support has this mentioned the other groups in the region that clearly are terrorist groups continues on,

unabated, even today. i'm shocked and surprised that we still chase the solution that there can be a meaningful dialogue with the regime that has been described, even by her current secretary of state as not only religious fanatics, the criminally duties of the revolutionary guard. it has become a corrupt military regime. and the greatest influence has now become the islamic revolutionary guard. it has become an oppressive military regime combing old with religious fanaticism. i can't imagine anything worse. imagine what you made its niche. i want to draw another parallel. remember the soviet union, which happened in hungary and czechoslovakia. why was it different in poland? i can tell you why it was different. because suddenly attention was drawn to the opposition movement and the oppression.

everyone from the pope to the western world focused on it and they could not tolerate it any longer in the soviet union. they could not use the heavy hand of oppression and violence to put it down. and it grew and arguably may have been the greatest contributor to the fall of the soviet empire and not part of the world. and we have an opportunity, just had one with this opposition was in the street so we missed it. we put the mute button on. what is amazing about this opposition and if that was many from incentive and that man should get out and meet and talk about the situation. what has impressed me the most is how great this movie knows. it is not singular. it is not only political. it goes across the entire spectrum of iranian society. women's groups, journalists, ethnic groups, workers groups. it represents every aspect of society that feels the pressure

of this regime. lack of freedom of speech, lack of the ability to fulfill their destiny. lack of a voice in their own political system. lack of fairness in the way they're treated because of their ethnicity. and so we have a broad-based opposition movement, which usually means they would be most successful because the entire society is displeased with the oppression they face. the opportunity was there and still is there to bring light, like happened in poland to this movement. who are they? what is there suffering? pressure from the world begins with putting a blight on the kind of oppression that occurs and the opposition movement, the courageous action to resist it. we've missed that before. and we've got to change our policy and our attitude. what was strange about the dual containment policy is how much

we emphasize supporting the opposition in iraq and the iraqi community outside iraq. and i would offer to you sometimes we did make the best choices they are and they did not have the kind of support in the kind of credibility inside iraq. it's exactly the opposite gear we need community, the diaspora community, those outside their brand, many of you in this audience. you are credible. you are committed to. you are respected. and i'm amazed we have not reached out and not even given a 10th of the support and credibility we gave for those in iraq. dual containment made one thing on one side and work could've counted more were absent. we were