critical functions, work already create citizen-led solutions in done by the railroad, aerospace, my district. i want a representative that military, and medical sectors boldly promotes can provide guidance for our own self-government. what are you doing as industry that we regulate, the representatives to improve leadership on your distribute automobile industry. as mentioned. level? as mentioned, the national academy of sciences will offer >> i'll be happy to take it even though he geared it towards recommendations on these subjects. we look forward to their representatives. analysis, and we wish to enhance our own understanding of the .. subject area. today, i am also announcing that the national highway traffic safety administration will begin research on the placement and design of accelerator and brake pedals as well as human factors research such as how drivers use the throttle and brake petals, we want to know whether these types of incidents can be reduced through better pedal

placement and design. along with nasa, we plan to brief the national academy of sciences soon by our findings of the two agencies. finally, i want to remind the all other places throughout. american prelim that we are dead we need people back at the home -- states to pull the power back. public that we are dedicated to i just had this conversation your safety. we want to serve you. with the speaker of the utah we want to hear from you, and we house of representative a few want to keep you informed. i strongly encourage everyone to days ago and she's on board. we have a whole scheme of visit our website, safercar.gov legislators back in my home state who want this to happen. that's what we need. where you cannot only report we need to be pushing power back and state legislators need to be problems, but sign up to be pulling it back. notified about safety of these votes that you cast last vehicles that affect your car, november for federal officials tires, and child safety seats. the national highway traffic administration has the most are of close importance perhaps active defect investigation only by the vote he cast for your state legislators. program on the planet, and at those are exceptionally last, we had a hugely number of important elections. please don't overlook them. recalls with willingness to work they are every bit as important with manufacturers to identify if not more important in the problems early as the law fight to restore the proper requires.

as the secretary said, highway balance of power. we've got to push the power back and traffic safety is more than to the place it belongs. just the name of our agency or [applause] the object of our mission. >> thank you. it is a serious responsibility >> i would add to that when i with which the american people look back on those years when have entrusted us. thank you very much. things were causing me to change the direction of my life i was inspired by the leaders then and >> all right. i'll try and organize the questions here, so if you have a it caused me to put myself into question, please, yeah. this. so i look back on this at the >> given the findings, how do state line from an iowa. you explain the fact that from a period of which toyota started we drew candidates from the state house and for county supervisors and the list goes on using -- that they have more reported and working within the tea party organizations and other grass-roots organizations you fatalities with acceleration never know where that inspired than all other awe though next president is coming from or makers? the next senator and i think -- each of us could go back and fix auto makers. >> there's been a large number the points along the map we followed at this point in c. who of complaints especially since the noted a lot of publicity inspired us. so constantly out there trying to challenge people. you don't know what you can say surrounding this.

or do to inspire people but to we've looked into as many of the right thing always coming and eventually we have a big army that's coming. those we can get concrete data i can only imagine when i looked on, and we don't see a cause out across the tea party rally at the tens of thousands of related to unintended people surrounding the capitol acceleration other than the ones and i see people grab a blow we've already addressed. horn or make the sign, new >> can i ask about the, you know, the not impossible leaders are out there and they are the next wave. statement. you said that the main reason you don't think these two rare sprigg the challenge for the tea incidents happened in the real party is are you out there world is because of the warranty raising up the next generation. claim data. you know, you've got to be out is there anything else that led there. [applause] you to believe that? were any of the complaints are you having candidate potentially affected by this seminars and instructing people how to articulate the issues? rare, you know, brake -- [inaudible] >> the foundation of the theory are you helping them work on was that it takes these precise public speaking and address in people because of a thing is you resistance values for the do fill the void but you cannot failure to occur. if any other than those values have people you promote that are occurs, then it throws a code. not ready to fill the void and if that type of failure were occurring, you'd expect there to there are in paris in instances be signs in the warranty claim in the election cycle. let's be honest about that data. because that is a part of the we didn't see those signs. self assessment.

and what i would say to the we don't expect just those local tea party groups what are you going to start preparing for resisters occurred everyone and the next level of state none of the perfect resisters elections and also national were occurring. you expect to see a pyramid or elections as we move forward close calls as we would call it because it is very much the same as in baseball. before the real ones hit. where is our single a, aa, aaa >> what -- you mentioned human arms system? factors. have people ready to come to the what did they find? major leagues. it is a responsibility of the >> the main reason we had human tea parties to start training the next generation. [applause] factors engaged was to, one, help interpret the vehicle owner >> i completely agree we are all in this together and we all questionnaire data, and also if carry the water in some ways, as we found that a as a as a we are responsible, too pbr responsible -- the people are responsible for the mess we are in because we've been living our vulnerability was human dependent like if this is lives and taking care of our families and going to school and stepped on another this rate, it not paying attention about what's going on in washington. was for them to guide us on what but guess what? we are awake and paying was reasonably possible. attention and saying no more. >> [inaudible] [applause] >> we didn't find any vulnerabilities that were human

>> this next question is one of factor dependent. my favorite questions. it came on line from susan clark >> [inaudible] in redding california, and by imposing it to all of you. what can we do to stop the bailout of states like [inaudible] california, her state, and illinois, that have liberal legislators that refuse to quit spending money that the they >> repeat the question. >> the question is of the pedal take? >> don't do it. misapplication complaints. yeah, you don't do it. how big is that problem compared to the other problems we identified as part of the defects? we think that much of the >> i mean how can we stop that? because that's where we are complaints, and they are detailed in the report, are actually in the vast ma yourty headed. relate -- >> we say no up here. majority related to that type of i don't know -- this is a very the problem based on the analysis of the 58 cases with simple answer especially in the house of representatives where we are the ones that by the the electronic recorders and in constitution of control of the purse strings and we have to respect to the cases we looked look at the states and say you at in detail. know, you have to get your >> anybody over here? fiscal house in order. >> are you confident that now it's if you continue to toyotas are safe to drive? >> i'm sorry?

reward bad behavior, you're >> are you confident that going to get more bad behavior i toyotas are safe to drive? >> i'll give you an example. learned that as a young kid. last year, my youngest daughter [applause] called me and said she was so let's just stop it. thinking about by buying a 2011 >> this question came up a few toyota. times in the audience. shemented an ironclad from me i know there's a lot of people looking for the answer. that her vehicle was going to be safe. i checked are david and ron, and i told my daughter that she [inaudible] should buy the toyota which she right over there and also rick lopez who is right behind me. did. i think that illustrates that we there he is. feel that toyota vehicles are safe to drive. >> i think one of the big issues yes? that consolidated the whole >> i'm trying to see the network of the tea party in this country is the question of difference between what nasa is bailout especially t.a.r.p. saying because we did tests and bailout, and about two weeks ago there was an official report you're saying there is no way. issued from scic committee on the assessment of the bailout and the whole crisis that you sound like you're on different sides. >> i think we're on the exact

happened in 2007, 2008 and it's same page. nasa came from it at an clear in there that the state's engineering perspective. it's difficult to prove a that the crisis was unavoidable negative. we found no evidence that these and therefore bailout was not necessary and now it's official that is a positive step but also malfunctions are creating the emphasis on glass-steagall. incidents. we certainly as nasa scientists going to say it could never happen. if we actually test the >> safety is our number one priority. glass-steagall there is a way to our goal was to try to find a real world instance where an actually kill wall street so that we don't have to bail them electronic failure can cause wide open unintended out. my question is are you actually acceleration that cannot be with this kind of -- with this controlled from the brake. our experts paired with nasa's scic report or are you opposed to the report and kiss wall findings. we are incredibly confident that the only causes of unintended acceleration in vehicles are the two mechanical causes, floor man entrapment, and sticky pedal. street. we'll continue to monitor the >> well i don't kiss anybody. fleet for any trend if there is [laughter] >> i haven't read the report, an issue for us to investigate but this is what i, you know, and then go forward with a

history has a way of repeating possible action. >> lisa? itself and teaching very bad lessons you don't pay attention, so to really understand what >> [inaudible] happened in 2008 you've got to go back almost to 1976, a 78, the jimmy carter reinvestment >> i think you're alieud -- act. because one of the things we've been talking it is alluding to the document looking constitutional mandates for government. government all of a sudden comes down and says every american has at lexus x350. the right to own a home. that changes the entire complexities of the mortgage we have the full report, and industry. it's clear that toyota was not all of a sudden, the government comes in and we sought to lower able, was not able to replicate the standards, and we start to that condition. allow things to happen that even in terms of the verbiage in the chile over 30 years look at what report and why we strongly comes about. when we repeal the glass-steagall that did keep a recommend, we recommend you separation between the investment banks and commercial contact toyota on that. banks and the glass-steagall was the report was thorough, and very good for regulating the they were not able to replicate financial industry and now all of a sudden you get the that condition. >> just a follow-up. financial the industry's the is there any underlying start to secure his mortgages. so now all of a sudden these bad investigations that they were mortgages get lumped up and sold able to rep kate it? out from bank to bank to foreign >> my understanding is there was no cases like that. banks that all of a sudden >> there's no ongoing people recognize people are

going out there, getting investigations related to that. mortgages that they cannot >> we do have open still the afford but because the government came in and changed recall query. the standard that is what led to we were looking for whether or the collapse in 2008. not there was any additional issues related to unintended and we saw this coming. we saw this coming with fannie acceleration cases that we've done recalls for, but that's and freddie and some of the it. various things they were doing. >> [inaudible] but when you allow such an >> no. last time i spoke to mrs. smith incredible influence of special-interest, that's why people continue to turn a blind was last week. she wanted to know the specific eye to it. results to the study which we so this is what we must couldn't provide at that time, understand, that the public and we were specifically looking sector -- government cannot get at her vehicle. involved and to the private the staff did intensive testing sector as we saw with the mortgage industry. of that vehicle including full but guess what just happened? once again, the government has throttle testing of all the come about and said that every safety systems, and there was no american has a right to health other vulnerabilities found in care. 30 years from now or maybe even shorter than that where would that vehicle other than that just the situation she that in the? so what you're talking about is encountered was floor mat really just a symptom. we have to start looking at the entrapment. >> how does this report address greater causes of these things the complaints after the and it's a failure of the

government to understand the vehicles were put under recall mandate and not overstep the or had issues that was not part mandates and cause the subsequent financial disasters. of the recall? >> let me just follow up on [inaudible] >> yes, i'm -- >> repeat the that. i'm the chairman of the society question. >> the question is how do we and bring hopefully interesting speakers and about four and a explain owners who had repairs half years ago at the beginning done to their vehicles and then they complain again they of the sub prime mortgage discussion when it was just continue to have a problem beginning to percolate its way reoccur. we've had looked at a variety of into "the wall street journal" i brought in a financial advisor, those specific complaints, and talk financial advisor, 30 years in each and every up stance, we in the investment banking industry and i will never forget have not found in the data to what he said. support the data it's anything when you were in the sub prime mortgage business, what you do other than two types of defects as a lender is what everybody we already determined exist and else does. that way if they are making have recalled. money, you're making money and >> yes? if things fall apart and there is a bailout you will be bailed >> [inaudible] out with the rest of them. >> well, look, the reason we did i branded this way into my memory that is part of this. the study that we did is because if you went to the hearings that and the federal guarantee and i testified at in the house of allen is completely right, representatives in the senate, community reinvestment act, if just about every member of

you're going to expand at the congress didn't believe that we had found the problem which was bank. and the guarantee of fannie mae and freddie mac and the floor mat and sticky pedal, and important guarantee of the federal bailout, now we've got a just about every member of congress that questioned me said statutory guarantee with a government sitting in the it has to be the electronics. position to declare which the prove the case it wasn't the businesses are too big to be allowed to fail and determining electronics, we hired the which ones they want to play experts, and they said it wasn't favorites on and determining the electronics, so i think what which ones, into receivership and who would receive it and that's dodd-frank. this says to me is we have some i haven't seen anybody introduced legislation to reduce of the best safety people in the frank. i know they are busy on obamacare right now. [laughter] world working at dot that know [applause] what they're doing, that did a thorough investigation, but look, as a former member of congress, i thought we should listen to these members. >> another -- another question we have, and i hope they get the that has come from online from message today. terry, i'm not sure where he's from, but we have heard this yes? repeatedly throughout town hall >> david, why are you, you know, tonight. when will the 112 condra stake of the issue of the funding all considering maybe a brake of the departments that are not included in the enumerated override rule after 10 months of powers section of article 1, looking at this, why not either

section 8 of the u.s. constitution? propose or not? [cheering] >> let me answer that. the answer is this. again, if you go back to the [applause] testimony and the questions that we heard from a number of committees in congress, many of >> you've been here the longest. these members of congress i want to see the list. >> i tell you, i talked about suggested that a brake override this a lot that in the home system might be helpful, so we district, and a great example, need to look into that, and we the department of education, that in the late 70's when we need to make sure that if that separated out the department of is a solution, we do it the education from health education and welfare. the department of education was right way, and that it is the about 450, 500 employees, $18.1 million was the budget. kind of solution, and so we're now it is closer to 5,000 going to look into it and employees, 80 billion-dollar budget. and what happened to the decide. standards of the education? we haven't decided, but we are it's been an inverse going to look into it, relationship. so that was a time we have to ask these hard questions. investigate and research. we looked at the department energy which was created coming off of the saudi oil embargo and remember this, the reason we have creditability and the reason our safety people have responsibility is because everything is data based. it was a step was to make our it's not made up. it's not based on emotion. sales and save america energy

it's not based on some story independence. lanning, this is a no-brainer, that somebody told us. so i think it is important. we start to ask these questions we do our investigations and come up with our solutions based within ourselves, and we must on good data which is why we bring those up because, you know, this is part of us serving hired nasa. we're going to check out the you, and if it doesn't make brake override. sense, if it is a duplicitous yes, josh? feeling program, redundant program, if you look at the >> [inaudible] department of homeland security and the united states northern command, you will see a [inaudible] >> well, first of all, i don't duplicity of tasks, he mentions, agree with what you just said. so what are we doing to nobody up here has even ourselves? we are creating a bureaucratic many state just for the fact of insinuated the term that you having it and it is truly used, driver error, but i'll let outside of the bounds so you're ron answer this. right, we do have to put these you know, the way you on the table and start characterized thisfuls not discussing them. >> and i would like to say we characterized that way by know that there are tough anybody up here. go ahead, ron. >> well, one of the nings we decisions, difficult decisions and we are here to support to because it is much easier when described as pedal misapplication, and not the you are making the difficult consumer mistake. decisions when we know that we as indicated, we want to look across the fleet to see if there are behind you supporting. [applause] are ways to redesign both the

now we want to go to another youtube clip. design of the pedal and the spacing of the ped da that -- pedal that can minimize this >> this is a question for from occurring. in fact, there may be something senator paul and lee. the stock market has rebounded that can be done to minimize on unemployment especially for a college graduate remains high, this from happening without around 20%. do you believe what legislation blaming the people, but perhaps the way it's designed to be can you present to promote job improved. >> i'll follow-up, josh. it was a 10 month investigation growth? thank you. where we had no predisposed conclusion. >> we talk constantly about we looked at the facts, took the wanting to create jobs and it investigation from the ground makes me know is when he says it floor up looking at any possible because he speaks the word situations. this was a safety investigation create as if he were the period making sure that every creator. [laughter] toyota was actually safe to and he's not. drive in this particular [applause] situation, so we looked at everything within the scheme you see, we have a little that could have led to technicality, a little problem. acceleration, pedal applications was part of that. we cannot legislate, it does not as ron said, this is something we need to take a very long and hard look at. work. it affects every vehicle in the

i cannot create or destroy fleet, and therefore, there's matter or energy. i've tried it at home, doesn't clearly having to be some vehicle design issues and the national highway traffic safety work. no matter how hard we try, we administration is going to are not going to create a single undertake this work and see if we can find a vehicle design and lasting job and when we try to create jobs out of legislation, scientific based way to minimize really what happens is we are or even eliminate this in the taking money from peter and giving it to paul and it doesn't future. >> anybody else? yes, sir? work at the end of the day. >> you said toyota paid two more so what we have to do in order to create jobs is get the fines. do you think toyota's changed federal government out of the way. behavior now that maybe fines, [cheering] do you think they are moving beyond this problem? >> well, i would say this. now, in the end some of what if you look at what i said in this will mean -- i will be here the hearing on capitol hill and all night if i listen to the things we would have to do, but some of the ways that i number one, we have to slash the corporate income-tax rate, that characterize toyota in the way that they go about managing is and non-negotiable. their company, mr. toyota came it has to happen. [applause] although that wasn't the best one to say now that the president has said it, but here to d. o. t., and we that's okay. [laughter] visited. i've been to japan. we have to start taking hold of i spent a whole day with

mr. toyota. administrative regulations and pos in addition to all of the he introduced me to safety people and a lot of their tax burdens we see, and pose a initiatives, but, you know, the backdoor tax, compliance cost, proof is in the pudding here. that is costing hundreds and billions of dollars every single year to the industry. toyota is going to invest $50 million in a safety program in one of the problems with this, we talk a lot in the michigan. constitution of the limited that's extraordinary. that shows that shows they government about the need to get congress to stop doing things really care about safety, that that was never intended to do. they want to set up a shop about that was one symptom of the safety in our country, and so i problem, one reason we focus on the constitution. other bad things happen when the think they've, you know, they've congress doesn't do the things that is supposed to do. understood what we do here is my copy of the constitution at the very beginning of article 1 series business, that what we do here is promote safety, and we says that the legislative power take a backseat to nobody, and of the united states government shall be vested in congress, not that's what i've always explained to every car manufacturer, and i think that an executive branch agencies. [applause] message has gotten out there. yes, sir?

and yet what happens every >> [inaudible] single day in this town? we have legislation that never makes it cross my desk, never [inaudible] makes it across your desk. it just comes into being. it's promulgated by an executive >> repeat that, mike. >> the question is could five agency. so if they decide, for instance, degree throttle opening be a they don't like the way that factor in low speed events. you're admitting fly ash or did i get that right? ozone or anything else or if they do something else they yeah, what we found is that's promulgate a regulation. similar to when you feel your a lot of the time the air conditioner kick on when regulations promulgated pursuant you're at a stoplight. to statute that might be something very simple and it's very small marginal noncontroversial. the congress has enacted saying increase, and brake pedal for example we shall have clean increase will stop that. air and its epa jobs to make typical brake application sure we have clean air. pressures is 8.5 pounds, bumps who can disagree with that? so they promulgate regulations, up to 9 pounds to hold the and if you don't like it, if you vehicle. if you're going down the road don't like the law, who do you and the throttle jumps by 5 talk to usually? talk to one of a summit or degrees, you won't know it happened. senator or congressman and say no, we don't think 5 degrees is this is bad. but when you come to one of us a factor in these events. when that has happened we say i >> a couple more if anybody has didn't vote for that i just voted for clean air.

nobody disagrees with that. something. yes, sir? if you don't like it talk to the epa. >> [inaudible] they are concerned, they say we don't work for you, we are not elected by you or anyone, so [inaudible] back off. suez if you want to. sue them and see how that will [inaudible] work out. of course we'll a great difference to the administrative >> give me your question. agencies. that is why i will be i got your point. cosponsoring with rand and give me your question. >> [inaudible] >> i think toyota has been very cooperative and very responsive. others to rein in on this i think they understand that the administrative regulation. department of transportation, safety is our number one [applause] priority. we treat all car manufacturers the same. any and every time there's a we didn't single out any car regulation that has a significant economic impact over manufacturer. a certain threshold, we are we never have and never will. our concern is that anybody that going to provide that the buys a car, that it's the safest possible car possible when they regulation will not remain in drive it out of the showroom, and it continues to be that way, effect until congress adopted by and if it's not, they need to law. report things to us. that way our kids are on the we need to take everybody's complaint seriously whether it's

table. against any car manufacturer, [applause] and i think toy imroa that -- before. understands -- the defeat, one to go to some of toyota understands that now. the local in virginia and every anybody else? time we've put together any even thank you all very much -- they call on the person to help promote the event, pull people okay? of and be their supporters, >> [inaudible] going to go to tom right now. >> when toyota announced their he has a question for congressman king. $50 million investment in a [applause] safety program in michigan, i >> congressman king, you will be spoke to mr. toyota. glad to know that your we spoke only about that. colleagues, congressman michel he explained what they wanted to do. bachmann has got your back. i thanked them for their she brought the bill through investment, thanked them for the idea that they really want to invest in safety, and that was dodd-frank. [applause] the extent of our discussion. i want to thank you because i've thank you, all, very much. done a lot of work for the tea party in washington and you have so anything else, jill, or is been there every time we have had any kind of major even going that it? on in washington. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, everybody. from the very beginning until tonight. my question for you, would you agree one of the reasons the tea

party has generated so much excitement and has been so effective is they represent the conscience of america? >> british prime minister, david >> tom was the answer to that cameron, spoke this week for a change in egypt. question. >> we have a conversation some that'll be one of the topics months ago at one of the rallies tomorrow at the prime minister's and tom and i were talking and question live from the house of he put those words into my head. commons in london at 7 eastern. it was just so descriptive of what i think has emerged here from the grassroots of america that i have taken that up and said that i believe that the tea parties are the conscience. [applause] when we are making decisions inside the chambers or wherever it is, the conscience is here speaking to us. you're hearing it now, the interactivity that part of it. and the conscience of america grows from our family, faith, american traditions. the pillars of american exceptional was some, the things that made america great are going to make america even

greater again if we can stick together and build this movement, and that is what i hope will happen the state of conscience of america. thanks, tom, i appreciate that. [applause] >> up next, a house subcommittee -- and four, tom. we are all stronger standing looks at legislation that would ban the use of federal funds for together than apart. that's for sure. abortion. we'll hear discussion on the height amendment. levi? this house judiciary >> we have another question that has come up a few different subcommittee on the constitution is chaired by congressman trent times. there are now tea party caucuses in the house and in the senate. franks. the question that a few people asked was is it a priority to have more senators and representatives join that? do you see it as a problem that some who are conservative media >> the subcommittee will come to haven't joined or do you not see that as an issue right now? order. good afternoon to all of you. >> in the senate we have three pursuant to notice, a subcommittee on the constitution members, rand paul, jim demint meets today to consider hr3, the and myself. no taxpayer funding for abortion we've invited all 100 senators act. this is the very first to join. [applause] constitution subcommittee hearing in this, the new 112th i get the question very

frequently, often by reporters congress, and it is such a privilege to be the new chairman who want the answer to be yes, i of this new subcommittee and am devastated. offer a heart felt welcome to [laughter] all the members, the witnesses, i get the question is it upsetting to you that you only and the observers. have three? my answer is no, that's three more than we had a year ago. [applause] [cheering] let me take a little side note and next year or next congress here. rule 11 of the house rules provides that the chairman of -- christa all, i do expect more the committee may punish to join. i think more will join during this congress, even if they breaches of the decorum in the don't, we will multiply that hearing. we have people standing, and it number severalfold after the makes the order not in order in next election and it will keep on growing. the hearing room. [applause] the members should behave in an orderly fashion or will be >> we are getting close to the ending point, so i want to take removed from the hearing room, one more question from the so i hope you will all sit audience from somebody that's traveled here from seattle and down. washington to let this even a tonight, and she is another one [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] that's really supported and okay, all right. promoted this tea party movement from coast to coast, kathryn. hold my my freendz to the

constitution and to the republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster, and [applause] >> if a group called the doctor what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again, so patient medical associations and your me ask questions about the health care policy that my questions were taken so i'm hold on to the constitution for going to ask about something on if the american constitution should fall, there will be the horizon and that is the u.s. anarchy throughout the world. caribbean trade agreement. a number of us who are free our founding fathers wrote the traders are free concerned about words of our constitution down what's in net trade agreement, for us because they did not want us to forget that their true which includes the fact that meaning or fall prey to those companies, foreign companies operate in the u.s. and who would destroy it. this has been the reason why we discourage u.s. law and instead go to the u.n. and the world write down documents, bank tribunal. agreements, or constitutions in so we are concerned that what is the first place, to preserve masquerading as free trade isn't their meaning and intent. worth the tradeoff in u.s. protecting the lives of innocent sovereignty. americans and their so what you, even as a free constitutional rights is why traders, consider opposing that? those of us in this room are all here. president obama is counting on indeed, this is why congress the republicans to help him pass itself exists. this. the phrases in the 5th and 14th so we are hoping that he will take a second look at that if you would consider that. amendment talk about the entire constitution when they proclaim that no person should be >> thank you. when i was first negotiating to

deprived of life, liberty, or get better look at the language i have recently, so what you property without due process of said here tells me i've got to take a look at that. law. this is a crystal clear yes, i am a free trader but i want to be a smart trainer and reflection that declares that one don't want to unilaterally all men are created equal and disarm and not have access to them and we shouldn't let endowed by their cree you tar companies under the maaskant in that fashion so i need to take a look at something to pay -- attention to. cemex b4, katherine. creator. this set america apart as the [applause] flag ship of human freedom in >> one more question to insure that most of even the audience know the federal government is the entire world. yet, unspeakable suffering and trying to regulate our internet, tragedy have occurred when we and the internet is critical to the tea party movement. stray from those words. our own united states rule that it's a big issue. we have all seen it recently. men, women, and children were not persons under the new gist, we have seen it in iran, so right now i have steve constitution because their skin was black. motley who wants to ask a it took a horrible civil war to question regarding the internet regulation. reverse that tragedy. >> thank you very. we saw the same arrogance when they said the unborn child was not a person under the the question is for the notes constitution, and we have sense

that 90% of the tea party has done is on the internet from the witnessed the silent death of genesis through the exodus to over 50 million of innocent little baby boys and girls who deuteronomy. died without the protection that [laughter] the constitution give them and without the protection this it's one of the most important congress should have given them. hr3 is a bipartisan bill that issues going inside washington takes a step to turn america and forces people outside of the beltway know what it is. away from that tragedy. the bill forms part of the new your rogue agency point on pledge to america quantifying the height amendment by funding december 21st, the is easy, taxpayer abortion across all federal programs. there's no legislation, they it protects rights of conscious can't do anything unless the so that cannot participate in congress for its glossy and they can do this and they never did abortion procedures as a that. the acknowledged in an interview condition of employment. with "the washington post" the d.c. circuit court ruled in >> [inaudible] april last year that they don't >> the capitol police are in the have the authority and they went process of restoring order ahead and did it any way. i know that it's winding its way here. through the house and the we're going to go ahead and senate. continue. the speaker of the house, john i know congressman blackburn has a bill to undo this. boehner, directed this bill, but i want to get it in front of hr3, "as one of our highest

you all and have one or more of you comment. you know how important this is priorities." the height amendment prohibits from an economic standpoint the funding of abortion except in internet is one sixth of the nation's economy. cases of rape, incest, or to it ties with health care so it save the life of the mother. is an economic issue, a government control issue and contrary to discussion in the press, this bill will not be a with that i abandon ship. thank you. [applause] departure of the limitation of the height amendment policy. sponsors of the bill are >> it's very interesting that reviewing clarifying language back in the 2008 election cycle for amending hr3 to assure as president obama and of course the democrats used social media this relates to cases of rape and the internet very well to will not be altered by this bill. their and vantage to win the the second part of this bill election and now all of a sudden provides necessary protection when they see that on the for health care workers that will not reform or give conservative side we are able to do the same thing and learn that abortions for a matter of lesson they want to shut it conscious. those who believe pregnancy is a down, so we cannot allow that to happen. and something else, when you circumstance, the mother and the look up and you see that aol unborn child cannot in good conscious do harm to the unborn child and should not be coerced purchased the huffingtonpost.com and are a very far left liberal to abortions under the current border such as arianna health care system. huffington has an influence in it is said that government is the world but we cannot allow what it spends.

ourselves to be suppressed. planned parenthood alone aborts we cannot allow them to go for over a quarter of a million of the internet and not allow us to get the message of. unborn babies a year while receiving hundreds of millions [applause] of dollars in federal, state, or so i stand firmly to if it comes local taxpayer funds. down the biggest pressure we can this legislation is really about put on the regulatory agency. whether the role of america's government is to continue to fund a fract that takes the [applause] lives of over 1 million little americans every year. even some of those who do not >> to add to that when you look consider themselves pro-life back in the 80's ronald reagan strongly object to their eliminated with the called the taxpayers going to pay for fairness doctrine, the balance between the left and the right abortion, their dollars. and the public airwaves. now, i believe the intensity of the debate has to do with our the liberals didn't do very well collective conscious. with talk radio. perhaps it's because ultrasound they didn't want to buy the air technology begins to demonstrate time of the huffingtonpost.com, to all reasonable observers both fair enough, but the fairness the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what is done doctrine being in the same to them. we are beginning to realize as philosophical category and americans that somehow we are mubarak did control the internet bigger than abortion, and that in egypt and i certainly don't want to have anybody in 50 million dead children is enough.

government controlling the we are beginning to ask the real internet or being able to shut it off. so i am with mr. west especially question, does abortion take the shot in of the funding to people life of a child? who don't listen to congress. if it does not, then all of this here today is a nonissue, but if kosko [applause] it does, then those of us >> i don't want to say anything sitting here in the chambers of to put it is of what was said freedom are in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the because we had an interview not history of humanity. to be confused with the real thomas overson said the care of human life and happiness is not interview. never in the history of mankind its destruction is the chief has it been so inexpensive for role of government, and ladies such few people with such little and gentlemen, using taxpayer money to speak to so many dollars to fund the killing of people. unborn children does not [applause] liberate their mothers. it is not the cause for those that is what has enabled this lying out under the white stones movement to be reborn. i say reborn because we started in articlington national in 1773, but we got a real boost cemetery died, and it is not good government. we are to remember the founding in the internet with youtube, fathers and their belief that nothing stamped with the define facebook, e-mail, internet, image and likeness was sent into blogs, whatever. the world to be trodden on or

it's how we exist. degraded by its fellows. it's what broke the monopoly of the traditional news media he reminded those that when in enabled americans to say we can the distant future some man, some faction, some interest should set up a doctrine that learn the truth, facts are out some are not entitled to life, there that exist beyond with the liberty, and the pursuit of mainstream media are willing to report. happiness, their posterity might we can -- a lot of what's out look up to the independence and there isn't true but people can take courage to renew the battle find truth and they can separated from fiction. which their fathers began. that's what powers our movement. may that be the commitment of they want to shut it down if all of us today. i look forward to hearing from they try we will shut them down. the witnesses, and i now recognize the ranking member of [cheering] [applause] the subcommittee, mr. nadler, for his opening statement. >> thank you for being here. we have come to the end of our time, but before we totally wrapped up i want to take a couple of opportunities. congressman west talked about >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to note that this that we needed to bring people is our first subcommittee and i want to take this hearing of the 11th congress and

opportunity to recognize somebody in the movement who is your first as chairman. one of us, a mom out there i want to congratlate you. we face some of the most living her life taking care of difficult issues in front of her family and she has been involved in the tea party congress, some that have been movement and she has decided to very contentious, i look forward step up to the plate and to working with you to give what challenge senator wyden the we both know are strongly held state of virginia, she's here with us tonight. views, the fair hearing that they deserve. [applause] having chaired this subcommittee [cheering] for two congresses and served as a ranking member for several congresses before that, i appreciate what a challenge this so we are working on that and i subcommittee can be, and i look forward to working with you. today's hearing concerns what wanted to take something away may be the most difficult and from here so this isn't just for divisive issue we will have the opportunity to consider. show we walk away and have something we need to do and i a women's right to make want to tell you guys we are decisions about her own body whether to become pregnant, going to continue to build this continue a pregnancy, or whether and bring people into this to terminate it is a right movement because we all identify protected by the constitution. with this responsibility. whether or not people think that is a good idea or in the we do not have a revenue problem and we need you to rein in the constitution or morally correct,

it remains the law of the land. spending, to halt. we have to make them, and in the cog has for more than 3 decades meantime, we are going to go out and we are going to find more used economic coercion to conservative as we are going to prevent women from using their bring to support you in november constitutional protected choice by prohibiting use of federal of 2012 and we may have tried to funds for abortions. the only legal health care fight your harry reid and were not successful but we have procedure subject to such a another chance, we will take the ban. until now, that coercion was aa in november, 2012 scriven directed against the poor and [applause] against women dependent against that is what we are going to be the government or health care, military personnel, prison working on together. inmates, and federal employees. this is a nationwide movement and we have all worked together we developed a two teared system so that is what we are going to be working on and i would like of which people with means have to add briefly to each one of right to choose, but others do you what do you need for from us not. now comes hr3 which is really misnamed because it has very little to do with taxpayer funding for abortions. it goes way beyond that question and places government in the middle of private choices by >> this is a movement that is not going away. family and businesses about how everyone of us needs to remember they wish to spend their own

that. health care dollars. it is worth going out there and this legislation represents an bringing more to the cause. entirely new front in the war we are right and we will win. against women and their [cheering] families. for two years of hearing my republican colleagues complain that government should not >> cementer west? meddle in the private insurance >> well, if any of you get the market or in private health care opportunity to come to our choices, i was stunned to see congressional office, 1708 long legislation so obviously designed to do exactly that. west, it's an inspirational and it seems many republicans indicative of kobe are as american people. believe in freedom provided no one uses that freedom in a way there's a picture, george washington kneeling beside his they find objectionable. horse in valley forge and that is a strange understanding of freedom. praying. even more stunning, this bill get it on your knees and pray for the united states of america contains a huge tax increase on because the premier of a righteous man or woman helps. family, businesses, and the self-employed if they spend their own money. let me repeat that, their own money on insurance that covers [applause] abortions or services. the power to tax is the power to >> congressman king? >> [inaudible] [laughter] destroy, and the taxes power is used to destroy the right of

>> i want you to think about every american to make private health care designations free what drives congress. when i first went in, i would from interference. republican support for government intrusion in the make principled arguments to private health care choices is reasonable people and they come around and get things done. that was not even. supposed to say you heard it people are generally already hear first, but i'm equally there. sometimes you can enlighten them surprised that my republican why didn't i think about that and they will come around. colleagues think that a tax but the others are driven by the exemption or credit is a form of government funding. what happened to the rhetoric politics. about it being our money? we need to have a staff call and does that only apply in certain i will go back and said he sicks? will we now have to call every wanted to do this. tax exemption or credit a form of government funding for the why can't i make the argument? recipient? i'm sure there will be many the of the very finely tuned businesses, charities, and religious denominations that political barometer and you're will be alarmed to find out that the one that's going to suggest they are receiving government that political barometer. subsidies. i also join many other americans we like to think we are all leaders and we are to some who are being absolutely degree on the arena we are horrified -- before i get to standing but we are hanging on that, let me say among others to what's great about america and while that is going on, it's who should be horrified are

churches and synagogues and just not big enough, the more mosques that now have to presumably give up tax loud and consistent your voice exemptions because if tax is it changes the minds of members of congress because they exemptions are subsidies, that's have to hear from you and face a direct tax provision. you and they know that you're going to work against them if either a tax exemption is they don't do their job. [applause] government funding in which case we can't give that to churches, >> thank you so much for being synagogues, and mosques, or it here, not only to our is not in which case this bill congressmen but all of you that have come from far and wide, has no claim on anything. i also join other americans thank you so all much and being horrified that the hopefully we will do this again sponsors of this bill seem not in several months on the road. to know what rape and up zest are. rape according to this is only thank you all. forcible. date rape drugs, sex with minors, the mentally impaired, are not really rape anymore. incest also is no longer incest. [inaudible conversations] instead, it is now only incest with a minor that we have to be concerned about which means, i guess, that incest with a high school senior doesn't count.

have the extremes taken such a hold on this debate that we cannot agree to help children and teenagers or the victims of predators? is there nothing left in the capitol? [inaudible conversations] i heard the rape provisions will be modified because of the outcry they have raised. first, we have not seen such an amendment yet, and second, what does this provision, even if amended, what does this provision say about the mind set and intent of the sponsors of the legislation? there's also provisions in this bill that in the name of [inaudible conversations] conscious of health care providers would allow any health care provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman who would die if she doesn't get her abortion. they would be allowed to refuse to provide an abortion in the emergency room even if the medical judgment is that without that abortion, she would die. they would let that woman die

[inaudible conversations] there in the emergency room, and the government would be powerless to do anything to penalize that or prevent it. in fact, if the government under the provisions of this bill insisted that the hospital not let the woman die, section 311 allows the hospital to sue the government and strip that [inaudible conversations] community of all federal funding until the jurisdiction releapted and allowed women to die if they needed an abortion to prevent the death. that's the new definition it seems of pro-life. mr. chairman, let's start off on the right foot. [inaudible conversations] the no taxpayer funding is not about taxpayer funding. it's about government interfering with decisions. it is not about protecting the innocent, but creating a life threat ping situation -- threatening situation for women. it is a tax increase of historic proportions. it would eliminate the private market for abortion insurance coverage.

the chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is clear coming up next government report about his purpose. found an electronic cosmonaut when he introduced this bill, he the cause of the recent sited a -- acceleration problems in the toyota automobiles. crit cited a study that showed a we will hear decrease in abortions of 25% when funding is cut off. coercion works, and the remarks heard from the chairman made crystal clear that the unashamed purpose is to use economic coercion to prevent women from using their constitutional rights to have an abortion even with their own funds. it is an unprecedented attack on women, on families, on their rights under the constitution, and for that matter, from the private insurance market. let's not pretend this bill has anything to do with government funding. it does not. i yield back the balance of my time. the federal government says >> thank you, mr. nadler, and thousands of unintended without objection, other acceleration in toyota vehicles

statements will be made part of were caused by mechanical the record. problems rather than electrical >> a unanimous consent request? malfunctions. transportation secretary ray lahood talks about the results >> absolutely. of a ten month study looking >> i ask unanimous consent to into the problem. place into the record testimony this is about 45 minutes. submitted from the district of columbia, ms. norton. she asked to be allowed to present testimony here because there's a provision in the bill that specifically pertains to >> good afternoon. welcome and thank you for her direct, the district of columbia, and no other, the coming. here at the department of chairman of the full committee has denied that request. transportation our fundamental mission to help americans move i'm sorry, i regret she was safely from one place to denied the permission to another. although accidents and crashes testify, and i hope that this can and will happen, our solemn has been a misunderstanding and obligation and responsibility that in the future, members of with which the american people have entrusted us to help it congress will as it the practice when i was chairman of the subcommittee will be committed prevent accidents. our charge above all is to savel on request to testify as witnesses, especially if it's lives home. as long as president obama and i something to do with their own are on the job, we will never district. i ask unanimous concept to place

take the americans people's her statement and my statement in the record. trust lightly or their safetynt. >> without objection. those statements will be placed for granted. over in the record. >> i thank you. i have said over and over when >> just to clarify the issue, it comes to safety, we will note mr. nadler, chairman smith has take a backseat. decided that as a general policy, the judiciary committee and subcommittees have only one in service of this commitment we panel of witnesses for each hearing and that the panel consists of no more than four witnesses. the minority is able to select a launched to on president of the studies of unintended witness, and if they want to acceleration in toyota invite a member to testify, automobiles and america's fleet that's something they can do. the chairman did not refuse overall. ms. norton's ability to be here. we ask the straightforwardive she just had to be chosen as a witness. there may be times when the question can automotiveystems committee is not able to electronic system possibly cause accommodate every individual who wishes the testify, however, the record is always open for five unintended acceleration? legislative days for others to submit testimony if they wish. ioe study of unintended andunint this is a rule that is not meant to discriminate against any acceleration across america'stie particular potential witness, fleet continues. but to ensure that hearings are the other study, partnershipngid efficient enough to hear all the with the nasa engineering and witnesses and participate in

safety center has now come to a meaningful ways. >> mr. chairman? close. >> mr. nad leer? >> i'd like to comment on that. today, we can say clearly and i have never objected. some committeed in this congress affirmatively that nhtsa, have three and four panels. america's traffic safety i never object the and welcome organization, was right all this this comment has one page. along. it makes life easier. as we stated last year, there i'm not objecting to that now. however, when the minority has are only two real world causes only one witness, the practice of high-speed unintended of the democrats and republicans, and certainly acceleration in toyota's. that's not changed here, but in first, some toyota formats and certain circumstances, it presents a problem. trap drivers gas pedal while here's a bill dealing with their vehicles were in motion. taxpayer funding of everything i talked about, and the specific second, so-called sticky petals provision dealing with the district of columbia. made some toyota acceleration to say that the minority can too slow to release. have ms. nor ton as a witness to as a consequence, toyota has talk is to say we couldn't talk issued recalls and paid for about the basic provisions of repairs on nearly 8 million cars the bill, and if we choose to or trucks. have one witness on the provisions of the bill, then

and nhtsa has leveled record ms. norton is not here to talk wrecking civil penalties on the about her application to the district. company because it failed to that is why when i was chairman, respond to these critical safety if a member desired to testify, concerns in a sufficient, especially if there was sufficiently timely manner. something to do with his or her district, we would always our conclusion that toyotas provide a separate panel to that member and partisan purposes, problems were mechanical, our say, we'll have a democrat testify about something too, but conclusion is this. you allow that flexibility on toyotas problems were mechanic the general rule, and i hope in the future that flexibility is mechanical, not electrical. attended to. and it comes after one of the >> thank you, mr. nadler. most exhaustive, thorough, and if the witnesses can be seated. we have a distinguished panel of intensive research efforts ever witnesses today. each of the witnesses' written taken. staples are entered into the nhtsa's best and brightest record in entirety, and i ask engineers, our nation's leading electronic specialists, men and each witness summarize their testimony in five minutes or women who work with the space less. there is a timing light on your program rigorously examined nine table, and the light switches vehicles in which consumers from green to yellow, there's 1 minute to conclude testimony. reported unintended when the lite a red, it signals acceleration. they pored over more than

280,000 lines of software code your five minutes expired. the first witness is associate looking for potential flaws that director of the pro-life events, could initiate an unintended united states conference of acceleration incident. catholic bishops where he's they bombarded vehicles with worked for over 0 years. electromagnetic radiation to see his writings in public policy whether it could make electronic include contributions to the systems cause the cars they journal of law medicine, ethics control to gain speed. law review, ethics journal, and they, along with nhtsa, national catholic biquarterly, worked meticulously day and night to get to the bottom of and the may 2004 issue featured unintended acceleration. him as one the 12 experts whose when we talk about nhtsa's ideas are shaping the national safety first focus, this is what debate on the use and abuse of we mean. it's why we saw more voluntary biotechnology. our second witness is kathy automotive recalls during 2010 than in any previous year, a ruse, senior fellow for senior studies at the family research total of 20.3 million vehicles. counsel offices. she worked priestly as a it's why we received an all time high number of consumer research director and director for the national center for complaints, closely reviewing

children and families. each and every one and it's why we are proud to note she served we have worked the clock to keep as chief counsel of this very american drivers and passengers safe. so let's be clear. subcommittee. wired magazine called her one of the jury is back. the most influential opinion the verdict is in. shapers in the country. our third witness is professor there is no electronic-based sarah rosenbaum, chair of the cause for unintended high-speed department of health policy at acceleration in toyota's, george washington university school of public health and health services. period. and this morning -- excuse me, professor rosenbaum directs the policy program and the center for health services research and this afternoon with safety experts from nasa and nets are on hand to review the salient policy and holds departments in the schools of medicine and and supporting details with you. health sciences and law. to address nasa's findings we without objection, all members have mike kirsch, principal have five legislative days within which to submit materials engineer at nasa's engine and safety center who led this first of its kind study, to address for the record. it is the pratt of this sub-- practice of this committee to the thousands of complaints that swear in the witnesses. nhtsa received and the if you would stand and raise methodology with which nhtsa carried out the research we have your right hand. do you swear the testimony you

ronald medford, the agency's are about to give will be the deputy administrator. truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help to explain nhtsa and the you god? thank you. departments next step we have david strickland, nhtsa's please be seated. administrator. and, finally, we will be happy i now recognize our first to take questions after their witness for five minutes. presentations. sir, would you turn on that let me close by saying this. microphone. i am deeply, personally grateful >> is that it? >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to the dedicated safety to share our views. professionals at nasa and nhtsa this bill will ride into who conducted the study with permanent law a policy that is extraordinary rigor, immense strong and popular for over 35 years. skill, and unwavering attention, the federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion. and absolute integrity. that principle has been embodied in the height amendment and it was an enormous task, but numerous other provisions covering a wide range of they have set the standard for domestic and foreign programs thoroughness, and we are and consistently had the support of the american people. appreciative. so with that, mike, please even courts insisting on a constitutional right to abortion present nasa's information. have said that alleged right "implies no limitation on the >> thank you, mr. secretary, and authority of a state to make a thank you for the opportunity to valued judgment favoring discuss our work is such a broad

audience today. childbirth over abortion and to as the secretary said i'm a implement that judgment by the principal engineer in the nasa allocation of public funds." engineering and safety center. i work out of langley research the height amendment is an center in hampton, virginia, exercise of the legitimate and about four hours southeast of here. principle and jeers are adding abortion is different multidisciplined engineers and from other medical procedures provide project management for multidisciplined tasks in our because no other procedure organizations. involves the purposeful it like to start the termination of a potential presentation with a summary of life. in our view, the court's only our outcome. the bottom line is that nasa mistake there was potential analysis and testing did not life. in our view, unborn children are find evidence that malfunctioned in the electronic throttle alive until they are made control costs large unintended actually dead by abortion. while congress' policy has been acceleration's by described by consumer reports. consistent for decades, its implementation and practice has and now i'd like to discuss how been confusing and sometimes we arrived at our conclusions. sadly inadequate. gaps or loopholes are discovered in the patchwork of provisions deception i will provide a backup on a messaging and safety center. over the years highlighting the background and goals of the need for permanent and study. consistent policies across the the approach of the study, our federal government. last year, congress passed major technical evaluation strategy. health care reform legislation with at least four different

i'll give you a subset of finding and observations from policies on funding ranging for our final report, and then wrap it up with an executive summary. a ban on such funding to a potential mandate for such funding in another. if hr3 was enacted before that the nasa enduring and safety debate began, the debate would center was established in 2003 not have been about abortion. in response to the space shuttle a mar senior obstacle -- columbia accident. the goal was to enable complex a mar senior -- problem solving using experts anywhere in the world. a major obstacle would have been this approach allows the best engineers and their respective disciplines to apply their removed. hr3 would prevent problems and expertise in tough technical confusions on abortion funding problems. in future legislation. dna -- independent assessment federal health bills could be debated in terms to promote the since its inception. goal of universal health care instead of being mired in debates about one lethal procedure that most americans nasa begin discussions with nhtsa in march of 2010. know is not truly health care at the scope will determine if all. there were designed hr3 would code the amendment. vulnerabilities in the toyota electronic throttle control that could possibly cause unintended according to the appropriations acceleration that can be bills since 2004, and i would realistically expected to occur in consumers use of these say one of many conscious vehicles. provisions beginning with the two critical components of that church amendment in 1973 named

scope, vulnerabilities that lead after senator frank church of to unintended acceleration and idaho which tried to protect the our realistically expected to rights of health care providers occur in the consumers use. nasa formed a team with indian not to coerced to abortion. experts and systems, avionics, the amendment was recently reaffirmed unanimously as part software, electromagnetic of a house version of health interference and human factors. care reform legislation in some of the best engineers in congress waxman's health their respective disciplines from across the country, experts subcommittee approved by voice from nine of 10 nasa centers vote without dissent. sadly, it did not survive final where participating. we worked directly with nhtsa's legislation. federal agencies and state and automotive experts and this made for a very powerful team. local governments receiving we have some guiding questions federal funds do not during our study. discriminate against health care provider because they do not what specific conditions, both take part in abortions. internal and external are this is a modest bill that has necessary for the failure conditions to occur. are those conditions evident in the federal government essentially policing itself, that is government restraining reported cases. itself from coercing abortion what physical or electronic evidence did the failure that does not reach out into produce. private actions. what are the expected ranges in it's long overdue for the policy as well to receive a more secure severity. and could defend have any effect on any other interfaces such as the braking system. status. here, also, congress' policy has

been clear for 38 years, but the mechanism for achieving it has the nasa team received and suffered from draw backs and evaluated threesome outside loopholes including a failure nhtsa and outside nasa. even to specify where or how the nasa team evaluate consumer providers may go to have their reports and warnke returned data rights enforced. while studying how the electronic throttle control hr3 writes the essential works. we studied over 900 vehicle and questionnaires in detail and permanent law allows for read many more. we were looking for clues that would help characterize the reasonable remedies to ensure failure affects. the model year 2005 toyota camry compliance, a right to action, and designates the office of was identified as a vehicle to study in depth. civil rights to hear complaints can have the highest production as well. the need for more secure volume and high number of protection in the area is clear. the american civil liberties consumer reports in the malia 2005 was selected because it union, for example, has been urging the federal government to contained impose both from the force catholic and other hospitals to violate their moral earlier design and the later electronic throttle control convictions by providing what system. the aclu calls merge abortions from the nhtsa consumer reported a majority majority of the by which is means all abortions consumers described large throttle openings with degraded to serve women's life or braking and did not leave a health. they surely know as been trace or a diagnostic trouble interpreted by the federal code. therefore, the nasa study courts to be social or emotional focused on identifying failure well being. this is an obvious threat to modes that could result in large

throttle openings may not access to life affirming health generate diagnostic trouble code care. or leave a physical trace. catholic hospitals alone care for one in six patients united the technical strategy was in the united states each year analyzed with the system to and provide health care to more than 2,000 sponsors, systems, understand how it is supposed to work and then export how it facilities, and related might fail. organizations. they have been shown to provide we were given unrestricted higher quality and more access to all toyota proprietary design details, including effective care including care for women than anyone else in engineering schematics, circuit board layouts and software for the various studies. if congress wants to expand source code. we had ready access to toyota rather than eliminate health engineers both in the u.s. and in japan any time we had care including life saving questions. health care for women and particularly for the poor and the nasa team assembled and tested critical electronic underserved, it should be throttle control components in concerned about any efforts that the system include the would attack the rights of these accelerator pedal, the throttle providers and undermine their body and electronic control continue ain't to serve the module to understand how that common good. just to give short answers to system might fail. disallow the team to develop an questions raised about hr3, with empirical understanding of the system in the lab which coupled with design information enabled longer answers in the prepared text, hr3 does not eliminate a detailed understanding of the entire system. private coverage for abortion, the nasa software team modeled but allows such coverage when

the code, ran the code on purchased without federal simulators and subjected the subsidy. code to automate code checkers. it does not create an unprecedented policy of denying tax benefittings to abortion, the nasa team that access to vehicles purchased by nhtsa from but follows the recently enacted consumers with a sentence of affordable care act in this unintended acceleration, and regard that had democratic these vehicles were examined for support. it is that act which said use of signs of failure and were also used to validate our tax credits for abortion is, understanding of the system and to characterize the effect of "federal funding of abortion these failures that were induced that simply follows the precedent." in the system. this bill does not depart from the nasa team also perform electromagnetic interference testing on these same vehicles press sent day -- obtained from consumers that have filed consumer reports with precedent. nhtsa. in this regard as well, it follows a policy, actively i will roll into the findings supported by the democratic now. leadership in the last congress, and stated no less than three our first finding, there are safety features designed into the system to guard against times in the affordable care act. large unintended acceleration finally, it's conscious clause from failures. does not place women's lives at multiple independent safety risk. what places women's lives at features include detecting failures and initiating safe modes such as home mode and to risk as we recently learned from cut strategies. the story of the doctor in there were no electrical philadelphia that he's only the tip of the iceberg, but what failures in the electronic

throttle control that impacted the braking system era however places women's lives at risk is pumping the brakes at full the abortion industry itself. throttle will cause loss of as well as that same industry's vacuum assist. attacks on the continue the this effect would be seen if you viability on the most effective had entrapped pedal. this mode is not unique to providers of life saving care in toyota vehicles. the world. there were no failures found in my prepare tax adviser has the software that would unilaterally cause unintended details on these points, and i'd acceleration. there were no credible be happy to answer questions. vulnerabilities identified from electromagnetic interference testing that would cause unintended acceleration. >> thank you. we now recognize ms. ruse for five minutes. >> thank you for inviting me to provide testimony this morning, to create large unintended this afternoon on the no acceleration, two independent taxpayer funding for abortion panel signals need to falsely act, and it's nice to be back. indicate that the panel has been pressed. a little less work here, but not this requires two independent much. 35 years ago, something of a con failures that the failure detection system would not consensus was reached between detect. those who support legal abortion these days must be in precise and those who oppose it. ranges in the correct circuit in whatever our differences on the underlying question of legality, the correct time sequence. if you fail to meet any of these americans came together, restrictive conditions, the supported a proposition that the

vehicle will generate a federal government should not diagnostic trouble code. we would expect to see signs of subsidize abortion. that consensus took the form of this failure in warranty claims the height amendment in 1976 if this type of failure were which limited abortion funding occurring. our review of warranty data did appropriated under labor hhs not indicate an elevated occurrence of this diagnostic where abortion was necessary to trouble code relative to the save a mother's life and later number of reports of unintended in cases in rape and incest. accelerations. the supreme court upheld the the nasa team did perform constitutionality of the height destructive analysis from a amendment, and in so doing, made failed pedal to the consumer vehicle. they had a vehicle that had the a sharp distinction between abortions and other medical check engine light come on and we found an electrical short between the two pedal signals. procedures. in the words of the court, no this failure mode combined with other procedure requires the driver input could cause the throttle to jump slightly your purposeful ending of a life. however in all cases releasing it is understandable that it is the accelerator pedal stop the controversial in the united states and that's beyond effect and vehicle braking was dispute. for these reasons, it is not affected. and although the vehicle would appropriate that abortions not operate, it was not considered be subsidized in any way by the drivable. for cases of this failure mode federal government. were found in the review of the the no taxpayer funding for vehicle under questionnaires and abortion act implements this legal and political consensus on warnke returned data, and in all a government wide basis.

cases the check engine light came on and the consumer had the over the years, the hyde vehicle prepared -- repair. more recent pedal design from amendment and others like it are 2000 later were found to guard included in various against this type of failure. appropriation bills renewed an annually by congress. what is lacking is a single i'm going to shift to simple law prohibiting government funding of abortion observations. observations are conclusions across the board wherever that are sort outside the scope of the study or are federal dollars are extended. unsubstantiated by evidence. my first observation it was we taxpayers paid for 425 absurd that failures of safety abortions in fiscal year 2008, critical systems and electronic throttle control do not provide and 220 last year. the same driver information as failures in safety critical without the hyde amendment and braking system. this is also not unique to patchwork or other writers, that toyota vehicles. number could skyrocket to as for example, failures in the brake system get a unique red many as 675,000 warning light while a generic check engine light occurs for government-financed abortions failed in the electronic control every year according to the system. the same check engine light cbo. illuminates for a loose gas cap. now, two measures passed in the last congress also threaten to diagnostic trouble codes were intended for a mission control and are not mandated for safety escalate the number of government-funded abortions critical failures. dramatically. the dc appropriations bill it was also absurd to vehicles opened the door to federal that are offered with the funding for any and every

abortion in the district of failure of susceptible to the effects of the second failure. columbia, and the patient no evidence was found that the protection and affordable care failures occurred in vehicles with reported unintended act, known as obamacare, acceleration. authorized federal funding for to summarize, nasa detailed elective abortions directly and through private health insurance analysis and testing did not plans. a detailed accounting of the find evidence that malfunctions in electronic throttle controls abortion subsidies in obamacare is included in my written caused large unintended accelerations as described i testimony. because these programs are directly appropriated and not some consumer reports. nasa found a way that electronic subject to further appropriation throttle could fit with combined under labor hhs, they are not subject to the hyde amendment. driver input can cause the throttle to jump but the failure as for the executive order rate is very low and it leaves evidence to reoccurrence. we also felt ways that purporting to nullify abortions electronic throttle control can in obamacare, last month, former fail in very small throttle openings up to five degrees. white house chief of staff our detailed study can't say it's impossible, but they so the admitted that, "he came up with testing and analysis performed an idea for an executive order," we find that malfunctions in electronics are an unlikely cause of large unintended so that the restrictions would acceleration. now i'd like to turn over to ron not exist by law. baker, deputy administrator for on this, he and i are on

agreement with each other and the national highway traffic also with planned parenthood who safety administration. >> thanks, my. good afternoon, everyone. issued a statement calling the first let me thank mike and the executive order a symbolic team at nasa for all the hard work that they have done for us gesture. here at nhtsa on the issue of it's axiomatic when governments toyota electronic throttle subsidize conduct, it encourages control system for it. vulnerabilities. our tax code is filled with our focus at the national examples. highway traffic safety administration have worked very the supreme court acknowledged closely with them over the last the truth of this proposition in several months, and i have to the context of abortion. say that we could not have had a more intelligent, dedicated or most abortions in america are capable group of people working purely elective. on this issue. ..omen with healthy babies according to the alan and i think nasa's conclusion good marker institute. bears repeating. in light of this fact the there is no electronic-based abortion funding question is quite literally a matter of life calls for unintended high-speed acceleration in toyota's. and death for many thousands of before we enlisted nasa's help, american children. last year we already had to now, president obama has urged evaluate potential causes of americans to find common ground on the controversial issue of reported unintended acceleration for several years. details are at work include the abortion. americans have come together.

research and potential causes of 67 percent of us, and what may unintended acceleration are in be the only the report we are releasing truly bipartisan agreement possible. today. we identified to vehicle-based whatever our differences on the mechanical causes of unintended issue of abortion, we can agree that the federal government acceleration in toyota vehicles. should not subsidize it. the first one, pedal entrapment, this is the common ground issue occurs when the accelerator on abortion in america today. pedal becomes trapped in a h.r. 3 would make that common depressed position by an all weather format. ground statutory law. did you. the second, sticky accelerator >> thank you, mrs. ruse. pedal, can hold accelerated in a we would now recognize professor depressed position or caused to return slowly after the driver takes their foot off the pedal. sara rosenbaum for five m >> thank you very much for at our urging toyota recalls inviting me today to appear before you. i would like to make three nearly 8 million vehicles that could potentially have been points in my testimony. affected by these failures. i have submitted a longermitte statement for the record. rc the first task to doo with a doi to make sure the scope of the baseline from which we areich ea pedal entrapment, sticky pedal working inr considering h.r.3.3. recalls was broad enough to the second has to do with theitt address all the vehicle-based changes in the bill. bill causes of unintended acceleration known to toyota, we the third has to do with theo de impact of these changes. change. analyze tens of thousands of toyota documents. insofar as the baseline is

we did not find any previously concerned, i'd think it is very unknown potential causes of important to understand what the affordable care act does and unintended acceleration in any of the data. does not do. the affordable care act where tax credits are concerned allows we turn to her own databases and women to obtain tax credits, to scrutinize consumer complaints use those tax credits to buy and toyota warranty data in insurance products and if they great detail. choose to use their own money to not surprisingly, we found that publicity surrounding our buy additional coverage for investigations, the recalls and abortion. if they make that choice and use congressional hearings on the their additional funds, their subject played a major role in own funds to buy abortion the volume of complaints coverage the tax credits remain received. completely available for the you can see on the chart in back abortion product. i emphasize this because it of me that our toyota complaint underscores the unprecedented volume spike in march 2004 when nature of the bill. the bill would actually for the we first opened a widely first time move the hyde publicized investigation for the electronic throttle control. amendment far beyond where we have known it for the past 30 complaints ramped up again in years directly into the tax september 2009 through the end of march 2010. code. its reach in the tax cut is extremely broad under this bill. it reaches the deductions, that time period witnessed the fatal crash near san diego in

late august 2009. credits, advanced tax credits, even when they have to be repaid at florette entrapment recall in at a later date. early october 2009, an expansion it reaches held savings accounts, flexible spending of the recall as well as the accounts, money that we as sticky pedal recall in january individuals but aside for our of last year. and, finally, the congressional medical care needs. it even potentially reaches hearings shortly thereafter. employers and employees we receive the majority of the deductions for insurance because complaints after the recall and of a critical ambiguity in the almost half of those came in drafting of the bill. it is unclear, actually, where favor and march of 2010. the bill stops. the impact of the bill in so far i want to draw your attention to some important numbers in our as tax policies are concerned is enormous. vehicle complaint database. the first fallout is on the irs of the 9698 unintended which heretofore has not played a role in implementation of the acceleration complaints, hyde amendment. 1998-2010 model year vehicles, the irs is going to have to implement extremely complex only 3054 were unintended provisions of the tax code that acceleration complaints about regulate tax favored a health toyota vehicles. in other words, about two-thirds benefit plans and medical care of the unintended acceleration payments. complaints to nhtsa spanned the we are going to need a rash of entire automotive fleet. implementing policies, the internal revenue service to find

unintended acceleration is not exclusive to toyotas. a rate, a potentially and forcible rape, incest, the vast majority of the potentially incest involving minors as opposed to not involving minors, physical unintended acceleration complaints of toyota vehicles conditions endangering life and involved incidents with the the spoken dangers -- conditions vehicle was stationary for traveling at very low speeds, that don't endanger life. the irs would have to tell us and the driver claimed that the what evidentiary standards would be required for individual vehicles suddenly accelerated claimants and employers who and the brakes didn't work. choose to buy products or make we found when the complaint expenditures that wander into alleged that the brakes didn't these areas. there will have to be exchanged work, or that the incident began review process. for example, is a spontaneous when the driver stepped on the break, what most likely happened abortion or miscarriage an allowable expenditures under off was pedal misapplication. its fund? the driver stepped on the gas rather than the break or in does it cross the line? addition to the break. what will be the appeals procedures? how will plans be allotted -- audited to make sure coverage stops at the elbow points under the statute? field inspections of vehicles the fallout on plans is equally involved in unintended acceleration incidents during 2010 supports this analysis. serious. we inspected 58 vehicles. my own analysis, both of the spill and previous spills that 18 were excluded for various reasons, including the lack of attempted to do that similar event data recorders. things in terms of the impact on

but in the remaining 40? is no vehicle-based defect cou be i ..use of the insurance industry leads me to conclude that what we will those crashes from 39 of them. see, in fact, is a complete and for one crash the result exodus of health plans from the occurred because of pedal market of abortion coverage. i realize that maybe the long entrapment. term goal here, but, of course, does vehicle inspections which included objective evidence from because there are not a lot, but a small number of very serious event data recorders indicated medically indicated abortions, drivers were applying the accelerator and not applying the this would be an enormous brake, are not applying it until problem. the third fallout is on the the last second or so before the women themselves, not only because they can no longer get crash. coverage for abortions that are medically indicated, but because above and beyond field inspections we obtained 20 the typical practice in the toyota vehicles for extensive health plan is to exclude not testing and examination of only specific procedures. factors that can contribute to here it would be required under unintended acceleration. law. we chose 11 vehicles that had but follow-on procedures and not been involved in unintended treat as related to the original excluded at treatment. acceleration incidents, and nine complaint vehicles that had been so to use the example, a woman involved in recorded unintended who needs an abortion because she has eclampsia, stroke-level acceleration incidents. we could not find any previously unknown defects in these 20 hypertension who then needs vehicles and we determined the subsequent treatment for braking system for capable of hypertension could find that she, in fact, is disqualified

overcoming all levels of acceleration, including wide for treatment for that open for model. hypertension because the hypertension and rose as the with this report we have a result of a condition that led tremendous body of work analyzed to an excluded abortion. there is no stopping point. and verified and compiled all i would finally note that with potentinined >> separately, we enlisted the the conscious clause provisions national academy of sciences to of this law to be enacted it would recommend the first grade examine the broad subject of unintended acceleration across the entire automotive industry unraveling and the absolute duty on the part of hospitals to and the safety implications of electronic control systems that provide a live-saving treatment are increasingly common in motor regardless of the underlying medical condition. vehicle. we expect to see recommendations from the national academy of sciences later this year on how >> thank you, professor. thank all of you for your to use research and rule making testimony, and i will now begin and enforcemented authority to the questioning by recognizing express any such implications myself for five minutes. identified by the panel. i'll start with you, mr. richard finally, i'd like to turn now to doerflinger. absent the enactment of h.r. 3, the administrator who's going to what does a health care provider risk if the provider of base his report on potential future work, or her conscience and refuses to david strickland. >> thank you for being here, an perform an abortion? >> i don't want to overstate good afternoon. this because in my view h.r. 3 thank you, ron. as you heard, nasa's report on basically codifies and makes

the unintended acceleration of more permanent protection that vehicles represents months of has long been in law. the problem is that -- this was exhaustive work by nasa and traffic administration safety illustrated in one case in new engineers. york very recently. nasa delivered outstanding work, the existing conscious laws are and like the secretary, i want not very clear on what it is you to personally thank mike kersh do to actually protect your rights. gainers by the name of the carlo and his team for their at mount sinai medical center dedication to this project. recently found that although she i want to thank dan smith, the was forced to participate in a senior associate add administrator for vehicle safety late-term abortion after having and his team for their her statement accepted by the leadership and tireless efforts. initial -- initially by the the nasa findings, observations hospital staff that she would not be required to assist in and recommendations couped with these abortions. other work points to several she was forced anyway. she was given the job of actions that we can take now reassembling the body parts on the table in the operating room to make sure they got all the tolessen the risk -- pieces of the baby and has had lessen the risk of unintended nightmares ever since. acceleration in the entire fleet. it suggests longer term areas had a terrible time. she was told she would be fired where we can strength ben the if she did not do this. what she found was when she went agency's eighty to address the safety of electronic control to court, because the conscious, the federal conscious laws don't systems.

short term, we will consider at have anything in them that say you have a private right of action to go to court she had no least three rule makes, first to recourse. all she could do is file a complaint with the department of require brake override systems, health and human services, and a second, to standardize the year-and-a-half after the operation of keyless ignition abortion she still has not heard from them. systems, and third, to require the cases in which there the installation of event data continue to be efforts to get recorders in all passenger governmental bodies to discriminate against pro-life vehicles. first, brake override systems health care providers occur help prevent or lessen every week. there was a recent case here in unintended acceleration my hometown, montgomery county incidents by assigning priority to the braking system over the in which holy cross hospital throttle. seems to be on course approved as noted in this report, brake by the state of maryland to override systems, and i quote build a new hospital in northern montgomery county because it had "provide a broad over arking -- it made the best case for defense over unintended engine being able to provide excellent care to the women and men of the power from a wide range of county. there was a serious effort fight causes not just unintended acceleration." abortion activists to say you must not give this contract to second, keyless systems can holy cross hospital, but someone exacerbate incidents if, for else, even if it did the general example, the dliefer cannot health care proposal is not as quick -- good because if you give it to driver cannot quickly shut off holy cross he will not have the engine. access to abortions through the

third, crash investigators can hospitals up there. mine data recorder for incidents these efforts to discriminate irrelevant to unintended against health care providers occur all the time. we are trying to make sure the acceleration that result in protection is actually there and crashes. working. for the longer term, we'll begin broad research on the >> mr. doerflinger there was a reliability of electronic controversy in 2007-8 concerning control systems so that we can the concerns of conscious continue to ensure future protections for health care generations of vehicles are workers, specifically changes in the ethics guidelines. safe. with vehicles becoming increasingly reliant on electronic control systems, our changes in the certifying criteria for the certifying knowledge in this area is agency of ob/gyn, that is abog. critical. we will also continue to make sure our staff continues to be all of these acronyms. well informed about emerging the american board of obstetrics technologies and that we hire and gynecology. staff with the needed it calls into confusion whether it can result in the expertise. we will give full consideration to nasa's findings and certification, ending their career. would you explain this observations incoming their suggestion that we improve dash controversy and have led to the regulations put in place at the board warnings for safety end of the bushes ministers critical vehicle issues and that in? we evaluate vulnerabilities in >> yes, the ethics committee companion came out and 2007. software designs, and on nasa's despite all the controversy it

was reaffirmed by the recommendations, we'll look to organization in 2010. other industries for best practicing in managing safety what really sent a chill of fear across many ob/gyn throughout the country he did not perform abortions is that very often the ethical principles articulated by a acog become a standard for certification by the partner organization, the american board of ob/gyn. this was one of the reasons why the bush administration decided to try to clarify regulations who -- to uphold these providers rights and regulations, which the obama administration has proposed to rescind. but the acog document is breathtaking in its disregard for any ob/gyn that does not want to do abortion. they say that these ob/gyn must nonetheless be willing to refer for abortions. if there is no one to refer them to they must do than themselves.

they even say that if you are an ob/gyn that does not do abortions he should make sure you look it your practice near an abortion provider to make sure it is easy for everybody to get from you tell the abortion. so you have -- one talks about the tail wagging the dog. this is the tip on the tale of the dog wagging the entire health care system saying people have to disrupt their lives and livelihood and change even with a practice to make sure they are as close as possible to an abortionist. >> i'm not going to try to get a question in here. my time is gone. i will yield to the distinguished gentleman for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. ruse, you take the position the reduction of taxation is a form of government subsidy. this is flatly at odds with what the organization of family research council stated in the context of tuition for religious schools. if it isn't -- where you said there is no government spending

on religion here, and people's private money that they sent to various organizations. isn't it federal funding when people used to have it isn't federal funding when people use their private money at a parochial school and see the tax deduction or credit for doing so. how is it when people use their private money to pay for their medical care or insurance coverage? >> as a general proposition tax reduction is a form of government subsidy. >> and bike tax subsidy you meaa reduction. >> that's right. i will direct it to come and get to these addition, if you need it, but obamacare itself makes this distinction. it calls tax credits for buying insurance on state exchanges, it calls those a creature of federal funding. >> i'm asking you, it seems inconsistent. either it is or isn't. how can you say that for religious schools it is not and

for health insurance it is? how do you make that distinction? >> well, i appreciated your opening statement where you said it is our money, and that is what the republicans often say. i think it -- >> in which case he should not be what you are arguing with respect to health care. it is our money. if it is our money than it is not a government subsidy. as you said in the -- as the organization said in the arizona case. if it is not our money and it is the government subsidy, both things can't be true. >> i was a your argument is with president obama. >> that may be, but i'm asking you how you justify saying it is a government subsidy here but not their? which is it and why is it different? >> as a general proposition tax reduction as a form of government subsidy, as a general proposition. >> but not with effect to religious schools? okay. mr. doerflinger. let me ask you, as a general proposition government tax exemptions, tax subsidies are

attacks -- what he called government spending? you said it was -- what did you say as a general proposition it is a form of government subsidy. if tax exemptions are a form of government subsidy how do we justify tax exemptions for the catholic church, the jewish synagogue, the protestant church, or any other -- >> the first reason why churches are not taxable is simply that they don't make a profit. nonprofit organizations. >> wait a minute. they are exempt. what about the individual who gives money to the church? that is not taxable. isn't that under your definition a government subsidy for the church? >> if the federal government has made a policy decision a very long time ago that charities and churches -- >> it's not a question of policy

decision. if it is a public to the church is unconstitutional because of the establishment clause. so it's a tax credit to the individual to reading to the church is not a government subsidy in these things aren't government subsidies. if it is then you have an establishment problem with the first amendment. >> it is not unconstitutional to give public subsidies to a charitable or church organization as long as you are serving the legitimate and secular purposes. >> excuse me. wait a minute. we are not talking about that. we are not talking about that. our policy, we -- if you give -- i'm sorry, if i give a contribution to my synagogue, it is not for general purposes, but religious purposes. >> right. >> and that is -- and i take a tax deduction for that. under your definition that is a government subsidy of the

synagogue where church and it should be there for a violation of the first amendment. >> that is not my definition, sir. i disagree with your basic premise which is -- >> all right. >> all of these things are the same and it went think. >> are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. other a tax exemption is a government subsidy, or it is not. if it is not then the whole point -- excuse me. i am talking. the whole point of this bill is wrong. if it is a government subsidy, then this bill may be right, but then we have to not just a question, but tax subsidies, government subsidies, of religious institutions are probably unconstitutional as violations of the establishment clauses of the first amendment. professor rosenbaum, do you agree with ms. ruse position? >> i do not for the reasons stated in my written testimony. i find section 3032 ambiguous. it specifically refers to any

deduction test covering not only medical care but health benefit plans. i think that the ambiguity is critical on this point. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you. just to clarify the point, both tax preferred status and appropriations have been recognized in the courts as being allowed for a public good, and i think that the consideration here is that abortion is not a public good. it really doesn't need to reach to mr. nablus' point, which i think he has some balance to his point, it does not matter if it is a tax-deferred status are not whether government should still have the right to shape the tax code in favor of a public good or against something that they consider not a public good. with that, i recognize the distinguished cinnamon from indiana before his questions.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. let me also join the ranking member in congratulating you on your appointment. mr. chairman of the subcommittee, i think you know that i can think of no one in the newly minted majority in congress who i think is more appropriate to lead the subcommittee that you, and i found your opening remarks powerful and eloquent, and i wish to offer you my congratulations as i do to all the members and the majority of the minority on the subcommittee. thanks for holding this hearing. i appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion of h.r. 3, and i commend congressman chris smith for his on this issue. as our witness has testified with the passage of the patient protection and affordable care act, the need for permanent, government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding for abortion has probably never been more important to be sadly, congress last year traded in

30 years of testing for protections for taxpayers for a piece of paper signed by the most pro-abortion president since roe v wade. and the need to pass such legislation, i believe, is self evident when we think about the extraordinary subsidies, both direct and indirect in the patient affordable care act for patients across government spending. let me say i also think now is the time to end taxpayer funding, not also -- not only for abortion, but also for abortion providers. that is why i have offered a bill that would end all title ten family planning funding to abortion providers. specifically planned parenthood is sadly back in the news today. a new undercover video has been released showing multiple

violations by planned parenthood in police in new york to go along with the scandalous videos from planned parenthood clinics in new jersey and virginia. the videos show planned parenthood in please prison lovably advising an undercover sex trafficker on how to secure secret abortions, as did the testing and contraception for child prostitutes. i have to tell you, mr. chairman as a father of two teenage girls , i cannot be dispassionate about video evidence of individuals facilitating the abuse of minor young women in this way. we have introduced this legislation, and along with h.r. 3 i hope that the congress will take up the title to an abortion provider prohibition act. the planned parenthood received

over $3,603,000,000 in taxpayer dollars principally through tettleton and in 2008 they performed 328,008 abortions with more than a million abortions performed annually in this country, abortion is a heart-breaking billion dollar industry. it mostly benefits planned parenthood. it planned parenthood is far and away the largest abortion provider and the largest recipient of federal funding under title ten, and i believe the time has come for that to end. with that set let me direct a question to misses ruse, his testimony i found compelling as i do appreciate her on this issue across the country. it ..

>> i think the word win fall is accurate. last year, planned parenthood committed 324,000 abortions in the united states of america. if you open the doors to federal funding, federal subsidies of abortion in a way that obamacare will do it, there's no question

the chief recipient is showing itself to be internally corrupt and unable to handle finances at the minimum given what's happening in california, and more than that, aiding and abetting in the abuse of minors as these videos come out one after another. incidentally, those who try to minimize planned parenthood's, the expose on planned parenthood as a single situation or one bad egg, i just want to remind this committee that these videos, these unrecovered videos have been coming out for the last four years. they haven't got as much play as recently, and they come from 10 states, alabama, nernlings, new york, virginia. it was suggested there was a system-wide problem with planned parenthood, and they do not deserve $1 million a day of taxpayer dollars. >>y, thank you. this --

why, thank you. this hearing is on hr3 with funding for abortion, and express how the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into organizations indirectly support the abortion efforts of planned parenthood, but i look forward to that hearing perhaps in another committee, and i commend the members of this panel for your thoughtful comments. i yield back. >> i thank you as always. >> i hate to disagree with you, but i only suggest for the public good that private insurance is providing health insurance and the incentive is

to een courage employers to provide health insurance to everyone possible, but if i can, i guess the fair question to your points is how far does this go with -- since you're the one testifying, i think it's fair, with your particular beliefs, i know the church, i'm not sure about you, believes the use of modern birth control, the pill, is morally wrong, so would you then say we don't want to use tax subsidies or you could funding to provide to health insurance companies that provide birth control pills for women? >> i think it's a very different moral issue, congressman. >> it's still the same directive from the catholic church, suspect it? >> yes, but we're not against

federal funding of abortion because catholic moral teaching is against it. we're against abortion because of the violation of the most fundamental right. it is something rejected not by only catholics, but other religion and the hippocratic oath that gave rise to medicine in the profession. it's the considered moral judgment of millions of americans who have no particular religious affiliation at all and has been seen in the past as a crime, and, of course, today there is at least one abortion procedure that is a federal crime, and it is the killing of children who in any other context are seen even in federal law as persons who have a right to be protected from lethal harm through the unborn victim of violation. another arbitrary exception of abortion -- >> embryonic stem cell research. >> uh-huh.

>> do you believe cang should impose -- congress should impose this? >> i think that's a -- well, let's say it's a very far-fetched thing to have happened. >> you don't think people's lives are saved with embryonic stem research? >> i'm sorry? >> you don't think people's lives have been saved or can be saved because of embryonic stem cell research? >> it's far too uncontrollable, causes for too many tumors when used in animals. you can't tell what they're going to do once they're in a human body. i think it's an imaginary question, but let me answer. i understand what we're concerned about here is the use of tax dollars, tax subsidies, tax support for something that actually takes life. we are against federal funding

of embryonic stem cell research itself when it involves the taking of life of embryonic human beings. in some states, pen is one, the killing of an embryo for experimental purposes is a felony, and yet the federal government is funding it. >> let me turn to the professor. it appears the issue is primarily whether or not this is federal funding, but can you elaborate to a certain extent on the policy implications once it is decided that, i guess it was the supreme court versus the tax commission that the court upheld, once that's crossed, what are the other implications legally for non-for-profits and not just religious? >> well, i think they are as will already been said by

mr. nadler, the conversion of what has been tax advantaged private spending which is understood in society as private spending that is simply not subjected to certain otherwise applicable taxes into an overt public financing of certain activities has profound implications. it has profound implications both for the extent to which has been noted, certain recipients of those exemptions are suddenly receiving federal funding, but also it has implications for the kinds of conditions that can be attached to entities that do receive exemptions. it becomes a much more government intrusive process in which government is setting the terms and conditions as is the

case with hr3 as a receipt for a tax exemption. in this case, you can only receive favorable tax treatment if you do not seek or provide medically necessary care or certain types of care. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman, and now recognize the former chairman of this committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to again commend you. i know you're going to be a great chair of the committee, and did have the honor to serve for six years, and i'm going to a committee where we knew that the problems would be a little bit easier to solve. i know this is a controversial committee. it always has been, and we're ensured of success on the committee i'm chairing. i'm chairing the foreign chair cheat on the middle east, so that's going to be interesting going guard. >> after this, it'll be easy, won't it? >> i think so. that's right. this hearing itself is showing

evidence of that. you know, i couldn't help -- it was mentioned, ms. ruse mentioned there were 329,000 abortions committed by planned parenthood. i happen to represent the first district of ohio, the largest entity, government entity, and abortions in this country almost wipe out the population of cincinnati every year, and it's just amazing when you think how many little boys and little girls don't ever experience the life we've all had the opportunity to experience because of this procedure which is still allowed in this country. i was struck again going back to my district in cincinnati. i was reading the story of the "cincinnati inquirer" about a

doctor in west philadelphia, and the headline was house of horrors, and it certainly was, but i would argue that what goes ob in these abortion clinics all over the country is certainly houses of horror, and we shouldn't be funding that. we shouldn't be funding it at all as far as i'm concerned, but certainly not with tax dollars of people who don't want their tax dollars going to carry out that type of behavior. talking about that doctor, i was -- according to the grand jury report on the activities that were conducted by him at his clinic, it was called the women's medical society in west philadelphia. on page four of the report, it says, and i'm quoting this, "when you perform late term abortions by inducing labor, you get babies, live, scream

babies. by 24 weeks, most babies born early will survive with the appropriate medical care, but that was not what the women's medical society was about. he had a simple solution for unwanted babies. he killed them. he didn't call it that. he called it ensuring fetal demise. the way he ensured fetal dmeez was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's nick and cutting the spinal cord. he called that snipping. over the years, there were hundreds of snippings, and i would ask you profession rosenbaum, do you think american taxpayers should have to pay for this kind of activity? >> mr. chabot, i don't really see the connection between what is absolutely a terrible,

terrible story and the tax financed issues here. >> let me draw the connection then for you. if he was doing this outside the womb, if he had snipped those spinal cords within the womb, that's perfectly legal in cr country, isn't it? should we use tax dollars to pay for that type of activity? >> i think your question suggests that this bill involves tax dollars. the height amendment is a very clear -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i have a short period of time here. a couple other short comments. let me ask the other two witnesses. is that legal? would that be legal say in the

first trimester, third trimester, that activity in abortion clinics, or the restricks to -- restrictions to kill a child in the womb? >> yes. the only procedure that's not legal is the partial birth abortion procedures. unless he followed the steps outlined, and my reading of the grand jury report was he was not doing, taking those steps, and what he was doing would be perfectly legal if it was done just before delivering the baby. >> i see my time's expired, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. it should be noted the gentleman was a prime sponsor of the partial birth abortion and will be a hero to me because of that. i yield to mr. conyers, former chairman of the committee, and we're going to call him ranking member for now. >> thank you very much.

my congratulations. i could observe that the view isn't quite as good in the room from this end as it used to be when we were on the other side, but i'll get used to it again, i also wanted to welcome mike pence to the committee and appreciate his coming aboard. what has gone against the planned parenthood people, i have yet to discover. they've done, i thought, a pretty good job, but he is bound and determined to defund them and i think do a great disservice to a very effective organization that's brought help

and assistance to women over the years. now, mr. chairman, we talked about the fact that eleanor holmes norton was not permitted to testify. was the author of this bill prevented from being a witness here today too? >> mr. conyers, that was discussed earlier. the author of the bill could have been a witness here if they had been chosen as the democratic witness. it was just the committee structure of the panel that's here for witnesses. >> you didn't want the author of the bill to testify? >> i didn't have a problem with that whatsoever, sir. >> well, he asked -- did he ask to testify? >> i'm not sure he asked to testify. i think mrs. norton asked to testify, and if she wanted to be the democrat witness, that would

have been all right. >> uh-huh, but the author of the bill who i presume is here today, we're in the first few week of the hearing, of the 112th session, and this is a major piece of legislation, and he's not here. >> mr. conyers, the author made the decision not to testify. we don't know the reasons. >> okay. well, let me ask ms. ruse this question. the title of this bill is no taxpayer funding for abortion act. do you know of any federal funding for abortion that goes on in this country presently? >> the potential funding of abortion and the potential

subsidies of abortion are numerous. the debates last fall over the birth amendment opening up military facilities for abortions to be done then is impacted by hr3. that's still an open question. we may see a reversal under that policy, and under the clinton administration, that was reversed and opened up to elective abortions on military hospitalsment -- hospitals. that's one example. >> and you object to that? >> that's right. >> if you knew of any others, you'd object to them as well? >> yes, october to the funding -- object to the funding of abortions sponsored with federal funds, that's right. >> you think this is an appropriate title of a bill then, no taxpayer funding for abortion act because women in

service may be able or might be able to get an abortion? >> yes, that's one example of -- >> well, that's the only example that i know of, but if you know of others, let me know. >> well, the district of columbia appropriations bill last congress also opened up federal funding for abortions in the district of columbia, so that is currently an area that needs to be corrected by hr3, by employing the long standing principle. the district of columbia often does have that appropriations right or applied. it was just taken off just a few months ago, so that would be corrected by hr3. >> well, all right, it's my impression that this is a misleading title of the bill, not federal funds, dc taxpayer

funds, not funds from fed treasury. well, that's just a staffer. i mean, -- [laughter] you're an expert witness. let me turn to another consideration. as my time -- has my time expired? okay. well, you're so kind. one final question, chairman, and thank you. section 311 of this bill protects individuals who refuse to provide abortion services. as i read it, ms. ruse, this would mean someone who refused to provide life saving treatment and allowed a woman to die as a result might escape any

consequences if that were to happen. is that your understanding? >> no, not at all. what this section of hr3 does is simply stand with the long standing principle of the church amendment. that's been around for 38 years, and in that history of the church amendment, we've never seen a situation where women were dying at the hands outside an abortion clinic because they were not able to have an abortion. now, i'd also like to mention that it's never been used to require an emergency provision of an abortion. that's the emergency treatment act. the only additional new part of it is allowing remedies, allowing someone who has been discriminated against, like this nurse, to have a cause of action, so that's the new part, but the consciousling itself is

just quantifying this long standing policy. >> i'd like to have unanimous consent to put in some articles from the nation magazine, the new york review books as well. i thank you. >> without objection. thank you, mr. conyers, and i now recognized the distinguished gentleman from iowa. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i welcome you also as chairman of the committee. i've had the privilege to serve on this committee now for my 9th year. i'm happy to see you here with a gavel and current and former colleague mr. chabot back on the committee. i look back at the debates here in the committee when we were dealing with the terminology called dilation and distractions, a nice term nor partial birth abortion, and steve laid that out in a good and clear way, and it was one

significant piece of progress this congress made, and there haven't been many over the last decade or so. that was dilation and extraction, and now we have federal funding for dilation and evacuation which i have asked them to put this poster up here so we know what we're talking about. i recognize there's experts on the law here, but this is human life. i ask that each of you reviewed the process that i ask that you familiar with this, and ms. rose? >> my answer's the same. >> you are familiar with the procedure where the tool is used to dismember the baby, and pull the parts of the baby apart and

as they count the pieces up piece by piece if it looks like you get down to the point where often the head is so well formed and the bone is so structured it has to be crushed and then pulled out, collapsed, and then sanctioned to make sure the bone fragments don't bring about the high degree of hemorrhaging, and for me, i can't see much difference between partial birth abortion and dismemberment abortion. we're here talking about legalities, a tax policy that might be prohibitive for us to prohibit federal funding for a procedure like this, this dismemberment abortion. i know the physicians, but profession, you have not addressed this from the standpoint of the complications of the taxes, and i just ask should government fund a procedure like this? >> again, i would have to

respond that i am not prepared today to answer this question. i was focused on a bill that is dealing with what i don't consider to be government funding. >> but, professor, you understand that -- >> if i could just finish. as far as i can tell, there's no public funding for this procedure right now except in the situations in which one of the three very limited categories has been satisfied under federal law. we are not publicly funding the procedure now, and the bill before us is not a public funded bill. >> i have before me data that shows 142800 abortions taken place in america just last year. we can go into the disagreement we might have. i ask that you're aware that if your testimony has impact here, then it might bring about this procedure we're looking at now and more funned by public tax dollars. i'm going to ask you then, do

you have a moral position on this or just a legal one on taxes? >> i prefer actually to keep my moral positions out of the hearing. i have strongly held religious and moral views on many things. in terms of today's hearing as i said, i don't think that i see any example of public financing for this procedure except in the circumstances. >> then, since you don't, if we can resolve there's public funding for abortions in the country, and there's testimony to that effect, would you then -- if we establish that point or are new a in a position to change your position? >> truly, i'm having trouble following the question. >> another route then. you've reviewed this procedure. have -- could you step in to an operating room and witness it?

>> i am a law professor, so i presume i would never be in operating room. >> you can't answer the question whether you could observe it or no. i'm going to ask if you could conduct the procedure, you'd answer the same way. i just make this point that this is a ghastly gruelish procedure. it is dismemberment abortion. i have known people who could not vote for a death punishment because they couldn't conduct it themselves, and they took that position. i understand that psychology. when we look at something that we're asking taxpayers to fund against their will, that's so gruelish that we can't abide looking at it or watching it or watching a full video of it or listening to the sounds that go on there, and we ask taxpayers to fund this, i think that illustrates what we're up to here, and we should go to all

steps to fund abortions. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, and i yield back to mr. scott of virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i join you in congratulating you in your new position and look forward to working with you. >> professor rosenbaum talked about the taxes and the wording is unclear. is it your belief that the tax deduction should still go to the health policy, but not just that portion that pertains to abortion, or should the entire policy lose its deductibility if it includes abortion coverage? >> congressman, this is one the problems i had with trying to be helpful to mr. nadler. i think there's a lot of different ways in which the tax code gets implicated in this, and there's some cases that are much more straightforward than

others. the affordable taxes in the affordable care act, the policy in place was the premium tax credits will not go to directly to an abortion procedure itself, but they are go to an overall health plan that includes such abortions without limit, and then there will be a little accounting procedure within the plan to try to keep the federal and private funds separate. my problem with that is -- >> just in terms of the bill, is it your intent that the entire heads of policy that including abortion coverage, should the employer lose the entire deductibility of the whole policy, or just that portion that pertains to the abortion coverage? >> my understanding from the analysis of the bill from the congressional research service is that it does not cover employer deduction. >> whatever deductions we're talking about, taxing benefits,

credit, are we just talking about the abortion portion or the entire policy? >> i think we have to -- there's two questions. one is whether this is federal funding. >> it's not -- >> second question is if we do consider that, it crosses the line into being a subsidy, whether you ban the subsidies for abortion itself or for a plan that includes it. that policy decision was made many years ago in the height amendment, federal employee's health benefit -- >> professor, you mentioned there's a lack of clarity as to whether the whole policy would lose or whether just the portion attributable to abortion coverage would not be deductible. you said that's unclear? >> no, actually, i think it's very clear that the entire policy, whatever's affected under this bill, the entirety loses its deductibility, it's

tax advantage. what is not completely clear to me because of the term any deduction is whether the deductibility applies to taxpayer deductions or, in fact, could be interpreted to reach employer sponsored deductions, but i do believe it would be constructed in its entirety is it product that includes one the procedures the difficult problems for the irs when the dedoublability standard would be met. >> we couldn't get an answer, so it must be unclear. should government funds be used for capitol punishment? >> my organization is against capitol punishment, so i think if you are going to have capitol

punishment, it has to be tax funded. we're against that. we believe in the abolition of the death penalty. >> should we work together, you and me, to prohibit government funds to be used for capitol punishment? >> unless the intent is to put it out into the private sector, yes. >> could you explain the exception for rape, why that's there? >> this recent debate about rape and forcible rape? >> no, the -- the, why there's an exception. >> why there's an exception? >> right. >> i think you have to get that answer from somebody who supports. i can understand why they want that exception. they want to be able to say that if the woman had no part in the decision to have sex, to get

pregnant, then she should not have to bear this child that was part of no decision by her. my problem with that is that although that's a horrible thing, there's a lot of things that the health care system and the government should do for women who are victims of rape. i can't help thinking there's another person who has a right to live. i met kids of rape, and they and their mothers are great people and glad it was not an abortion. the decision about forceful rape was an effort on the part of sponsors to prevent the opening of a very broad loophole for federally funded abortions for any teenager. the obvious jex to that which was helpful, the objection was saying it doesn't mean that.

rape already means forcible. if you say forcible rape, that's redundant, and courts require a level of violence that goes with rape itself. when congresswoman objected to the phrase of forcible rape, she said, "rape is when it woman is forced to have sex again her will. there is whether she's conscious, unconscious, meantly stable, not mentally stable." i think that's a good definition, and i think the subcommittee could say that's what we all mean. we're talking about cases where force is used or women have been subjected to this against their will and move on. >> i want to thank mr. scott and all witnesses' testimony on this very crucial issue to humanity itself. the proceed churl question if i could? >> please.

>> in your opening statement i believe you talked about respective changes you intended for the legislation, and i believe you talked about what was just mentioned and that was rape. you also -- if i missed it, i apologize as it relates to incest as well. >> i know there's ongoing deliberations and they are trying to deal with it. i'm sure that's being talked. >> without objection, there's five legislative days to submit to the chair additional written questions for the witnesses, and we ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so their answers are made part of the record. without objection, there's five legislative days to submit

additional testimony. i thank the

now the administrator for the federal aviation administration randolph babbitt. the senate has been debating the faa reauthorization bill for the past two weeks. the debate continues in the senate on the faa bill on monday republican congressman tom petri chairs the house transportation subcommittee hearing. >> i would like to welcome all members to the first hearing of the 112 congress.