separately we've enlisted the national academy of sciences to examine the broad subject of unintended acceleration across the entire automotive industry. and the safety implications of electronic control systems that are increasingly common in motor vehicles. we expect recent -- to receive recommendations from the national academy of sciences later this year on how we might use their research in making authority to address any such implications identified either pedal. -- identified by a pedal. spent by other like to turn out to the transport minister who report on the potential future work, david strickland expecting to so much, and thank everyone for being here. good afternoon. as you've already heard, nasa's report on the unintended acceleration of toyota vehicles represents months of precise and exhaustive work by both nasa and national highway traffic safety

administration engineers. nasa has delivered outstanding work and like the secretary, i want to personally thank mike kirsch and his team for their dedication and passion for this project. in addition, i'd like to thank dan smith, our senior associate administrator for vehicle safety and our tranfourteen for his leadership and their tireless efforts. the nasa findings, observations and recommendations, coupled with nhtsa's own work, point to several actions that we at the national highway traffic safety administration can take now, to lessen the risk of unintended acceleration in the entire automotive fleet. it also suggests longer-term areas where we can strengthen the agency's ability to address the safety of electronic control systems. short term we will consider initiating at least three rule makings. first, to require break overwrite systems. second, to standardize the

operation of key ignition systems. and third, to require the installation of event data recorders in all passenger vehicles. first, break overwrite systems help prevent or lessen unintended acceleration incidents by assigning priority to the braking system over the throttle. as noted in his report break overwrite systems, and i quote, provide a broad overarching defense against unintended engine power from a wide range of problems, not just unintended acceleration. second, jesus ignition systems can't exacerbate unintended acceleration incidents if, for example, the driver cannot quickly shut off the engine. and third, crash investigators can mind the event data recorders for information relevant to unintended acceleration incidents that result in crashes. for the longer-term, and

national highway traffic safety administration will also begin broad research on the reliability of electronic control systems so that we can continue to ensure future generations of vehicles are safe. with vehicles becoming increasingly reliant on electronic controlled systems. our knowledge in this area is critical. we will also continue to make sure our staff continues to be well-informed about emerging technologies and that we hire staff with the needed expertise. we will give full consideration to nasa's findings and observations, including their suggestion that we improve dashboard warnings for safety critical vehicle issues, and that we evaluate vulnerabilities and software designs. and on nasa's recommendation we will look to other industries for best practices in managing safety critical functions. we -- work already done by the

railroad, aerospace, military and medical sectors can provide technical guidance for our own industry that we regulate the automobile industry. and as mentioned in national academy of sciences pedal starting unintended acceleration and electronic control systems across the fleet will offer recommendations on these subjects. we look forward to their 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 would begin research on the placement and design of accelerator and brake pedals, as was human factors research such as out drivers use the throttle and brake pedals. pedal misapplication occurs in vehicles across the fleet and we want to know whether these types of incidents can be reduced to better pedal placement and design. along with nasa we plan to

breathe a national academy of sciences panel soon after these findings by our two agencies. finally, i want to remind the american public that we are dedicated to their safety. we want to serve you. we want to hear from you. and we want to keep you informed. i strongly encourage everyone to visit our website, safer car.gov where you can not only report problems in finding information about recalls, but you can sign-up to be notified about safety vehicles that affect your car, tires and child safety. the national highway traffic safety administration has the most active investigators program on the planet. and at last had an unusually large number of recalls due to nhtsa's willingness to work with manufacturers to identify problems early as the law requires. as the secretary said, highway and traffic safety is more than

the name of our agency. or the object of our mission. it is a serious responsibility with which the american people have entrusted us. thank you very much. >> all right. i will try and organize the questions here. if you have a question, please. [inaudible] >> we have received a large number of complaints, especially as i noted since a lot of the publicity surrounding this. and a lot of those new complaints involving fatalities of unintended acceleration came in after this. we have looked into as many of

those as we get concrete data on, and we don't see a cause related to unintended acceleration other than the ones we've already addressed. >> can i ask about -- you said the main reason that you don't think these two rare incidents happened in the real world is because of the war decline data. is there anything else that led you to believe that? was there a complaint that could potentially be affected by this rare circumstances because the foundation of the theory was that it takes the precise resistance value for the failure to occur here if anything other than those precise values occurs and will throw a code. so if that type of failure were occurring you would expect there to be signed in the war decline data. we didn't see the signs so we don't expect that just those perfect resisters were occurring

everywhere, and the non-perfect resisters were occurring. you expect to see kind of a premade. many more close calls in our vernacular would call it before the real ones hit. >> what did you -- you mention human factor. [inaudible] >> the main reason we had our human factors focus engage was the one, help interpret the vehicle owner questionnaire data, and also if we found a vulnerability was kind of human dependent, like this vulnerability will occur if the accelerator pedal is stepped on at this rate, it was for them to guide us in what is reasonably possible. [inaudible] >> we didn't find any vulnerabilities of the human factor depended.

[inaudible] >> repeat the question. >> the question is of the pedal misapplication complaints, how big is that problem compared to the other problem that we identified as part of the defects your we think that much of the complaints, and they are detailed in the report our acts in the vast majority are related to that type of a problem, based on our analysis of the 50 cases with electronic data recorders and a full review of all the data with respect to the cases look at in detail. >> anybody over your? yes, angela. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear you. [inaudible] >> i'll give you an illustrati

illustration. last year my youngest daughter who lives in peoria called and said she was thinking about buying a 2011 toyota sienna. she wanted an ironclad guarantee from me that her vehicle was going to be safe. so i checked with david and ron, and i told my daughter that she should buy the toyota sienna, which she did. so i think that illustrates that we feel that toyota vehicles are safe to drive. yes? >> it seems there's a bit of a difference between what nasa is saying -- you are saying they're no causes. excels like you are on different sides. >> i think we are on the exact same page. now seeking data from an injury

perspective and we are trying to prove negative and it's very difficult to prove a negative. so basically we found no evidence that this is causing large unintended acceleration. that's an objective statement. we are certainly -- certainly nasa scientist, could never happen. >> and from nhtsa's perspective, safety is our number one priority so our goal is to find a real-world incident and where it in electronic data can cause unintended acceleration they can't be controlled by the breaker from our safety analysis and our automotive experts paired with nasa's findings, we are incredibly confident that the only cause of unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles are the two mechanical causes, floor mat entrapment and sticky pedal. but we'll always continue to monitor not only toyota but the rest of the fleet or any trend if this issue for us to investigate and then go forward with possible action.

>> what's the status of your investigation for the toyota technicians who were apparently able to duplicate sudden acceleration of vehicles speakers i think you are alluding to the document where they looked at ron dismisses toyota -- sorry, lexus. toyota provided the full report and it is very clear from the report that toyota was not able, was not able to repeat that condition. in terms of the verbiage of the report and the details why we would strongly recommend that you contact toyota on that, but we are very confident that report was very thorough and they were not able to replicate that condition. >> just to follow up. did a nhtsa have any ongoing investigation where toyota was able to replicate the unintended acceleration? >> i'll have to refer to ron, but my understanding was and was no cases like that. >> we have no ongoing investigations related to that.

>> we do have opened still the recall query. we were looking for whether or not there's any additional issues related to unintended acceleration cases that we've are ahead of recalls for, but that's it. [inaudible] >> know. i told -- the last time i spoke to mr. smith was last week and she wanted to know specific results of the study which were not able to provide at the time and we told her we were still looking at her vehicle. the nhtsa step in the nasa staff did extensive testing of that lexus including electromagnetic interference testing, full throttle testing of all the safety systems, and there was no other vulnerabilities done on that vehicle other than what nhtsa originally found, that this situation that ms. smith encountered was floor mat entrapment. [inaudible]

>> yes. >> repeat the question. >> the question is how do we explain owners who have had repairs done to the vehicles and then they complain again that they have already, they continue to have a problem recur. we have looked at a variety of those specific complaints, and each and every incidents we have not found any data to support the conclusion that it's anything other than the two types of defects that we've already determined exist and have recalled. [inaudible] >> look, the reason we did a study that we did is because if you went to the hearings that i testified at an house of representatives and the senate, just about every member of congress didn't believe that we have found the problem, which

was floor mat, sticky pedal. and just about every member of congress that question me said it's got to be the electronics. so to try and prove the case that it was at the electronics we hired the experts. and they said it wasn't the electronics. so i think what this says to me is, we have some of the best safety people in the world working at d.o.t. that know what they are doing, they did a thorough investigation. but look him as a former member of congress i thought we should listen to these members. we have, and i hope they get the message today. >> david, why are you considering maybe a break override after 10 months of looking at this? why not either -- >> let me answer that.

answer is this. again, if you go back to the testimony and the questions that we heard from a number of committees in congress. many members of congress suggested that a brake override system might be helpful. so we need to look into that, and we need to make sure that if that is a solution we do it the right way, and that it is -- is the kind of solution. and so we're going to look into it. we're going to decide. we haven't decided, but we are going to look into it and investigate it and do our research. remember this, the reason that we have credibility, the reason our safety people have credibility, the reason that nhtsa has credibility is because everything is databased. it's not made up. is not based on a motion. it's not based on some story that somebody told us.

we do our investigations and come up with our solutions based on good data. which is why we hired nasa. so we are going to check out the brake override. [inaudible] >> first of all, i don't agree with what you just said. nobody up here has even insinuated the term that you use, driver air. but i'm going to let at 11 and to this. but the way you characterize this was not characterized that way by anybody up here. go ahead, ron spent one of the things, we described -- we have described as consumers -- as the administrator indicate we want to look across the fleet to see if there are things, are ways to redesign of -- both the design

of the battle and the spacing of the pedal that can minimize this kind of misapplication from returning. in fact, there may be something that can be done to minimize this from happening without blaming the people that perhaps the way it is currently designed to be improved. >> my question is the -- >> i will follow-up, john. it was a 10 month investigation where we had no predisposed conclusion. we were looking at the facts and we took this investigation from the ground floor of looking at any possible situation which would lead to wide open unintended acceleration. this is a safety investigation, period, making sure every toyota was actually safe to drive in this particular situation. ..

>> if you looked at what i said in the hearing on capitol and how i characterize toyota and the way that they go about managing their company, mr. toyota came here to dot, and we visited. vive been to -- i've been to japan. i spent a whole day with mr. toyota. he introduced me to the safety

people and a lot of their initiatives. the proof it in the pudding here. i give toyota a great deal of credit for investing $50 million in a safety program in michigan. that's extraordinary. that shows that they really care about safety, that they want to set up shop, a shop of safety in our country, and so i think they've, you know, they've understood what we do here is serious business, that what we do here is promote safety, and we take a backseat to nobody, and that's what i've always explained to every car manufacturer, and i think that message has gotten out there. yes, sir? >> [inaudible]

>> repeat that, mike. >> the question is could five degree throttle opening be a factor in some of the low speed events. did i get that right? yeah, what we found with with the opening is similar to feeling your air conditioner kick on when at a stoplight. it's a marginal increase in break pressure is 8.5 pounds and bumps up to 9 pounds. if you are going down the road and it jumped up to five degrees, you won't know it happened. we don't think it would affect it in any event. >> yes, sir?

>> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i got your point. give me your question. >> [inaudible] >> i think toyota has been very cooperative and responsive. i think they understand that at the department of transportation, safety is the number one priority. we treat all car manufacturers the same. we didn't single out my car manufacturer. we never have and never will. our concern is that anybody who buys the car is it's the safest possible car when they drive it out of the showroom, and it continues to be that way, and if it's not, they need to report that to us and we take complaints seriously whether it's against any car

manufacturer, and i think toyota understands that now. anybody else? thank you very much -- okay? >> [inaudible] >> well, when toyota announced their $50 million investment in a safety program in michigan, i spoke to mr. toyota. we spoke only about that. he explained what they wanted to do. i thanked them for their investment. i thanked them for the idea that they realliment to in-- really want to invest in safety, and that was the extent of our discussion. thank you, all, very much. anything else, jill, or is that it? >> [inaudible] welcome to all o

members, the witnesses and the observers. let me take a little side-note here. rule 11 of the house rules provides that the chairman of the committee make breaches of order and decorum gi senses you'res in the hearing. presently we have people standing and makes the order not -- in order in the hearing room. so members of the room must behave that in an orderly fashion and i say that respectfully but otherwise they will be removed in the hearing room so hopefully you will sit down. okay. all right. it was once said hold on, my friends to the constitution and to the republic for which it stands. for miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000

years may never happen again. so hold on to the constitution for if the american constitution should fall there will be anarchy throughout the world. our founding fathers wrote the words of our constitution down for us because they do not want us to forget that their true meaning or to otherwise fall prey to those who would deliberately undermine or destroy it. this has always been the preeminent reason why we write down documents, declarations or constitutions in the first place. to preserve their original meaning and intent. protecting the lives of innocent americans and their constitutional rights is why those of us in this room are all here. and indeed this is why congress itself exists. the phrases and the fifth and fourteenth amendments capsulate our entire constitution when they proclaim that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. those words are a crystal clear

reflection of the proclamation of the declaration of independence that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unail i can't believe rights, those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness those words are the essence of america and our commitment to them for more than two centuries has set america apart as the flagship of human freedom in the entire world. and yet unspeakable suffering and tragedy have occurred whenever we have strayed from those words. our own united states supreme court ruled that millions of men, women and children were not persons under the constitution because their skin was black. it took a horrible civil war and the deaths of over 600,000 americans to reverse that unspeakable tragedy. and we saw the same arrogance in 1973 when the supreme court said the unborn child was not a person under the constitution. and we have since witnessed the silent deaths of now over 50 million innocent little baby boys and baby girls who died

without the protection the constitution gave them and without the protection this congress should have given them. h.r. 3 is a bipartisan bill that takes a step to turn america away from that tragedy. the bill forms part of the new majority to new america codify the hite amendment currently funding taxpayer abortion in all federal programs. it protects health care workers right of conscience so they cannot be coerced to participate in abortion procedures as a condition of their employment. [inaudible] >> the capitol police are in the process of restoring order here and we're going to go ahead and continue. the speaker of the house, john boehner directed that this bill receive the designation h.r. 3 as, quote, one of our highest legislative priorities. h.r. 3 is intended to continue the same policy as the hite amendment. the hite amendment prohibits

taxpayer funding of abortion excluding rape and the mother's health. this will not be a departure of the decades of implementation of the hite amendment and to assure lawmakers that funding policy as it relates to cases of rape will not be altered by this bill. the second part of this bill provides necessary protection for health care workers who will not perform a refer of abortions as a matter of conscience. those who believe that a pregnancy is a circumstance which presents with two patients, the mother and the unborn child cannot in good conscience do harm to that unborn child and, therefore, should not be coerced into performing abortions as would be required under the current health care system. neither is said that government is what it spends. planned parenthood alone boortz a quarter of a million unborn babies every year, all the while it receives hundreds of millions

of dollars in federal, state or local taxpayer funds. this legislation is really about whether the role of america's government is to continue to fund a practice that takes the lives of over 1 million little americans every year. even some of those who do not consider themselves pro-life strongly object to their taxpayers going to pay for abortion, their dollars. i believe the intensity of this debate has something to do with our collective conscience. perhaps it's because ultrasound technology has begun to demonstrate to all reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what is done to them. we are beginning to realize as americans that somehow we are bigger than abortion on demand. and that 50 million dead children is enough. and we're beginning to ask the real question, does abortion take the life of a child?

if it does not, then all of this here today is a nonissue. but if it does, then those of us sitting here in the chambers of freedom are in the midst of the grateful human genocide in the history of humanity. thomas jefferson said that the care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government. and, ladies and gentlemen, using taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of innocent, unborn children does not liberate their mothers. it is not the cause for which those lying out under the white stones in arlington national cemetery died, and it is not good government. abraham lincoln called upon all of us to remember america's founding fathers and, quote, their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on or degraded and imbreweded by its fellows. >> he reminded us those he

called posterity that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest should set up the doctrine that some were not entitled to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that, quote, their posterity, that's us, ladies and gentlemen, their posterity might look up to the declaration of independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began. may that be the commitment of all of us today. i look so forward from hearing from the witnesses and i now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. nadler, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i first want to note that this is our first subcommittee hearing of the 112th congress and your first as chairman. i want to congratulate you. although our jurisdiction includes some of the most difficult issues before the

congress, some of which have historically been very contentious, i look forward to working with you in the spirit of comity to give what we both know strongly and sincerely-held views the fair hearing that they deserve. having chaired this subcommittee for two congresses, and having served as the ranking -- as the ranking member, rather, for several congresses before that, i appreciate what a challenge this subcommittee can be and i look forward to working with you. today's hearing concerns what may be the most -- the most difficult and divisive issue we will have the opportunity to consider. a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, whether to become pregnant, whether to continue a pregnancy or whether to terminate it has long been a right protected by the constitution. whether or not people think that it is a good idea or a fair reading of the constitution or morally correct, it remains the law of the land. congress has for more than three decades used economic coercion

to try to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally protected choice by prohibiting use of federal funds for abortions. the only legal health care procedure subject to such a ban. until now, that coercion was directed against the poor and against women dependent on the government for health care, military personnel and their dependents, prison inmates and federal employees. we have thus developed a two-tiered system which people with means have the right to choose but members of vulnerable populations do not. now comes the no taxpayer funding for abortion act h.r. 3, which is really misnamed but it really has to do with taxpayer funding for abortions because way beyond that question in places government in the middle of private choices by families and businesses about how they wish to spend their own health care dollars. this legislation represents an entirely new front in the war

against women and their families. after two years of hearing my republican colleagues complain that government should not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health care choices, i was stunned to see legislation so obviously designed to do exactly that. it seems that many republicans believe in freedom, provided no one uses that freedom in a way they find objectionable. that is a strange understanding of freedom. even more stunning, this bill contains a huge tax increase on families, businesses and the self-employed if they spend their own money. let me repeat that, their own money on insurance that covers abortions or services. the power to tax is the power to destroy and here the taxing power is being used quite deliberately to destroy the right of every american to make private health care decisions free from government interference.

a republican tax increase, a republican support for government intrusion of private health care choices -- you're supposed to say you heard it first but if you read the bill, you saw it there first. i'm equally surprised to find out that my republican colleagues think that a tax exemption or credit is a form of government funding. what happened to all the rhetoric about it being our money? or does that only apply in certain circumstances. do we have to call every tax exemption or credit a form of government funding for the recipient? i'm sure there will be many businesses, charities and religious denominations that will be along to find out that they are being -- that they are receiving government subsidies. i also join many other americans in being absolute horrified -- well, before i get to that. let me say among others who should be horrified, the churches and the synagogues and mosques that will now have to presumably give up their tax exemptions because of tax

exemptions are government subsidies and that's a direct establishment of religion. and the logic is inexorable. either a exemption is government funding in which case we cannot give tax exemptions to churches, synagogues or mosques or it is not in which case this bill has no claim on anything. and i also join many other americans being absolutely horrified that the sponsors of this bill seem not to know what rape and incest are. rape according to this legislation is only forcible in quotes rape. date rape drugs, sex with minors with the mentally impaired are sponsors of this bill are not really rape anymore. incest is no longer incest. 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 really taken such a hold on this debate that we cannot even agree to help children and teenagers or the victims of predators?

is there no compassion left in this capitol? i have heard that the rape and incest provisions are going to be removed from this bill or modified because of the outcry it has raised -- they have raised. but first we have not seen such an amendment yet and second, what this position -- even if the amendment what does this provision in the first place say about the mindset and the intent of the legislation? there's also a provision in this bill that in the name of conscience 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 the abortion. it would refuse to -- it 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 right there in the emergency room and the government would be powerless to do anything or

penalize it or prevent it. under the provisions of the bill insist that the hospital not let the woman die, section 311 of the bill would allow the hospital to sue the government and in the case of a state or locality strip that community of all federal funding until the jurisdiction relented and allowed women to die if they needed an abortion to prevent the death. that's the new definition it seems of pro-life. so, mr. chairman, let's start off on the right foot. the no taxpayer funding of abortion act is not really about taxpayer funding. it's about government interfering with private health care decisions. it is not about protecting the innocent. it is about creating appalling even life threatening situations for women. it is a tax increase of historic proportion. finally, if passed, it would eliminate the private market for abortion insurance coverage. the chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smithers has been very clear about his purpose. when he introduced this bill, he

cited a study by an institute that showed a decline in the rate of abortions of approximately 25% when funding is cut off. what that proves, if it proves anything, is that economic coercion works. in the remarks we just heard from the chairman made crystal clear that the unashamed purpose of this bill is to use economic coercion to prevent women and families from exercising their constitutional right to make a choice of abortion, even with their own funds. it is an unprecedented attack on women, on families, on the constitution and for that matter on 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. >> thank you, mr. nadler. and without objection, other members' opening statements will be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman? may i be recognized for unanimous consent request? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman i ask

unanimous consent request -- i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent to place into the record testimony submitted by our colleague the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, miss norton. the gentlewoman be requested that she be presented testimony at this hearing because there's a provision in the bill that specifically pertains to her district, the district of columbia and to no other who we are told the chairman of the full committee has denied that request. i'm sorry. i regret she was denied the permission to testify. and i hope that this has been a misunderstanding and that the future members of congress will as is the practice when i was chairman of the subcommittee would be permitted on request to testify as witnesses especially if there's something to do specifically with their own district. and i ask unanimous consent to place her statement and my statement in the record. >> without objection, your statement and hers will be placed in the record. ec td. >> thank you.

>> just to clarify the issue, mr. nadler, chairman smith has decided that as a general policy the judiciary committee and its subcommittees will only have one panel of witnesses for each hearing and that the panel will consist of no more than four witnesses. and the minority is able to select a witness and if they would like to invite a member to testify, that's certainly something they can do. the chairman did not refuse ms. norton's ability to be here. she just had to be chosen as one of the minority witnesses. there may be times where the committee is not able to accommodate every individual who wishes to testify, however, the record always remains open for five legislative days for others to submit testimony if they wish. this is a bright line rule that is not meant to discriminate against any particular potential witness. it's meant to ensure that hearings are succinct enough so that members are able to hear all of the witnesses and participate in a meaningful way. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. nadler. >> thank you, i'd simply like to comment on that.

i have never objected -- some committees in this congress have three and four panels. i certainly never objected and sometimes i welcome this committee generally only has one panel. it makes life easier and more succinct. i'm not objecting to that. now, however, when the minority has only one witness, which has been the practice under democrats and republicans and certainly that's not a change here, but in certain circumstances it presents a quandary. here we have a bill dealing for the most part with a broad issue of taxpayer funding of everything that i talked about. and a specific provision dealing with the district of columbia. to say that the minority could have ms. norton as the witness to talk about d.c. is to say we couldn't talk about the basic provisions of the bill. and if we choose to have one witness on the basic provisions of the bill then you can't talk -- then ms. norton is denied the opportunity to talk about her specific application to her district and that is why

when i was chairman -- if a member desired to testify, especially if there was something to do with his or her district, we would always provide a separate panel for that. and for partisan purposes you might say, if it's a republican we'll have a democrat. but it allows that flexibility in the general rule and i would hope in the future that flexibility would be attended to. >> thank you, mr. nadler. if the witnesses would come forward and be seated. we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today. each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. and i ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time there's a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red it signals that the witnesses' 5 minutes have expired. our first witness is mr. richard m. doerflinger, associate director of the secretary of

pro-life activities, united states conference of catholic bishops. he has worked for over 30 years. his writings on medical ethics and public policy made -- include contributions to the journal of law medicine and ethics, duquesne law review, the kennedy institute of ethics journal, the national catholic bioethics quarterly and the american journal of bioethics. the may 22nd 2004 journal featured mr. doerflinger as one of the twelve experts whose ideas are shaping the national debate on the use and abuse of biotechnology. our second witness is cathy ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the family research council offices. mrs. ruse worked previously as frc's legal director zest a legal council and national center for children and families. we're proud to note that mrs. ruse -- ms. ruse served as chief counsel of this very

subcommittee. "wired" magazine has called her one of the most influential opinion-shapers in the country. our third witness is professor sarah rosenbaum, the harold and jane hearst professor of health, law and policy and chair of the department of health policy at washington university school of public health services. professor rosenbaum also directs the hearst health law and policy program and the center for health services research and policy and holds appointments in the schools of medicine and health sciences and law. and without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit materials for the record. it is the practice of this subcommittee to swear in the witnesses so if you'll all please and stand and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. thank you and please be seated. i now recognize our first

witness, richard doerflinger for five minutes. sir, would you turn on that microphone. >> is that it? >> yes, sir, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for this opportunity to present our views in support of the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. this bill will write into permanent law a policy on which has been strong, popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years. the federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion. that principle has been embodied in the hite amendment and other provisions governing a wide range of foreign and domestic programs and has consistently had the support of the american people. even courts insisting on a constitutional right to abortion had said that alleged right, quote, implies no limitation on the authority of a state to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion and to implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds. in 1980 the u.s. supreme court

said the hite amendment is an exercise of the legitimate, congressional interest in protecting potential life. adding, quote, abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life. in our view, the courts only mistake that with the phrase potential life in our view unborn children are actually alive until they are made actually dead by abortion. while congress' policy has been consistent for decades, its implementation and practice has been piecemealed, confusion and sometimes sadly inadequate. gaps or loopholes have been discovered in this patchwork of provisions over the years highlighting the need for permanent and consistent policies across the federal government. last year, congress passed major health care reform legislation with at least four different policies on abortion funding ranging from a ban on such funding on one section of the bill to a potential mandate for

such funding on another. as h.r. 3 has been enacted before that debate began. the debate would not have been about abortion. to support by catholics and pro-life americans would have been removed and the final legislation would not have been so badly compromised by provisions that place unboon human lives at grave risk. h.r. 3 would prevent problems and confusions on abortion funding in future legislation. .. one of many conscious provisions beginning with the church amendment in 1973 named after senator frank church of idaho, which has tried to protect the

rights of health care providers, not to be coerced into abortion. the amendment was recently reaffirmed unanimously as part of the house version of health care reform legislation in congress and waxman health subcommittee was approved by a voice vote without dissent. it did not survive in the final legislation. federal agencies and state and local governments receive federal funds do not discriminate against health care providers because they do not take bad teeth apart and abortions. this is a modest bill that has the federal government essentially policing itself, a government restraining itself from coercing abortion. it does not reach out and to private actions. it is long overdue for the hyde wheldon policy to receive a more secure status. congress's policy has been clear for 38 years that the mechanism for achieving it has suffered from drawbacks and loopholes

including a failure even to specify where or how providers may go to have their rights in force. h.r. 3 writes the essentials civil-rights protection and permanent law allows for modest and reasonable remedies to ensure compliance, provides for private right of action, and designates the hhs office of civil rights to hear complaints. the need for more secure protection is there. the american civil liberties union has been urging the federal government to force catholic and other hospitals to violate the moral and religious convictions by providing with the aclu calls to emergency abortions by which it means all abortions to serve women's life or health. they surely know it has been interpreted by the federal courts to mean socially or emotional well-being. this is an obvious threat to access to life affirming health care. catholic hospitals alone care

for one in six patients in the united states each year and provide a full continuance of health care for more than 2,000 sponsors, systems, facilities, and related organizations. they have been shown to provide higher quality and more effective care including care for women than anyone else in the various studies. if congress wants to expand, rather than eliminate access to life test shaving health care including a live-saving health care for women and particularly for the poor and underserved it should be concerned about any effort to attack the rights of these providers and undermine their continued ability to serve the common good. just to give a short answer to some questions raised about h.r. 3 with wonder answers in our prepared text, h.r. 3 does not eliminate private coverage for abortion, but specifically allows such coverage would be purchased without federal subsidy. does not -- does not create an unprecedented policy of denying

tax benefits to abortion, but follows the recently enacted an affordable care act in this regard, which i believe had some democratic support. it is that act which said use of tax credits for abortion is federal funding of abortion. that simply follows the precedent. this bill does not depart from precedent by saying that the law does not compel states to fund abortions. in this regard as well it follows a policy actively supported by the democratic in the last congress and stated no less than three times in the affordable care act. finally its conscience clause does not place women's lives at risk, but places women's lives at risk, as recently land from the story in philadelphia which is only the tip of the iceberg, but placing women's lives at risk is the abortion industry itself as well as that same industry attacking the

continued viability of the most effective providers of life-saving care and the world. my prepared text provides additional details on these points, and that would be happy to answer questions. >> thank you, mr. richard doerflinger. we now recognize mrs. ruse for five minutes. >> thank you for inviting me to provide testimony this morning, this afternoon on the funding for abortion act. it is nice to be back. a little less work on this side of the days, but not much. thirty-five years ago something of a consensus was reached between those who support legal abortion and those who oppose it. whatever our differences on the underlying question of legality, a majority of americans can together in support of the proposition that the federal government should not subsidize abortions. that consensus took the form of the hyde amendment of 1976 which

limited abortion funding appropriated under labor hhs to cases where eight abortion was necessary to save a mother's life and later involving rape and incest. the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment in harris the gray and in so doing made a sharp distinction between abortions and other medical distinctive up procedures. in the words of the courts no other procedure involves the purchase purposeful termination of a mature -- potential life. that abortion is scandalous to many is understandable. it is exceptionally controversial in the united states is beyond dispute. for these reasons it is entirely appropriate that abortion's not be subsidized in any way by the federal government. that no taxpayer funding for abortion act implement this legal and political consensus on a government-wide basis. over the years the hyde amendment and others like it have been included in various

appropriations bills renewed annually by congress. what has been lacking is a single, simple law prohibiting government funding of abortion across the board wherever federal dollars are expended. we, taxpayers, paid for 425 abortions and fiscal year 2008. 220 last year. without the hyde amendment and the patchwork of other appropriations, that number could skyrocket to as many as 675,000 government-financed abortions every year, according to the cbo. now, two measures passed in the last congress also threatened to escalate the number of government-funded abortions dramatically. the d.c. appropriations bill opened the door to federal funding for any and every abortion in the district of columbia. and the patient protection and affordable care act known popularly as obamacare

authorized federal funding for elective abortions directly and through private health insurance plans. a detailed accounting of the abortion subsidies is included in my written testimony. because these programs are directly appropriated and not subject to further appropriation under labor hhs they are not subject to the hyde amendment. as for the executive order purporting to nullify abortion and obamacare last month former white house chief of staff admitted that he can up with an idea for an executive order so that the abortion fundings restriction would not exist by law. , on this he and i are in agreement with each other and also with planned parenthood who issued a statement calling the executive order a symbolic

gesture. it is axiomatic that when government subsidizes conduct it encourages it. our tax code is replete with pertinent examples. the supreme court acknowledged to the truth of this proposition in the context of abortion. most abortions in america are purely elective. the 92 percent of abortions every year are performed on healthy women with healthy babies according to the alan good marker institute. in light of this fact the abortion funding question is quite literally a matter of life and death for many thousands of american children. now, president obama has urged americans to find common ground on the controversial issue of abortion. americans have come together. 67 percent of us, and what may be the only truly bipartisan agreement possible. whatever our differences on the

issue of abortion, we can agree that the federal government should not subsidize it. this is the common ground issue on abortion in america today. h.r. 3 would make that common ground statutory law. did you. >> thank you, mrs. ruse. we would now recognize professor sara rosenbaum for five minutes. >> thank you very much for inviting me today to appear before you. i would like to make three points in my testimony. i have submitted an understatement for the record. the first has to do with a baseline from which we are working and considering h.r. 3. the second has to do with the changes in the bill. the third has to do with the impact of these changes. insofar as the baseline is concerned, i'd think it is very important to understand what the affordable care act does and does not do. the affordable care act where

tax credits are concerned allows women to obtain tax credits, to use those tax credits to buy insurance products and if they choose to use their own money to buy additional coverage for abortion. if they make that choice and use their additional funds, their own funds to buy abortion coverage the tax credits remain completely available for the abortion product. i emphasize this because it underscores the unprecedented nature of the bill. the bill would actually for the first time move the hyde amendment far beyond where we have known it for the past 30 years directly into the tax code. its reach in the tax cut is extremely broad under this bill. it reaches the deductions, credits, advanced tax credits, even when they have to be repaid at a later date. it reaches held savings accounts, flexible spending

accounts, money that we as individuals but aside for our medical care needs. it even potentially reaches employers and employees deductions for insurance because of a critical ambiguity in the drafting of the bill. it is unclear, actually, where the bill stops. the impact of the bill in so far as tax policies are concerned is enormous. the first fallout is on the irs which heretofore has not played a role in implementation of the hyde amendment. the irs is going to have to implement extremely complex provisions of the tax code that regulate tax favored a health benefit plans and medical care payments. we are going to need a rash of implementing policies, the internal revenue service to find a rate, a potentially and forcible rape, incest, potentially incest involving minors as opposed to not involving minors, physical

conditions endangering life and the spoken dangers -- conditions that don't endanger life. the irs would have to tell us what evidentiary standards would be required for individual claimants and employers who choose to buy products or make expenditures that wander into these areas. there will have to be exchanged review process. for example, is a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage an allowable expenditures under off its fund? does it cross the line? what will be the appeals procedures? how will plans be allotted -- audited to make sure coverage stops at the elbow points under the statute? the fallout on plans is equally serious. my own analysis, both of the spill and previous spills that attempted to do that similar things in terms of the impact on the insurance industry leads me to conclude that what we will see, in fact, is a complete

exodus of health plans from the market of abortion coverage. i realize that maybe the long term goal here, but, of course, because there are not a lot, but a small number of very serious medically indicated abortions, this would be an enormous problem. the third fallout is on the women themselves, not only because they can no longer get coverage for abortions that are medically indicated, but because the typical practice in the health plan is to exclude not only specific procedures. here it would be required under law. but follow-on procedures and treat as related to the original excluded at treatment. so to use the example, a woman who needs an abortion because she has eclampsia, stroke-level hypertension who then needs subsequent treatment for hypertension could find that she, in fact, is disqualified for treatment for that hypertension because the hypertension and rose as the result of a condition that led to an excluded abortion. there is no stopping point.

i would finally note that with the conscious clause provisions of this law to be enacted it would recommend the first grade unraveling and the absolute duty on the part of hospitals to provide a live-saving treatment regardless of the underlying medical condition. >> thank you, professor. thank all of you for your testimony, and i will now begin the questioning by recognizing myself for five minutes. i'll start with you, mr. richard doerflinger. absent the enactment of h.r. 3, what does a health care provider risk if the provider of base his or her conscience and refuses to perform an abortion? >> i don't want to overstate this because in my view h.r. 3 basically codifies and makes more permanent protection that has long been in law. the problem is that -- this was

illustrated in one case in new york very recently. the existing conscious laws are not very clear on what it is you do to actually protect your rights. gainers by the name of the carlo at mount sinai medical center recently found that although she was forced to participate in a late-term abortion after having her statement accepted by the initial -- initially by the hospital staff that she would not be required to assist in these abortions. she was forced anyway. she was given the job of reassembling the body parts on the table in the operating room to make sure they got all the pieces of the baby and has had nightmares ever since. had a terrible time. she was told she would be fired if she did not do this. what she found was when she went to court, because the conscious, the federal conscious laws don't have anything in them that say you have a private right of action to go to court she had no recourse. all she could do is file a complaint with the department of health and human services, and a

year-and-a-half after the abortion she still has not heard from them. the cases in which there continue to be efforts to get governmental bodies to discriminate against pro-life health care providers occur every week. there was a recent case here in my hometown, montgomery county in which holy cross hospital seems to be on course approved by the state of maryland to build a new hospital in northern montgomery county because it had -- it made the best case for being able to provide excellent care to the women and men of the county. there was a serious effort fight abortion activists to say you must not give this contract to holy cross hospital, but someone else, even if it did the general health care proposal is not as good because if you give it to holy cross he will not have access to abortions through the hospitals up there. these efforts to discriminate against health care providers occur all the time. we are trying to make sure the

protection is actually there and working. >> mr. doerflinger there was a controversy in 2007-8 concerning the concerns of conscious protections for health care workers, specifically changes in the ethics guidelines. changes in the certifying criteria for the certifying agency of ob/gyn, that is abog. all of these acronyms. the american board of obstetrics and gynecology. it calls into confusion whether it can result in the certification, ending their career. would you explain this controversy and have led to the regulations put in place at the end of the bushes ministers in? >> yes, the ethics committee companion came out and 2007. despite all the controversy it was reaffirmed by the organization in 2010. 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. ?? ? ? @? ? agagooooo

agency's program. right now, the chairman of the committee, thomas petri, is speaking. just gaveled the session in. >> contributing $1.2 trillion

annually to the nation's economy and directly or indirectly generating over 10 million jobs. it's important that this industry's stability and its growth continue. in addition, it's critical that we ensure that next gen is delivered on time and on budget, it's vital to the u.s. aviation's increasing efficiency and lowering cost. pleased we have today with us the administrator of the federal aviation administration who i think has earned the respect of people in the industry as he's taken his position. thank you for joining us today to offer your insights on the faa re-authorization. also as part of this hearing would welcome your thoughts and suggestions on the legislation that's before us, and we would

welcome the thoughts and suggestions of all the members of the subcommittee as well. we're looking forward to any ideas that would help us to improve the legislation as it moves forward. before i recognize ranking member costello, i'd like to say to administrator babbitt, that i look forward to working with you over the coming months, confident we can work together to complete a re-authorization bill that cuts waste and streamlines and expedites next generation, creates jobs, keeps u.s. civil aviation competitive in the global marketplace. and with that, i would yield -- or i would recognize mr. costello, the senior democrat on this committee. my colleague, last session, when he was the senior -- chairman of the -- >> mr. chairman, i thank you and congratulate you on your

selection as chairman of the subcommittee. i have been in this chair before and i have been in that chair, and i'd much rather be in your chair than my chair, but let me say that i look forward to working with you, and we've always had a very good relationship as chairman and when you were ranking member, and i expect that we'll continue to have that relationship. i also thank you for calling the hearing today on the federal aviation administration re-authorization, the faa administrator, who is here with us, and we'll hear from him. mr. chairman in the 110th and 111th congress the aviation subcommittee held 52 hearings. we spearheaded 39 bills and resolutions through the house. 25 of which were enacted. this subcommittee made a valuable contribution to our nation's economic recovery with enactment in the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 which included $1.3 billion for aviation infrastructure. i commend administrator babbitt

and his agency for getting the money out the door quickly, investing in valuable job-producing infrastructure projects. work has already been completed on 694 projects and is under way on 77 more, representing 100% of the total aviation recovery act funds. mr. chairman, in response to the february, 2009, colgan flight crash, we worked together to enact sweeping reforms. the strongest piece of aviation safety legislation in decades. we have some members of the colgan families here today with us, and i want to thank them for their steadfast support in getting our new safety law enacted. last month i asked the department of transportation's inspector general's office to undertake a comprehensive review of the faa's progress, implementing the provisions of our new safety law, as well as the industry's responses to the

faa's call to action on voluntary safety programs. this subcommittee must continue to provide vigorous oversight on safety issues. last year we also worked with the other body and got very close to delivering a strong, balanced, bipartisan faa re-authorization bill. based on the work we did last congress, i believe we can complete a bipartisan bill very quickly, and i intend to work with you to produce a bill as soon as possible. however, we must ensure that the bill we produce continues moving the faa forward. the aviation community and the nation forward and does not set us back. commercial and general aviation together contribute more than $1.3 trillion in output to the nation's economy. historical historically members have fought to guarantee funding and the re-authorization bills. this subcommittee has rec nitezed that investing in our infrastructure will improve the

economy, create jobs and provide for the safe and efficient flow of commerce. some have suggested that for fiscal reasons we should go backwards. downsize the faa and even authorize lower capital funding levels for the faa than what congress provided in the last faa re-authorization bill over seven years ago. i am convinced that doing so will present major concerns for aviation safety. i agree that we need to reduce the federal spending, but we cannot jeopardize the safety of the flying public in the process. the faa indicates that if congress reduces the faa's funding level to 2008, key next gen programs will be delayed or canceled, that funding cuts will stall the agency's consolidation efforts, efforts that otherwise would save billions of dollars and reduce the deficit in the long term. funding cuts may also force the

faa aviation safety office to furlough hundreds of safety personnel. with that, mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing the testimony of administrator babbitt and look forward to working with you. >> thank you, and i do as well. i'd ask unanimous consent that the record be kept open for two weeks for additional statements. without objection, so ordered. at this time recognize the chairman. >> thank you, mr. petri and mr. costello. when you end up with responsibility over an important committee like ours, you try to set some priorities, and when asked what my top priority would be, there's no question that we have to do an faa

re-authorization. it's -- not only is it important to ensure something we take for granted in this country, and that's safe flying and skies, the ability to get around like no one on the earth has ever known, we take some of that for granted, but it does require our work as trustees of that responsibility to set the parameters and the policy. no question we've got to move forward, and i set this as the top priority. i can't tell you how pleased i am that senator reid and our colleagues in the senate have already begun their work. my goal is to not have an 18th extension and to have this bill on the president's desk before

the current 17th extension expires. at a time when the country's hurting economically, i'm told and i've heard different accounts, that the aviation industry when we were hit at 9/11 accounts for somewhere between 9% and 11% of our entire gdp, that's how big this industry is, and to not have in place the policy, the projects, the vision for the future that we craft in legislation and our, again, responsible, supposed to be responsible trustees for the people, that's not right. so, we need to correct that. we're going to get it done. we're going to work in rapid order. today we hear from the administration and welcome mr. babbitt and his recommendations,

and until the ink is dry on this, everyone's suggestions and input is welcome. tomorrow we'll hear from some of the stakeholders, and i ask you this week to speak now or forever hold your piece. and i mean, we do want to hear from you, any ideas that you have. tomorrow when we finish hearing from the stakeholders, i've invited paul of the -- i guess we call it the big four, whatever it is, guys and gals, and any other members that would like to participate, particularly the staffs on both sides of the aisle to sit down, and we'll go through the pending issues tomorrow afternoon, as we're going to move with lightning speed and try to bring forth as soon as possible a very effective, i hope, piece of legislation, one that will be

lean. we are in some lean times, but ensure, as i said, the safety of the flying public. also want to welcome today and thank for their great work. we had problems wibeyond what anyone could imagine if you lost a loved one in an aviation tragedy, but the colgan families have been just tremendous. we wouldn't have in place legislation to improve the commuter airlines' safety and effectiveness without your help. now we've got this important responsibility, and we'll want to get it done as soon as possible. with no further delay. let me just say a couple of things. i saw the senate's working on a two-year bill. i want a four-year bill.

i had no idea my bill would turn into, what, seven- or eight-year bill, jerry? the one we crafted 2003. but we need it longer. not shorter. our challenge will be to do more with less. i want a robust -- and i'm still soliciting right up until we get the final ink dry on whatever we do, next gen suggestions. next gen is our vision for the future. so, i invite and welcome anyone's recommendation, particularly want to hear from the administrator on that. so this, again, does set forth our policy, our projects, our funding and our safety program for one of the most important activities in our economy. again, be a full, open process,

but it's also going to move forward with lightning speed. and with that, i thank you for yielding to me, and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. and i would recognize at this time for an opening statement our colleague from texas, mrs. johnson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me thank the two leaders on this committee for the kind of professional work that we've done over the years together, notwithstanding what side is in the majority. and i want to especially point out that mr. costello made many efforts to move this bill, and i hope we don't have to go to the 18th extension. safety continues to be my number

one concern, and i'm hoping that we will produce a bill that provides a meaningful bill in modernizing our air traffic control system, reducing congestion in our skies and providing a needed boost to our nation's airports. i look forward to working with my fellow committee members on both sides of the aisle and hope that we'll be moving as quickly as the full chairman wants us to move on this bill. thank you. >> thank you. and at this time recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, our colleague from the iron range, northern minnesota, representative? >> thank you, chairman and ranking member costello for holding this important hearing today. captain babbitt, welcome, sir. i look forward to hearing your testimony today and discussing ways to improve the faa and to

further implement next gen. as you know the last faa re-authorization bill was in 2003, and i think everyone in the room is in agreement that we need to pass an faa re-authorization bill this year. however, i think there are several concerns that need be addressed before considering this legislation. namely, i think it is incumbent upon the faa that they can be trusted to properly administer taxpayer dollars. i specifically raise the issue in the contracts awarded to raytheon and itt, i look forward to hearing what steps the faa is taking to improve the oversight and stewardship of the taxpayer dollars. specifically i'm concerned about the implementation of next gen. it appears there are a number of factors that are stalling the implementation of critical next gen programs. i hope you'll address your agency's detailed plan, the implementation of next gen, and i'm particularly interested to hear about the next gen implementation milestones that you intend to complete by the

end of the year. thank you, administrator, babbitt, and i look forward to working with you this session. >> and recognized for an opening statement, representative carnahan. >> congratulations on your new role to the committee, to ranking member costello, i look forward to working with you in this new congress and on this re-authorization of the faa. passage of a multiyear re-authorization of the faa is long, long overdue. so we can make critical job-creating, business-expanding, and safety-enhancing investments in our aviation system to ensure it can properly accommodate the anticipated growth of travelers in the coming years. during both the last two congresses, the 111th, the house has taken the lead to pass legislation to reauthorize the faa, that would have made the

critical investments in our aviation system from airport infrastructure to making critical investments in furthering next gen. unfortunately, the final conference report was not agreed to. as we take up this debate anew, it's critical we recognize the level of investment needed to ensure that we can make critical investments in our aviation infrastructure. funding for the airport improvement program is not increased in five years. the passenger facility charges have not increased in over ten years. during this time, construction costs have greatly increased, putting limitations on how aib grants and pfcs can go to help airports meet their needs. without greater investments, airports like lambert, st. louis international airport in my home state, cannot make the investments that are critical for their rebirth. the last extension congress passed made improvements to the safety of the u.s. airline operations that bring one level

of safety to the traveling public on major and regional air carriers. critical to ensuring this one level of safety is sufficient funding to implement these safety measures. i want to thank the administrator babbitt for joining us here today. look forward to hearing your testimony. i also want to acknowledge and recognize the colgan families that are here today for your work on safety issues. having lost a father and a brother in an aviation accident, it is very important that you are here and part of this debate, and we look forward to working with you. thank you. >> thank you. and now i'd recognize for an opening statement the gentleman from north carolina, howard vogel. >> senator, i appreciate you calling this hearing on a very important subject matter, but i have no formal opening statement. yield back. >> thank you. representative langford from

oklahoma for an opening statement. >> thank you, honored to be here, and thank you so much for you coming and your availability as you made yourself available and your staff available for any questions we've had leading up to this conversation. i'm sure in days to come we'll have multiple more. i have a great interest in how we're handling next gen. that's a project, i'm 42 years old, and all my life as an adult has been what we're going with next gen and what will happen with air traffic control. and looking forward to hearing about discretionary spending from faa and how the decisions are made on where we spend and then also how we handle the re-alignment of faa facilities. i'll have great interest on how we -- how faa is making the decision and the formula that you have in setting aside which area needs to be realigned and the timing of that re-alignment, so we look forward to those conversations and thank you, again, for coming to be here. >> thank you. are there any other members that wish to make an opening

statement? representative schmidt from ohio? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to acknowledge all the families that are here in memory of their loved ones who have met tragedy in flight. you know, when continental flight 3407 met its tragedy in buffalo, new york, a few years ago, my small community of loveland, ohio, was touched twice, and i know the perry family is here, and i just want to thank all of those involved for advocating safety first and making sure that all of us are on our toes. thank you very much for all that you do, and my prayers go out to you each and every day. thank you. >> thank you. and at this time representative hirona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, administrator babbitt. i, too, am looking forward to the discussions we'll have regarding the faa re-authorization. i think all of the provisions in that re-authorization really

affect every single community, and i would like to bring up one issue that is important to many communities in remote areas. there is a community in my district, called calopapa which is where father damian administered to his patients. it's an area that is impacted by our eas process. it is basically the -- that essential air service is basically the only way that the people there can get to medical resources as well as tourists who now are coming more frequently because of the connection of that area to st. damian. i know that you're probably in the process of reviewing eas procedures. there may be people here who would like to totally eliminate the eas because of the funding situation we find ourselves.

but the real-life impact on remote areas and communities all across our country and certainly to this area would be very extreme if we do not continue to support eas and to make sure that that program works as it was intended, and that is to make sure that the people of our country are served regardless of where they live. so, i look forward to working with you, administrator babbitt, to make sure that the eas process is fair, that it's working in the way that it's intended, and, again, i look forward to hearing from you, aloha. i yield back. >> thank you. representative holgan from illinois. >> thank you, administrator, for being here, and i want to thank the families, the colgan families, thank you for being here. thank you for your input and your involvement, and i want to

join with you to make sure that air travel is safe and every day we are working to continue to increase the safety. i know that's the commitment of all of us here, along with the faa, so thank you for your input and thank you for turning this into something positive for future generations as well. also it's very important for me, my district is just outside of chicago. adjacent to o'hare, and have maybe the highest number of air traffic controllers that live in my district, so very interested in next gen and how that will move forward. so, looking forward to this opportunity to work together for the good of all people here in america in making sure that air travel is as safe as it can possibly be. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> representative from texas? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as someone who was touched personally with the death of my grandfather in an aviation accident, this is near and dear to my heart. i did want to say that i'm looking forward to working on this committee with safety being our number one concern, but also

keeping important eye on the economic growth of the aviation industry and transportation in general provides to this country. i'll be particularly concerned with the faa and all government agencies stewardship of the taxpayers' money and remain concerned at the length of time implementing new technologies like next gen is taking and how expensive that really is in the long run to both the industry and the -- everyone in the american public in general. that's all i've got right now. i yield back the remainder of my time, thank you. >> thank you. and now representative -- administrator babbitt, we thank you for the work that went into your prepared statement, and hopefully you'll summarize it within five minutes or so and answer questions. >> well, thank you very much, chairman, ranking member costello, members of the entire

subcommittee, i really want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the need for comprehensive re-authorization legislation for the federal aviation administration's programs. and before i begin my statement, i'd like to acknowledge that i see a number of new faces on the subcommittee. i've been able to meet with some of you. i look forward to meeting with the balance of you over time, and since i'm a frequent guest of the committee, i'm sure that i'll get to know all of you over time here as we get together and discuss important aviation issues. i think i heard you all summarize very well the fact that the faa's mission is, in fact, to provide the safest, most efficient airspace system in the world, and we do it well. there wasn't a single passenger fatality in the commercial aviation system last year in the united states. that record is hard fought, and we're very proud of it. but as we move forward to meet the demands ahead, i know that

we cannot be complacent, and i also recognize keenly that this congress will be extremely disciplined about how it invests taxpayer dollars. i believe that every government agency should make the business case for each investment in any of its programs, and for our part, investment in aviation is critical to this country's economic prosperity and its ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace. strategic investment in aviation reaps benefits, and we are concerned that a failure to invest may well result in negative consequences. first and foremost, as you've noted, is always safety, and i know that some of the family members who lost loved ones in the colgan accident two years ago are here today. i want to commend their continued vigilance to push congress and to push the faa to enact more stringent safety standards. the faa has been hard at work

writing the regulations required by the legislation passed by this congress last year. and while aviation is clearly the safest mode of transportation, we will never stop striving to reach the next level of safety. i, again, want to thank the family members here for their continued attention and focus on safety. part of what will get us to the next level of safety is implementing, in fact, next gen. next gen programs and technologies will help us to be more proactive in how we analyze risk and with advanced safety management techniques, we can then take the steps to prevent accidents. one such technology adsb is a satellite-based surveillance system, deploying it in the gulf of mexico opened up almost a quarter of a million miles of new, positively controlled airspace. airspace that previously had no

radar coverage. next gen will also reduce the harmful effects aviation has on the environment, while enabling carriers to operate more efficiently. for example, performance-based navigation, a term you'll hear and we call it tbn, saves fuel and reduces emission. it literally pays for itself while it helps the environment. today, we've issued more than 900 of these highly efficient arrival and departure routes using the new technology, and we're working on a plan to further improve and streamline the approval process. more precise arrival and departure routes are a sound investment, continuing to develop and deploy next gen is central to our ability to meet the demands of the future. as we continue to focus on maintaining and enhancing aviation safety, we strive to do so in ways that facilitate u.s. business interests. businesses rely on the faa to certify their projects, and

these projects range from the largest aircraft being built today to the smallest avionics box that goes in that airplane. every improvement in aviation requires certification in order to ensure safety. and failure to invest in our ability to expedite certification could result in important safety initiatives taking longer to obtain certification, and therefore taking longer for products to get to market. the faa must be able to support the demands of the industry when they develop that next good idea. these ideas translate into jobs, so investment in these areas is extremely important. now, the faa will never permit the safety of the existing system to ever be compromised, but if that priority consumes all of the agency's resources, then our ability to support industry innovation becomes affected. and, finally, it's critical that we invest in the airports to

meet what i see as an anticipated and increasing aviation demand. the airport improvement program, aip, has been disrupted somewhat as a result of these short-term extensions that we've experienced over the past few years, administrative and project costs, therefore, get increased due to the need to have multiple grants to be issued over and over again for a single project. all of the investment that we make in routes, procedures, and certification will never eliminate the need for a place to land the airplane. we work very hard to expand capacity at our nation's airports over the past several years, and it's vital to our continued success that our investment dollars are optimized, and that can only happen through a long-term extension of the aip program. we've worked for several years to get comprehensive legislation in place. our 17th extension will expire at the end of march, and the

need for stability and certainty has never been more important. i think we all understand that the challenges of implementing next gen, improving the safety and safety and efficiency of aviation come unfortunately at a time when tough investment choices have to be made. i continue to make the case that investment in aviation is important, not only to airlines and passengers and pilots and all the other airline employees and people that serve in this industry, but to the strength of the overall economy and the businesses around the country. this committee in particular demands a lot of the faa, and rightfully so. but meeting these demands will require an investment, and i think our case is compelling, and the return on our investment is one that we -- that no one can or should ignore. that concludes my opening statement and remarks, and i'd be happy to answer your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i think i would just explore two

areas briefly and leave plenty of time for all the members to ask questions. and i think i would be remiss if i didn't begin by asking a question about safety, because that is the number one priority, and you are -- and your agency is to be commended for the remarkable record of the past year with no fatalities and there have been, though, as you know, a spike up in reports of near misses and a growing concern about that. and we don't want to play got a gotcha. we do want, though, to have people know that we're concerned and we're watching, and i wonder if you could discuss that whole subject and place it in context so we understand what we're talking about. is it an improvement in reporting, so it's apparent, you know, or just what's going on with the near-miss situation? >> sure.

that's a fair question. we certainly have made some very serious changes. one of the things that we have been very open about in our approach to aviation safety is asking every person, every party involved, to be very open about what happens and we have a number of reporting programs so that we can gather more information, and we have done just that. we have invited people to be open and confess the fact that they've seen an error so that we understand what went wrong and can therefore implement a change in the system, implement a change in the training, implement a change in procedures, but we have to know what happened first. so, by implementing these programs, and some of them include abilities today to electronically track some of these operational incursions into what we would like to call, you know, safety zones or protected areas. we fully expected that we would get more reports. that was anticipated, and that's the good news.

what's even more important, though, is what we have done with that information. three years ago we had no loopback mechanism, so when we found out a safety incident had happened, a near miss had happened, we acknowledged it, and at best we might go to the facility and speak about a particular procedure. today we take all of those instances, and when we see a pattern, we change the training. that's something we weren't doing years ago. so, while these -- this rise was certainly expected because we had better and more ways and more avenues of reporting what we have taken from that is putting that information to good use with the goal being to make the system overall more safe. >> we want to be kept in the loop, too, and fully informed because we know that there's a lot of interest in this, and it is vital for everyone, both employees and the traveling public. >> right. >> and we may want to have further hearings to help explain

different situations as they arise and what steps are being taken to hopefully minimize the opportunities for them to happen, again, and the like. >> i would be remiss also if i didn't acknowledge the great partnership that we're enjoying today with the members of p.a.s.s. which is one of our professional unions, as well as nafga. both unions have joined in voluntary programs with us. it was a huge step up in safety for all of us. >> i thought i would spend a minute or two, our chairman mentioned, and it's my sense, i don't know if it's yours, but over the last year or two, there has been a growing sense of momentum toward the movement toward deploying next gen. more companies in the industry are beginning to voluntarily step forward and equip

themselves. i understand the industry is equipping a lot of the new planes being made with devices or building them in such a way that they can easily be installed to minimize the cost of deploying the system, and you mentioned it in your opening testimony. we're looking forward to doing what we can in the re-authorization to focus greater -- give greater focus to the responsibility for deploying next gen in our government and in the faa and also setting reasonable benchmarks for -- for implementing it. and we will be hopefully having a series of hearings and roundtable discussions to make it clear that what's happening and also anything that we can do to help next gen. and it's my understanding that

this is not just some sort of a -- it's a technical thing, but it's also moving the industry to a whole new level. just as we saw with high-definition tv and all of the cellular and so on and so forth, this is moving from analog radar to digital satellite transponder, expanding the capacity and safety of the system, and it certainly will help the environment, and it may mean we won't have to spend as much in physical expansion of the air because what we already have will operate more efficiently. but i wonder if you could expand on your remarks in this regard. and i understand southwest is already using it and thinks it will pay itself back within a year or so for the investment they're making in equipment. u.p.s. and fedex, a number of other airlines are using it, to the extent it is available, the new equipment that's being deployed.

and the savings for our country and for the environment are enormous, and i just wonder if you could spend a bit more of talking about next gen. >> yes, sir, mr. chairman. just listening to you, you should be sitting down there. you've made my case, thank you. you've absolutely summed it up very well. we are making a great deal of positive and forward motion here, and the momentum is clearly there, and i think we need to appreciate where that momentum comes from. that momentum comes from reaching critical mass in a number of areas, using your analogy of high-definition television, if we were to broadcast high-definition of television all over the country but nobody had a television set that would receive it, we wouldn't really have achieved much. conversely, if everyone had a television set that two receive it but we didn't broadcast it, that's the balance we're seeking as we deploy more and more stations on the ground and equip more and more airports and

airport areas with the technology that it can be used in and have operators that can utilize those new procedures, that's where we see the gains. that's where we see the efficiency. and you were perfectly on track when you talked about the efficiency. the fact that we can more accurately see where aircraft are with the next gen technology and them using next gen procedures, we can use more efficient use of the airspace. you mentioned southwest, and that is a wonderful partner that we have. and we have several that we're doing different things. we made partnerships with a variety of carriers so that they can utilize the equipment under a supervised basis. we get the information. they get the benefit of the improved efficiencies. southwest by their own accord, i'll let them announce the numbers they spent, but when fully deployed, they expect to enjoy a gain of about $60 million a year, which means they will recapture their entire investment in a period of about three years. that's a remarkable investment.

if you were a small business, you would ink up for something like that. we see that same situation. we have partnerships with alaska airlines and the green skies initiative up in seattle. we have adsb fully active in several airports around the country, philadelphia and louisville, kentucky. i mentioned the gulf of mexico. people, you know, they say, well, that's the gulf of mexico. i wasn't aware until we deployed it out there that on a daily basis, every day, we transport 10,000 people on and off oil ripping rigs every day. we did it until 1950s navigation until we deployed next gen, today they fly direct routes they are in positive airspace, they see each other and we see them. that's enormous savings in progress and safety as well. >> thank you very much. now recognize mr. costello. >> mr. chairman, thank you.

administrator babbitt, i read your testimony. we have, as you know, this subcommittee has been pressing the faa and the industry to implement next gen and to move forward. we've made great progress, and i have commended you publicly for the progress that we have made. you detailed progress that we've made with the industry. i know that as you just spoke about southwest airlines, jetblue, others are coming on board and moving forward. however, we also know that as we are meeting here today in this hearing, that the senate is debating an faa re-authorization bill that would roll back funding levels to the 2008 level. i think that members of the subcommittee and the public need to understand what the consequences of rolling back to the 2008 funding level would be on next gen, on the number of safety inspectors that, in fact, inspect repair stations today

and other issues that you'll have to deal with rolling back to the 2008 levels. so, let me begin by asking you, what specifically as far as next gen is concerned, what would be delayed and what would be canceled if, in fact, you end up with a budget at the 2008 level? >> well, let me sort of take a top-down approach to that, if i could. obviously, we would protect the safety of the current system, and we would have to this, then, prioritize and take a hard look at what moneys were left, the gap between what we have requested and the president's budget will come out next week and 2008, that gap would have to be realized somewhere. so, as i said in my opening statement, you know, we certainly are going to protect the safety of the system. but i think i could give you in general terms a few areas. one of great concern to me, we have a number of people involved in the certification of new projects and new facilities. we're seeing a new facility, for

example, boeing wants to build a new plant, i believe, in south carolina. we have honda looking to build honda jets in the central part of florida. these all require certified inspectors, and if that staff was reduced, those types of projects could simply be approved more slowly. we would want them done, we would want them done right. in terms of safety oversight. we have a number of pieces of regulations that we have either been inspired to bring forward either from our own research, direction from the ntsb or direction from this congress, and we're diligently doing those, but we want those regulations written properly. we want them to do what they were asked to do, and it's a very time-consuming process. we simply would not have the staff to do it at the pace that do today. i know what we can do today. i don't know what time in concrete terms that we could put. next gen would be in the third

area. we know, and i'm pleased to say, that we are on a pretty progressive schedule today, and i'm happy to say we're meeting the benchmarks that we re-established. we did have some setbacks, but i'm very proud of how we have project oversight changes today. i'm proud of the changes we've made to adopt acquisition strategies more in line with good business practices. but given less money, then we certainly would have to, again, take a look at the priorities, work with you and decide what is it that we can do with less of. and it certainly would slow down the deployment of next gen. the concern that i have in all of these is that it has a very direct and correlating impact on the economy. if we slow down next gen, we are projected right now, if we deploy next gen on the schedule that we have in the year 2018 we propose and we suggest that -- and people like jetblue and southwest airlines and alaska airlines are proving our case.

i have a sheet here what southwest expected in the first month of operation was a 70% usage of next gen, they actually realized 91%. it's better than they even hoped. but with those time of projections and what we would save en route, we would have 1.5 billions of gallons of kerosene in the year 2018 and ongoing savings every year after of a billion of gallons of kerosene. that's a lot of emissions and that's a lot of money, on average if kerosene is $4 a barrel, we can all do the math. it's $4 billion a year. the system we're proposing to build, you'd recapture that investment in two years. so, i don't think we should think about being penny wise and pound foolish. yes, we can save the penny, but in the end it will cost a lot of money overtime to delay a lot of what we're proposing. >> before my time is up, i have information here concerning one of the priorities of this subcommittee, the agency, and in

a bipartisan way we have been pushing the agency to move forward with consolidation. because not only is it more efficient, but it will save a lot of money over time. tell me what would happen to the consolidation program at the faa with 2008 funding levels. >> well, 2008 funding levels over what we've proposed would certainly slow that down. again, you know, we would have to look at the moneys and decide what would be what would be prioritized and work with this committee and others to make those determinations. but our consolidation adds to a great deal of efficiencies and, you know, i would note for the record, this is an agency that has sought efficiencies. i wasn't here for all of it, but i can tell you in the last five years, the federal aviation administration has saved $560 million in efficiencies we've found. we're projecting more going forward. i can talk about with more time some of the studies we're

looking at but we wouldn't be able to enjoy some of those consolidations where you could bring -- >> i'm told the consolidation program would be delayed until 2014, and that there would be no construction or implementation. is that correct? >> well, if you looked at '08 versus what we had proposed, i would have to have it in front of me but that sounds reasonable. >> thank you m chairman. >> thank you. mr. graves. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have more of a statement i guess rather than a question. i appreciate administrator babbitt we've had numerous conversations about the faa and i would just suggest and i know we've put a lot of concentration today on the airlines and next gen which is obviously affects -- all of aviation, but let's not forget, too, about the flip side to this coin and that's general aviation and the thousands upon thousands of ga pilots out there and aircraft

out there that are also flying. when you talk about going to that next plateau and always achieving the next plateau in safety, i think that's a good thing, but let's also remember that there is a point also where it becomes just far too restrictive to even some cases do, you know, what people love to do in the case of flying and opening their aircraft. you can do the same thing, say the same thing about driving vehicles around or maritime but i would like to use common sense. we've talked about that and i'm not going to get into the specifics of it here today, but over the years faa has become very much a regulatory agency and advocacy from aviation has been dropped from your mission statement but i hope regardless if it's in your mission statement or not and i know you care deeply about it, but i hope we remember that and continue to talk about the greatness of aviation and why -- how it is so safe or why it is so safe and

just how important it is to this economy. that's really all i have to say. just a suggestion. i appreciate the community. >> thank you. representative johnson from texas. >> thank you very much. and thank you for appearing before us today. let me first complement you on the efficiencies of which you've shown and one of my questions has just been answered by mr. costelo on the cutbacks. the other one is the expansion of projects involving aviation as we craft this bill. do you have any suggestions >> specific suggestions on -- >> the animotal process involving much more connectivity between the areas of transportation? >> intermodal side. i think, you know, one of the

key ingredients, while we focus primarily on the airports themselves and, of course, the safety when you leave the airport, i think more and more the country in general is looking at the connectivity so we can be efficient. one of the things i think we can learn from some of our european counterparts is the way they have connected a rail system so that people can go from the city to the airport efficiently, maximize air travel when possible and have the alternative modes. we certainly have had discussions within the department of transportation, the secretary has an intermodal council where we discuss these things whether it's light rail, whether it's transit systems, whether it's, you know, even port, adoptability for cargo, all of those get discussed, you know, at the d.o.t. level. we're certainly aware of it and we'd be willing to work with you and this committee for specifics. >> thank you very much.

and let me say that the people present who have lost loved ones, this won't make their pain any lighter but there were no deaths lost in aviation last year and i'm very proud of that. so thank you. >> thank you. >> representative schmidt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. babbitt for coming. i understand that the faa has some discretion to amend the atp license requirements on training hours and that this is currently under review. sir, do you believe that classroom hours should count toward the 1500 hour requirement, and does the faa have a position on how much time pilots should have in the cockpit of an aircraft? if you don't believe 1500 hours of cockpit time is required, do you believe that there is a minimum number of hours that should be required? >> well, let me tell you that we

are, you know, based on some direction from the last congress and this subcommittee, we are in the process in executive review right now of proposed new rule and that proposed new rule was based upon the formation of aviation rule making committee which was included a variety of sources and inputs. they have put together several of the points that they wanted to see and thought were appropriate. we have that along and being consistent with the direction and legislation that was here have put what we gathered and created as a proposed regulation. that will be put out as a knew proposed rule making shortly. people will be available shortly to comment. i think it does incorporate. i saw the drafts. it incorporates all those levels that you talked about and it's consistent with the legislation direction that you should provide some acknowledgement for two things.

number one, 1500 hours, i think was the direction of this committee. it also said you should acknowledge that classroom time is deemed to be replacement on an equal basis, people will be able to comment. additionally, military service should play a role in that. the people out defending us in combat zones come back and have a thousand hours of combat time shouldn't have to get another -- they've been defending the country, carrying our troops and doing those things, that time should be acknowledged and that level of schokill. those will be contained within the notice of proposed rule making. >> thank you so much. the concerns that have been brought to my attention, especially continental flight 3407, really exemplify the fact that there is no substitute for training, that is so paramount with safety and i appreciate your input. thank you. >> you may recall that we put forward an adv