>> this is just 3-a. not trying to include 17? >> correct. >> okay. let me ask a question. the way i'm reading this, we would not need both of these. we need one or the other. .. >> no, i'm sorry, we're not communicating. [laughter] i'm talking about your two amendments.

>> oh, i'm sorry. i'd like to -- >> let me ask just procedurally so we can act -- [laughter] let me ask just procedurally so we can get this in the right posture, do we really need both of these amendments? they accomplish different purposes. >> yes. >> i mean, they both seem to basically add after fire rm as -- firearms you want to add and ammunition, essentially. >> that's correct. we're just talking about, 3a, is that correct? >> i'm asking you do we need to have both, they seem to accomplish the same purpose. they're just worded the same purpose. i'm asking you to pick one. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. chairman? >> hold on. let me ask this gal -- >> i suppose what i'm trying to get at is i don't want, you know, there was rumored a year or two ago that the current

administration wanted to actually have you register your ammunition as well. i really don't know how that would have worked, but i would like to add 17 in there to actually just say this also includes the right to obtain and store without registration ammunition. i don't know if there's maybe, perhaps a better way to write that, but i don't want to have to register my ammunition as i would a firearm. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. chairman? >> let me ask you this, i was wondering if it'd be better to say on 3a, and i'm just trying to get to one amendment as opposed to two, should we say this also obtains the right to

have -- >> that's fine. >> is that? you're offering that now as the amendment? >> yes, sir. >> second. >> it's changed on the screen also. >> okay. so 3a now will read this should -- this also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration, and then 17 will be withdrawn, correct? >> correct. thank you. >> all right. that amendment has been moved and seconded. discussion? welcomedmented -- all right, hearing no discussion, all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? that amendment is adopted. i have con 11.

mr. kobach, are you ready for that? >> yes, mr. chairman. chris kobach from kris. kansas. as many in this room are aware, there have been recent proposals coming from the far left of the democrat party to resurrect portions of the failed clinton gun ban including research in capacity of clips to more than ten rounds and other elements that were part of that ban. congress rightly allowed that ban to expire, and i don't think we should allow these recent incidents to allow that ban to come back one provision at a time, so i've inverted this language. -- inserted this language. >> i'm sorry. please, let us know if you do not have -- this is con 11. >> i'll just read it for those who don't have it while they're waiting. >> it's also being put on the screen. >> we condemn imposed

legislation that otherwise revises the ill-considered clinton gun ban. end quote. >> please raise your hand if you don't have con 11. [inaudible conversations] >> i have a typo there, not revising. otherwise restoring. sorry. >> mr. chairman? >> okay. to get this properly in front of us, everybody have -- let's not second it yet. mr. kobach, you're actually saying that this was drawn not exactly correct, and on line 3 you're saying revising should

read "restoring." >> yes, i wrote an err on -- >> okay. so that's a clarifying -- is there a is second to this amendment? >> second. >> when i say "this amendment," i mean the entire amendment. it's been moved and seconded that this amendment be agreed to. discussion? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman? >> let me get to folks i haven't heard from yet. >> guy short from colorado? >> mr. short. >> would you change the word "clips" to magazines? >> that was my -- >> all right, mr. kobach. >> that's fine. or we could use clips or magazines. the gun officionados in the room may disagree as to what those terms refer to, but i would say clips or magazines.

>> okay. are you saying the amendment to strike clip and insert magazine? >> he's wanted to add it. >> mr. kobach? >> i was suggesting to replace, but mr. kobach suggested that we just do clips or magazines which is acceptable to me. >> mr. kobach, state your amendment. >> i've agreed to the friendly amendment that changes the phrase "capacity of clips" to "capacity of clips or magazines." >> and is there a second to that amendment? >> second. >> so moved and seconded. that amendment be agreed to. any discussion on that amendment? all this favor of that amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? that amendment is agreed to and is now on the screen as well.

discussion on the amended amendment? ms. bruce from new hampshire. >> new hampshire. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kobach, would you accept a friendly amendment to use the word "oppose" instead of "condemn"? >> i'm sorry, state that again through the chair? >> would you accept a friendly amendment to change the word from "condemn" to "oppose," "we oppose"? >> yes, i would. >> thank you. >> the amendment from ms. bruce is to strike "condemn" online 1 of the amendment and insert "oppose." is there a second? >> second. >> moved and seconded, that technical amendment be adopted. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no?

>> no. >> okay. [laughter] the condemnation caucus votes no. [laughter] okay. now, we have the amendment of mr. kobach that has been twice amended and agreed to, and now the discussion is on the amended amendment. ms. jocelyn from alaska. >> i oppose that because, first of all -- >> i'm sorry, you oppose -- you oppose what? >> changed to oppose, and i didn't get a chance to -- >> well, it's already been voted on. >> it's poorly worded. >> okay. [laughter] ms. jensen. >> it shouldn't rhyme. [laughter] >> okay. ms. jensen? >> south dakota. >> speaking from south dakota, speaking to the amended amendment. >> would mr. kobach agree to changing or just removing the

word "proposed"? does it have to be proposed legislation? >> or we could add the word "the." is. >> mr. kobach s there specific proposed legislation on that now? >> these are all great ideas. we can take out proposed if you don't like the rhyming. i really don't -- i just want to get the idea in here. [laughter] >> the move that "proposed" be struck. all in favor of that amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed say no. the okay. that clarifying amendment is adopted so we don't rhyme. [laughter] now, we've got to act on this, folks. i think you know what this is about, and we have to act. last comment, mr. stearns from virginia. >> sorry, i don't mean to be, you know, too into the detail

here. the capacity of clips, i'd like to offer a friendly amendment changing clips to magazinings. >> that's already concern. >> oh, it's done? my apologies. >> it's been moved and seconded that the question be called to end debate on con amendment number 11. all in favor of the motion say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no? okay. now the question is on the, the question is on whether or not constitution 11 should be agreed to. all in favor of adopting the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the amendment is agreed to, and i believe that is the last amendment we have on the second amendment section. any other discussion? that section will be closed. page 6 -- [inaudible conversations]

>> con 1a, addresses page 6, line 7. after "searches and seizures," -- >> okay, all right. so page 6 -- >> point of order, mr. chairman? >> okay. i'm sorry. >> page 5. unless it was withdrawn. >> i don't have that one. is there a con 19, mr. wallace? oh, i apologize. mr. wallace, are you still pursuing your amendment? >> yes, i am. mike wallace from maine. after "speed codes, free speech zones." it's just another form of censorship, and i believe it goes with the intent of the

amendment. >> does everybody have con 19? it is now -- we're not on the screen yet. page 5, line 25. insert the word "free speech zones" after "speech codes." is there a second? >> sue sharkey from colorado, and i would like to second that. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded that amendment be adopted. now, is there any discussion on mr. wallace's amendment? i think he's addressed it. is there anything else, mr. wallace, that you want to say to explain your amendment? >> no, i think that it stands on its own that hiding speech away is another form of censorship. >> yes, ma'am. >> i just wanted to voice my support for this particular amendment. this is something that happens quite a bit on college campuses where they establish free speech zones where you can say whatever you want but only if you're back

in a far corner of the campus where no one actually walks by or happens to be -- >> moved and seconded that that amendment be agreed to. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. amendment's agreed to. is there anything else then on that section? we held that open for mr. wallace, but i think we are done. hearing no other amendments to free, the first amendment, that section then now will be closed. page 6, line 5, the fourth amendment section we have mr. bushner from nebraska. >> they that's correct, mr. cha. >> who has now the amendment. it was originally for line 27, and this is where you want to insert it. you have the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do have an amendment to the fourth amendment section on page 6, line 7. it currently reads "we support pending legislation to prevent

unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of surveillance drones on u.s. soil." the intent of my amendment is to broaden that to include more than just drones. my proposed language is, "we support pending legislation to prevent unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance or flyovers on u.s. soil." the point of my amendment is recently the epa has decided to start doing flyovers over certain feed lots, many of them in nebraska without announcing such. it's kind of like satisfying on your interspying on your own americans, and i just wallet to point that -- i just want to point that out. this is something that's important to those in the agricultural industry. one thing i would like to say is this language is specifically designed to not deal with or not prevent law enforcement agencies from doing during vail lance

because the words surveillance because the words in there from the fourth amendment, unwarranted or unreasonable. so if it's warranted or reasonable, that can be done. that is the point the amendment. so i encourage the body to consider this amendment. >> second. >> okay. mr. buescher's amendment has been moved and seconded. discussion? mr. kobach? >> real quick point. this amendment is needed because the way it was originally worked is actually factually inaccurate. the initial reports that the epa was using drone, they're actually using manned airplanes, so i think it's very important we be accurate here. >> mr. chairman, that's actually why i made the amendment, because of the factual inaccuracy pointed out by the attorney general. >> okay. any other, any discussion on the amendment?

>> [inaudible] >> all right. hearing none all in favor of -- well, let's go to the amendment. all in favor of supporting the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. amendment's agreed to. i don't believe there's any other amendments to the fourth amendment section. yes, ma'am, ms. vera. >> yes. i have not written out the amendment, it just came to my attention, and what i wanted to submit was to eliminate with the exception of patrol international borders line 8 on page 6 just because when you're saying that you are, you want to prevent unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of surveillance drones with the

exception of patrolled international boards, does that mean that you can in an unwarranted way patrol our national borders? and so i'm just submitting that we may want to review that language. >> okay. do you have an amendment you're going to draw up and propose? >> i would strike with the exception of patrolling our national borders -- >> okay. well, to get that in front of us, you'll have to draw it up. we'll leave that section up, come back to it. quickly. >> yes. >> thank you. page 6, line 11, the fifth amendment. i don't -- no, wait, we do. mr. erickson has his, mr. erickson from minnesota has an amendment a at the end of that section. >> this is con 4. >> kevin erickson from

minnesota. this is a technical amendment, the word "to" should be in there. that's a technical correction. >> so, again, this is page 6, line 21. it will be addition of a new paragraph. does everyone have con 4? it's being written on the screen as we are reviewing it, mr. erickson. >> okay. to get it in the right posture, as a clarifying amendment on the first line "we oppose any effort to deprive citizens," we'll take that as just a clarifying amendment, mr. erickson. do you want to explain your amendment? >> thank you. i am currently a pastor, but before i became a pastor, i was a public defender. one of the questions i frequently got was how can you be a christian and defend guilty people. [laughter] i got it a lot. actually, in law school i said the one thing i would never be able to do was be a public defender because i couldn't do that. but as i learned how the system

worked and how our constitutional rights as individuals are intentioned against the power of government, i increasingly understood that the public defender role is vital in frequenting us against tyranny -- protecting us against tyranny. while the great majority of our law enforcement and prosecutors and judges are honorable people trying to do a good job to keep us safe, there's always a rogue, there's always a handful that are corrupt. and the more authority they have that is unchecked by constitutional provisions, the more corruption is bred. so what i would tell people in answer to the original question is my rights and your rights are only as secure as those of the vilest offender. and that all often fell hollow on people because they didn't understand it. but as we think about a day and an age where there's this increasing pressure to have indefinite incarceration of american citizens, the question is who gets to decide who'sen

enemy combatant? where are the checks and balances against that power? in this current administration and the way they are defining suspected terrorists, if you're a member of the tea party, you may, in fact, be an enemy combatant. if you're a libertarian, you may, in fact, be an enemy combatant. if you're a preacher who preaches the word of god forcefully and vehemently, you may be an enemy combatant. so we really need to affirm as a party that we support due process against indefinite detentions of american citizens. >> okay. we have had this discussion -- [applause] in some measure before, so we're going to only entertain brief discussion. ms. temken, did you does this in the subcommittee? >> yes, we did, mr. chairman. and as you can see, that issue did not pass our subcommittee, and i would reiterate your words that we have had lengthy

discussion on this issue in our prior sections, and i recommend that we have a shortened discussion at this time. >> okay. nobody disagrees with your first sentence. obviously, you're restating the fifth amendment. so second one, and we've had some discussion about that in an earlier amendment, so i'm just going to allow a couple comments. senator talent. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will repeat what i have said before, although again, i appreciate the delegate's eloquence on this. and we discussed it a little bit in my committee. everybody gets the due process. i mean, it was specifically affirmed in the national defense authorization act. they get habeas corpus, they get a hearing before a court. now, what they don't necessarily get is released. because if they're enemy combatants and they've taken up arms against the government, against the people of the united states, then the government has a right to detain them. and that's settled law. i would just, again, i appreciate the energy and the concern for constitutional

rights, but i'd urge a no vote on this. >> i can't call on you, your name tag is upside down. op your desk. [laughter] there you go, that's better. so i'm going to call mr. mr. schoenbalm because i know what you're going to say. >> thank you, governor. i just want to mention that this is well intentioned, it's good stuff. i just want to remind people, enemy combatants is such an interesting term. during world war ii he wasn't taking up arms against the united states, he was singing in an opera house, and it was pinza who was taken to riker's island, and he was taken because he was italian. there has got to be some limit to deprive government of depriving people of life,ing liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. the eroding of liberty is what i think this gentleman -- it's well intentioned. it may have to be phrased differently, but i think what he's trying to do is wake up people that we are losing our liberties, and it's being done very, very quietly and quickly under an enemy combatant or whatever term they wallet to use. but pinza was not an enemy combatant. japanese were detained under world world war ii under circumstances of war, but we're not at war right now, and still the imposition of the restraint of liberty on some people is taking place. >> mr. chairman, mark baker, montana. mr. chairman? call the question? >> mr. baker, okay. it's been moved and seconded that the question be could. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no.

good. we've had a good, robust debate. i think there's -- every member of this platform committee yees that the due -- agrees that the due process clause is critically important, and no government should deprive people of due process. ought to be corrected in the platform, and i think we've had a good debate about that, and i appreciate the civility and passion in both these amendments on this. so the question is being could. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. con 4 offered by mr. erickson. all in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the amendment fails. next -- i believe that is the last amendment in the fifth amendment section? okay. hearing no other discussion on the fifth amendment, that section is closed.

page 6, line 22. the ninth amendment, we have no amendments. any discussion? about that? the forgotten amendment. [laughter] okay. that section is now closed. page 6, line 30. sanctity and dignity of human life, and we do have an amendment, page -- from ms. summa from north carolina, amendment c9 which she is calling a technical amendment. ms. summa? page 7, line 7. >> yes, mr. chair. this is a product of somebody not being able to read my handwriting. should read "we urge congress to strengthen the born alive infant protection act by enacting civil and criminal penalties on health care providers. "it's just correcting -- >> without objection, that amendment will be agreed to.

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. let's see, is there anything else? i think -- is there any other discussion on that section? mr. barton? >> i had seen an amendment that was circulating earlier that dealt with the issue of harm to women that was to be introduced here? i'm assuming it -- >> i have no other amendments, and i'm not asking for any. >> yeah, right. [laughter] >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, page 7, line 10 there occurs to be a typo. >> i'm sorry, sir. name and state again, leads? >> i'm sorry. john sigler, delaware. on page 7, line 10, there appears to be a typographical error. the word "for" following the word lethal, i believe that should be "form."

>> after most lethal for should be form and, of course, we have the broad prerogative to make all these technical corrections. that will be noted and corrected. aeroing no other -- hearing no other amendments, that section will be close ld, and i appreciate the good work that committee did in platforms. hours of discussion, and i applaud the committee's work in affirming our respect for human life. well done. page 7, line 22, respect for the flag, symbol of the constitution. no amendments on that section. any discussion? that section will be closed. page 7, line 29, foreign laws. we have con 16, mr. kobach. you're recognized for your amendment. >> yes. very quickly, this is just an amendment that points to an additional source of foreign law. we see it from the top where the united states supreme court has

repeatedly quoted foreign law in interpreting our u.s. constitution. it's actually coming in the at the bottom as well. it'sing with raised as an argument in courts around the country. i'm not aware of any court that's actually accepted the argument, but in cases involving either spousal abuse or, you know, assault or other crimes against persons sometimes defenses are raised that are based in sharia law. we actually put a provision to this effect in kansas statute this year, and i think it's important for us to say foreign sources of law should not be used as parts of common law decision cans or statutory decisions in the lower states as well. >> second, debbie job lin, alaska. >> everyone has -- >> to get this into posture, is there a second? >> second. >> discussion? all in many fave of adopting that amendment say aye.

>> aye. >> all posed, no. amendment is agreed to. and i don't think we have any other amendments. okay. the section caption foreign laws will be closed. now, returning to page 4, line 13, ms. dye has been working on her amendment. >> governor, this is con 18. >> con 18a now. as amended. the all-male amendment. [laughter] >> thank you, governor. again, i just wallet -- want to restate it that states that use all-male elections cannot insure the integrity of the ballot when ballots are mailed to every registered voter, ballots could be stolen or fraudulently voted

by unauthorized individuals because the system does not have way to verify the identity of the voter. we call for states to adopt voting systems that can verify the identity of the voter. and, um, again, the ballots sent to every registered voter, not every registered voter will cast their ballot in an election which means that there are ballots that are available. and i would strongly urge states that are considering adopting an all-male election reconsider their decision, and in particular when we believe in our party in the rule of law and the integrity of the law and abiding by the law, then we really should consider vote by mail as rife with fraud. >> second. >> the modified amendment, 18a, has been moved and there is a second.

discussion? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. lucas. >> i'd like to offer just a friendly amendment to expand this slightly. where it says "states," i'd like to insert the words "or jurisdictions" since currently there are only two states that use it, but i know in our state we have municipalities that have all-male elections. and then subsequently in the second usage of the word "states," it would there be appropriate to insert the words, "and jurisdictions." so in the first sentence it would say or jurisdictions and in the final sentence of ms. dye's amendment it would then read we call for "states and jurisdictions." >> is the proper word jurisdictions or subdivisions? political subdivisions, that's what we call it in virginia. >> i defer to the great state of virginia on that one. [laughter] >> you left us 150 years ago. we're trying to --

[laughter] >> we'll copy your tax code anytime though. >> okay. >> i was -- >> seriously, though, i don't know if there's a uniform -- do our counsel have any -- either? political subdivisions -- >> governor, i like political subdivisions -- >> mr. lucas afters that amendment -- offers that amendment on the first sentence and the, one, two, three, four, fifth sentence to say states or political subdivisions. is there a second? >> second. >> all in favor of that motion say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no? discussion's agreed to. discussions on the amended amendment. >> yes. i just would like to ask the proponent of this if there's been any indication of any widespread fraud by using mail. >> ms. dye? >> in the last recount under governor rossi who would have

been governor rossi but was not, it was governor -- [inaudible] we had a ballot box that turned up out of thurston county after the votes had all been cast and counted at least twice. and so i would suggest that perhaps some of the ballots had been, at large bam otts -- ballots had been found and voted. >> all right, further discussion? >> yes, sir -- >> brian buescher from alaska. in alaska we do have all-male elections in the certain situations, and i would rise to oppose this amendment for the reason that it allows certain elections to be conducted at a much greater or much less cost than they otherwise would have to take place if we were required to actually have precincts open and a staff

available to do balloting the regular way. maybe because in nebraska it's because we have good elections officers, but the reality is though we also have a statute that allows both parties to be represented in the election commissioner's office at the larger cities, and because of that i think both parties tend to be more comfortable with the all-mail voting situation in certain limited elections, and that, given that i would suggest to the body that i understand there's some problems in this some states, but making it a suggestion to all the states where fiscally we can be more responsible by having certain limited all-mail elections would be, in my view, not appropriate. >> okay. other discussions? yes, mr. secretary of state. >> yes. we in mississippi are taking the position, of course, that we have the right to adopt our own

constitutional voter id standards as your state was approved just yesterday, and to me, this is contrary to the argument that states have the right to establish their own voting processes. and while i recognize there are absentee ballot frauds in our state that we work diligently on, i think each state should have it own right to conduct it own elections. and when we start down this path, we start down a path that we start to pick and choose. >> okay. governor cawley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find the argument of the priest two speakers -- previous two speakers somewhat curious as we've already gone down the trail with the voter-verified paper audit trail. that discussion was never raised at that point. it seems to me we are already down this road, and this amendment should be considered on its merits as a result thereof. >> further discussion? ms. lehman from iowa.

>> thank you, chairman. first, on a light note, i oppose anything that's all-male voting. [laughter] but with that, um, i do know that -- and we all do agree that there is voter fraud, and this is a direction that i think that we should take up. i was completely unaware that this was even going on. now that i am aware, i have to say it should be, um, opposed, all-mail voting, just because it leads to, clearly, a lot of potential voter fraud. so i agree with this amendment, and i will be voting for it. >> thank you. general owens from georgia. >> i'd like to call the question. >> okay. >> second. >> all right. it's been moved and seconded that the question be called. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? okay. the question is called. the question now is on the adoption of con 18a as amended.

all in favor of adopting the amendment say aye. >> aye. all posed, no. >> no. >> i don't know if there's less of 'em, or if you're just not as passionate. [laughter] all in favor of adopting the amendment, raise your hand. okay, the amendment is agreed to. >> yes. i would like to strike after

"u.s. soil" the phrase "with the exception of patrolling international borders." basically, there's just an underlying implication that the government can and would proceed with unwarranted surveillance and, you know, we are a nation under the rule of law, and we even in the protection of our borders. so i just think that language should be stricken. >> and that language is now on your screen. is there a second to the amendment? >> second. >> all right. the amendment's been moved and seconded. discussion. mr. bopp, did you have any discussion in your subcommittee on this? >> no, not specifically the exception. however, the purpose for the exception is that the u.s. government is authorized to patrol the border and does not have to get a warrant in order

to, for instance, search cars that are seeking entry into the united states. so it is perfectly legal under law to have, quote, unwarranted meaning you don't have to go to a judge and show probable cause in order to search things at the border. >> right, right. >> so it is appropriate to have this exception under our law. >> well, of course, there are many other warrantless search doctrines as well that have been recognized by according toes as well -- courts as well, but this is one that you feel strongly should be clarified mr. kobach? >> to your point, mr. chairman, the other cases don't involve airplanes, so that's why i think mr. bopp is exactly right. we do want to specify under

these circumstances aircraft can be used without a warrant and, indeed, we should be using them without a warrant to patrol the borders. >> oh, other discussion? and i'm going to let you have the last word. is there any other discussion on this amendment in. >> yes, ma'am, from alaska. >> debbie jocelyn from alaska. when i first read this, i interpreted the unwarranted word a little differently and not necessarily -- >> yeah. that's the legal term. this is without a warrant as opposed to the colloquial term, i think. >> okay. >> mr. schoenbalm, do you have anything? >> basically the same thing. i live 500 feet from the shoreline, and i don't want drones flying over me house. i think that would be ridiculous. we have islands like alaska, hawaii, guam. the idea that all of a sudden we have the this exception of patrolling -- and i agree with the delegate from puerto rico that that could be struck because it means more government intrusion into private lives.

a lot of people live along the coast, along the borders of our country, and i think, i support the amendment. >> i would make sure everybody remembers that this is always in the context of line 6 and 7. which is unreasonable searches and seizures. that's always going to be the standard whether it's with or without warrants. with that, you have the last word, and we're going the act. >> i just, i'm not opposed to, obviously, you know, securing our borders and patrolling. i just think that the average person who may read this may not know the specifics, and it may just come off in a way that's not -- it just may come off, you know, wrong. >> right. >> and i just want to have language that, you know, people understand and that they feel comfortable with, you know? particularly because there are sensitive, you know, areas that, where activity takes place. >> okay. good discussion.

i think everybody understands, understands the issue. it's been moved and seconded that the amendment be agreed to. all in favor of adopting the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> okay. the amendment is defeated. so that will close then the fourth amendment section on line 6, and i believe all the rest of the sections have now been closed then? >> [inaudible] >> and no other amendments are offered. and if you don't offer my more, we can go to lunch. so -- [laughter] >> mr. chairman? >> mr. bopp. >> yes, mr. chairman. i'd like to make a motion that we approve the section on restoring constitutional government as a amended. >> okay. will you -- is there a second? >> second. >> second by ms. timken. >> yes. >> you two did a great job, and

i appreciate that good work. i appreciate the courtesies and civility about discussing these great constitutional principles of our republic. so a job well done. all in favor of adopting the subcommittee report say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> okay. the report is approved. well done. thank you. [applause] okay. you have earned yourself an early lunch, and we have got to start on time. so at 12:55, please, be in your chairs, and we will finish the last two secs that the time. thank you -- sections at that time. >> oh, hold on. >> very quickly, everybody. when you come back from lunch, pardon me, when you come back from lunch, you will find some government reform amendments on your chairs. those of you who are here, so those are the next section amendments, and we will add to

them. enjoy your lunch, but let's get back. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, ladies and gentlemen, please, take your seats. okay. we are making good progress. we are now officially only one-half an hour ahead. so i hope you will give congresswoman blackburn the same attention that you gave us the

last couple hours, and let's move smartly through these last couple sections. good robust debate, respect for one another, and keep to that one minute time commitment. congresswoman blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank each of you for your diligence in getting these amendments submitted for the government reform section. we currently have a total of 19 amendments. that have been submitted. so we are going to have to move quickly as we work through these amendments. i am going to ask that each of you notice we have for clock, and i am going to have to be the strict enforce on the clock. [applause] because there are many of our fellow members that have flights beginning at about 6:00 this evening. and we want to allow them the

opportunity for the maximum amount of participation in this process. so enforcement will be made. i will say this about the temperature in this room, i am still in search of some global warming. [laughter] [applause] and, hopefully, we will see the fans on and the air-conditioning turned off, and if not, i think every woman in here is looking for a table cloth to wrap around them to warm up. okay, government reform. we stand for reducing the size, the scope and the reach of the federal government. what we are seeking to do is to make certain we have the smallest central government possible and return that authority to the states and the

localities. what we have seen happen in washington, d.c. over the last several decades has been the growth of this bureaucracy that really is a monument to liberalism and elitism. our goal is to right size, reform, reengineer government so that it is tending to the items that government should be tending to. we are had a great -- we have had a great committee working on these efforts, and they were diligent in their work. they have kept at the forefront what we all hear from our neighbors and friends and constituents. we're tired of federal government using taxpayer money to pay for programs we don't want and we can't afford. and at a time when we're

borrowing 50 cents of every dollar that we spend, it is an imperative that we reform. and reduce the size, the scope and the reach of the federal government to minimize its impact on our freedoms, free enterprise and free people. we had great leadership on this committee, and i just want to say my thank you to lieutenant governor cawley and to rachel kemp who co-chaired this effort. and at this time i'm going to recognize governor cawley for his remarks. >> thank you, madam chairman. before i begin to review the work of the subcommittee, i, too, would like to offer my thanks to my very able and wonderful co-chairman rachel kemp, and to the members of the subcommittee for their hard work. i'd also like to thank the subcommittee staff, volunteer professionals who were assigned to us, jonathan and george. our work would not have gone as

smoothly as it did without their hard work. madam chairman, we are the party of reform. the party that understands that the federal government has become bloated, antiquated and unresponsive. as such, we recognize that government reform requires constant vigilance and effort because we understand that left to its own devices, government, government would continue to expand both in size and scope. it is with that challenge in mind that the government reform subcommittee has outlined a comprehensive true reform agenda which includes a fiscal hi-responsible solution to save medicare for our senior citizens. one that i'm particularly interested in as a state official, block granting of medicaid to the states. we suggest common sense steps for the security of retirement funds. we outline meaningful regulatory reform. we suggest a check on government

interference with the innovation engine that is known as the internet. and call for an environment of growth for the internet to thrive. we reject any corporate entity that is, quote, too big to fail, unquote and call for a financial services system cha does not allow -- that does not allow for taxpayer bailouts of entities like fannie mae and freddie mac. we call for the appointment of constitutional jurists, judges who understand that it is their duty to interpret the law, not to create the law from the bench. we challenge the united states postal service to modernize and improve. we call for the reform and privatization of the transportation security administration. we call for a strong immigration policy that respects the rule of law. we recognize and wish to enhance the special relationship that our government has with american indians.

we challenge our nation's capital city, the the district of columbia, to strike out on a true path of reform. we recognize that the 130-year-old civil service system needs to be modernized and brought into the 20th century. we recommit ourselves to the exploration of space, and we call for the restrengthening of ties and note the military sacrifice of our brothers and sisters in the u.s. territories. as i said, madam chairman, this is a comprehensive agenda for true government reform. it is my pleasure to present the work of this subcommittee, and i move for its adoption. thank you. i would respectfully request at this time that you recognize my wonderful co-chairman of the subcommittee, the delegate from the commonwealth of massachusetts, mrs. kemp. >> thank you, governor. ms. kemp, you are recognized. >> where thank you very much -- thank you very much. i would also like to thank our professional volunteers that have made our lives very easy

since the two days that we were on capitol hill. i would also like to thank the delegates from the states for their thoughtful submissions. because they are the grassroots who are helping to really frame what we are doing here. and also i'd like to say the government reform really was not a glabb bag flat -- grab bag platform because without government reform, what do we truly have? so i think this is one of the most important platforms that we have here because we have an opportunity to make sure that everything comes together appropriately. thank you, madam chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. at this time we will turn our attention to section one of the government reform package, line 1, section one, the heading, government reform. it is the first 27 lines.

i am, i have the first amendment that we will go can to. you should have it as gr6. the amendment is by mr. davidge from alaska. the gentleman is recognized for action on his amendment. >> be thank you, madam chairman. this suggestion is in direct response to your charge at the opening of this hearing. one of the things that president reagan did when we started the reagan revolution which had an immediate and sobering effect on our cabinet and subcabinet officials was the formation of what's come to be known as the grace commission. and i'm recommending either at lines 19 or at line 27, whichever ben decides to put it in, that we continue that effort. we call upon the president to establish a government reform commission. my suggestions for the commission's agenda are, one, all federal programs that are

clearly within the enumerated programs of the constitution should be identified; the commission should craft a systematic program for the convey jans of all programs not within the program's enumerated powers to the states if they want them; three, to include up to a five-year block grant to assist in this transition; four, convey all federal lands not necessary for defense or border security to the states, again, with a block grant up to five years to assist in this transition; and, five, this work be done within five years. >> [inaudible] the language is in front of you on the screen. is there a second to the amendment? the amendment is now open for discussion. >> madam chairman? >> yes. >> i'd just like to point out, if we are seriously interested in structural reform, this is

the way, i think, we get started at it. if these things are achieved, we immediately eliminate almost two handfuls of federal programs and federal agencies, i'm sorry. and we really begin to empower states. many be states have been denied, and that's the second motion i'll bring up, the ability to fully recognize their economic potential because of limitations in their statehood compact. this would start realigning that relationship. >> thank the gentleman. mr. stearns? >> thank you very much. i'd like -- >> recognize yourself, please. >> oh, this is christopher stearns from virginia. i would like to make a recommendation to the gentleman from alaska that we take a look at this and see how we can incorporate this, because i think this is all great stuff that certainly belongs in the opening paragraphs of this portion of the platform, um, i just think we -- it might be a

better idea to craft it so it's more amicable to the document itself in terms of readability and so forth. yield back. >> any other comment? >> madam -- >> mr. dee? >> thank you. brad dee utah. i think, with all due respect, i think we're finally getting to a point where we're looking at the unintended consequences of some of the things we do on a platform committee. and after reading this, and i've read several that deal with these, with these -- we are as a platform committee recommending to the full body of the delegates that we approve a new government organization to monitor what we do in the states. and then we ask them to also block grant to us that ability. i have a real concern that this can't be handled within a new administration without this being in the platform,

organizing another committee to do something else to the states. >> okay. mr. cawley, did this come up in this your committee? >> no, madam chairman. solely because mr. davidge had submitted it, but he was not a member of our subcommittee, and had no subcommittee sponsor, so it was not considered. >> so it was not considered because it had no sponsor. >> that's correct. >> okay. senator talent? >> thank you, madam chairman. um, i would agree with the sentence expressed that there's a lot in here that i think as has a lot of potential and i respond well to, but it's really so immense in its potential implications, wasn't considered by the subcommittee, i just, i'm uncomfortable adding it on the floor like this. if he can work with the subcommittee chairman and perhaps put pieces of it in, but as it is and without the time really to consider it, i'd have to oppose it. >> okay. all right. from massachusetts, you're recognized.

>> jay barrows from massachusetts. can i call for the question, please? >> yes. the question has been called for. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> okay. it is, we will call the question now. the amendment is up for vote. all of those in favor of mr. davidge's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the nos have it, the amendment fails. we will now move to -- well, let's -- yes. we now move to gr11. this is an amendment that is offered by richard ford from rhode island. mr. ford, you're recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> richard ford from rhode island. thank you, guys. if i could, um, just remove my

first sentence and replace it with "we're committed to saving social security but," and then start. unless congress seriously cuts spending, the american people won't even receive a fraction of what they paid into the system. our promise to our senior citizens will be broken. >> the gentleman has presented his amendment. is there a second to his amendment in -- amendment? is there a second? there is no second, the amendment fails for lack of a second. we are now completed with the first -- >> madam chairman, i did have one other amendment to the front page. >> it's gr19, i have it. >> okay. i do not have gr19. >> i have a coup -- copy of it up here. >> okay, mr. davidge, i have your amendment in front of me. do you all have gr19? okay. everyone has gr19 now.

mr. davidge, you're recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> thank you, madam chairman. the amendment is to call on our president to what a meeting with every governor who is currently saddle with the a statehood compact that restricts that state's ability from reaching the same economic stature as the original 13 states and the state of texas. this meeting is for the purpose of negotiating or renegotiating their compact through the effects of enabling that quality. >> is there a second to mr. davidge's amendment? did i hear a second? okay. i'm sorry, i'm not finding the second. oh, okay, mr. erickson. thank you. the amendment has been seconded. is there comment? >> madam chairman? >> yes. >> as the original 13 states did not have a statehood compact per

se, the state of texas did not either. but as we've moved across the western united states and we moved north, new states became more and more saddled with restrictions by the federal government in their efforts to become states. the state of nevada is a classic example where 85% of their property is owned by the federal government in a checkerboard pattern which absolutely denies them their economic independence. state of alaska, we're not allowed to sell subservice rights even though they're owned by the state, and there are many other limitations on the state of alaska. this motion would effect probably seven states but would give for the first time an opportunity for governors to sit down with the president of the united states -- which would have to be recodified by congress -- to renegotiate their statehood compact and allow those states to achieve the economic independence that they should have similar to the ore states -- other states. >> thank the gentleman for the explanation. does anyone wish to speak in opposition to the amendment?

>> [inaudible] >> the question has been called. all in favor of calling the question? say aye? >> aye. >> opposition? question has been called. all of those in favor of the gentleman's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all of those opposed? >> no. >> the amendment fails. at this time government reform, lines 1-27, that section has been closed. the record will reflect 1:25 the section has closed. we will now open for amendment the second section, a fiscally responsible solution to save medicare for seniors. and, um, the general l lady from maryland is recognized for amendment gr13. >> thank you, madam chair.

gr13 is a simple amendment, um, just stating what we all know. the republicans in congress and governor romney are resolved to keeping medicare available as it stands for americans 55 and older. i think it is very important that we state this clearly in our platform. this amendment will add the sentence "after billions of dollars every year," page 2, line 21, we will add, "we can do this without making any changes for those in or near retirement." thank you. >> i thank ms. szeliga for the amendment. and, again, we are on page 2, line 21. it has been added and highlighted on your screen. does the gentlelady have a second to her amendment? is. >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded. is there discussion?

mr.-- [inaudible] >> my amendment, which is next, is very similar to this one. or not similar, but i want to roll into it this one. >> so the gentleman would seek to withdraw his amendment and support ms. szeliga's amendment? >> and put an additioning in this one, friendly amendment. right after "those," i would like to change it to "55 and older." so it would say "those 55 and older." that's the message of mitt romney and mr. ryan on the campaign trail. >> so it would read "we can do this without making any changes for those 55 and older." >> okay. so, basically, you are saying remove the words "in or near retirement." >> correct. >> ms. szeliga, would you consider that a friendly amendment? >> i will consider that a friendly amendment because it's my understanding that governor romney and his running mate, paul ryan, have been saying 55

and older. is that correct, congresswoman? is. >> that would be correct. so what we have before us is the gentleman from the wisconsin has a second-degree amendment to the gentlelady's amendment. so voting on mr. feign's amendment which is inserting the words "55 and older" and removing "on or near retirement." i am calling for the ayes on this. all in favor? >> aye. >> all opposed? the second degree is accepted. is there any other discussion on the amended amendment? gr13, which is before you? >> call the question -- >> the question has been called. and seconded. all in favor of calling the question. >> aye. >> all opposed? now we will be voting on the

amendment as amended. all in favor of ms. szeliga's amendment. >> aye. >> any opposition? the amendment has been accepted to line 2, page 2, line 21. that is the only amendment that i have for fiscally responsible solution to medicare for seniors. are there any other amendments? there are no other amendments to that section. we will now close that section of the government reform report, so the record will reflect that at 1:29 p.m. that section was closed, and we are moving to the third section. block granting medicaid to the states. do we have any amendments to this section? we have gr8. >> madam chairman, gr8 says page 3, it should be page 3, so

that's not in this section. >> okay. we will make this correction. i continue to call, any -- >> we have no -- >> we have no amendments. so we will turn to page 3, line 6, that is the end of block granting medicaid to the states. the record will reflect that at 1:30 p.m. that section was closed for amendment and approved. we now be move to the retirement security section. lines 7 through 32. i have no amendments presented for this. are there any amendments to the section? hearing no request for amendment, we will have the record reflect that at 1:30 p.m. this sec was opened -- this section was opened and closed for amendment. moving to the bottom of the page, page 3, line 33 through page 4, line 13.

i have -- >> gr16. >> gr16. it is page 3, line 35. the gentleman from arizona. >> yes. kip kempton from arizona. i have a small business, we employ 49.5 people. we don't want to make it to 50. >> sir, could you get closer to the mic? >> sure. kip kempton from arizona saying we employ 49.5 people in a small business my brother and i have, we don't want to make it to 50. more tacks. my suggestion -- more taxes. my suggestion here is that on line 35 at the end it says "to avoid legal problems." that kind of implies subjectivity with and not pickup with the government -- and not partnership with the government. and i'd like to change to to augment possibilities for success within the confines of the law, if we could do that,

please. >> [inaudible] >> the gentleman has presented his amendment. we are on page 3. we are on line 35. and his amendment would strike "to avoid legal problems," and replace it with language that would be "to augment the possibilities for success within the confines of the law." that is being displayed on your screen at this point. does the gentleman have a second on his amendment? >> second. >> the amendment is seconded. the amendment is now open for discussion. anyone wishing to comment? there is no comment. is there a call for the question? >> [inaudible] >> question has been called for. all of those in favor of calling the question? is. >> aye. >> opposition? no? there is no opposition. the question has been called for. before we want, mr. kempton, any

other comment on your amendment? >> no, that's it. thank you. >> that is it. the gentleman has offered his amendment. all of those in favor say aye. >> with aye. >> opposition? the amendment passes and will be added to line -- page 3, line 35. now we move to page 4, line 3. mr. ford of rhode island, i have your amendment before me, you're recognized. >> richard ford of rhode island. all right. let me first start by saying we need some relief for our tax-paying citizens all across america. in rhode island i work in a detail shop, also a car wash, very average job. and, um, we just got hit with a 7% tax -- my boss did -- on our car wash equipment. and it's having a huge effect. we got hit by, um, water taxes last year.

and we just need some relief for the american taxpayers. if the democrats don't put forward and we could have the opportunity to do so, and i recommend we should suspend the income tax as a relief to our tax-paying citizens for -- i'm open to suggestion for how much time, one to three years, but thank you. >> the gentleman has spoken on his amendment. is there anyone seconds his amendment -- seconding his amendment? is there a second? the gentleman does not receive a second on his amendment. the amendment is defeated because of lack of a second. are there any other amendments that are being presented for the section on regulatory reform? >> yes. gr17. >> okay. i am in possession of gr17. >> [inaudible] >> hold on just a minute.

does everyone have this amendment? everybody's got the amendment? mr. kempton, you are recognized. >> kip kempton, again, from arizona. i would just like to add on line, page number 4, line number 4 "or the epa and osha's overreaching regulation agenda." and give consideration to shah also -- to osha also. >> the gentleman's amendment has been read, and it has been seconded. and i think we could end up putting the alphabet soup in there, couldn't we? all righty. discussion on mr. kempton's amendment? no further discussion, no one seeking to comment? all right. is there a call for the question? >> call the question. >> question has been called for. all of those in favor of calling the question. >> aye. >> any opposition? the question has been called for.

we will now hold a vote on mr. kempton's amendment which is page 4, line 4. all of you who are for this amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the amendment is agreed to. is there any further amendment to regulatory reform? is -- going once, going twice, we are sold on regulatory reform be! [laughter] all right. we will have the record reflect that at 1:36, we republicans agreed we are sold on regulatory reform. all right. we will move to page 4, line 15. through 25. i am in possession of no amendments. are there any amendments to internet freedom? there are no amendments to

internet freedom? seeing none, we will close the section, and at 1:36 we will close the section on internet freedom. we will now move to line 26, technology, communications and the internet. i do not possess any amendments to this section. are there any amendments? no amendments? at this point we will close the section beginning on page 4, line 26 and ending on page 5, line 10, technology, communications and the internet. at 1:37 p.m., we are closing that section for consideration. we now move to page 5, line 11. financial services, no more too big to fail. okay. and down through line 30, do we

have any amendments to the section? .. >> recognizing the tremendous social value that the home mortgage interest deduction has, has had for decades. over, over 25% of our constituents would stop filing a

long form of the income tax, even though we passed the charitable deduction amendment, and they would not itemize if we did not support in some form the mortgage interest deduction. we have taken poll after poll, 80% of those voters, potential voters, said that they would not support a candidate that does not support the mortgage interest deduction. i tell you that the detection goes to the middle income, middle-class voters. and i submit we need that as our base to take back the white house. >> i thank the gentleman the from kentucky. i recognize the gentleman. is there a second? there is a second from this news. the gentleman from washington, d.c. is recognize. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i believe we discussed this yesterday and we decided not to

go down the rabbit hole. it's different deductions. so i move that we move on from this discussion. >> i thank the gentleman. ms. newland is recognize for 60 seconds. >> april newland, virgin islands. i know we had this discussion yesterday. i've gotten numerous e-mails from the national association of realtors, representing 1.3 million realtors across the country. and, of course, representing homeowners, two-thirds of the nation have been or are currently homeowners in the united states. this issue speaks volumes about how the republican party feels about homeownership. we are in crisis in many areas where foreclosures and with people losing their homes. we are trying to retain homeownership and encourage homeownership across the united states. if we do not include this in our

platform, and it is included in the other side's platform, i think that that will be sending a message loud and clear to the homeownership community that we don't care enough about this issue to included in our platform. i urge you to please, carefully consider this amendment. it is wide and broad. >> the gentle latest time has expired. >> i encourage you to please vote positively. >> marilyn, you recognize. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to speak on behalf and ask the body to support this. we had a measure in the maryland general assembly that would have removed the mortgage deduction for people who make over $150,000 a year, and i can tell you that this was incredible. this will have a direct impact on middle-class families.

if this were to happen. god forbid nationwide, but in committee we did not have this beginning of the sentence. we strongly support tax reform, which we do. it's in the event we do not achieve it, we must preserve the mortgage interest deduction on behalf of middle-class america, and a map of our housing market. thank you. >> gentlelady yield's back. the question has been called for. all in favor of calling the question say i ago. opposed marks question has been called for. we are now on ms. wiseman's amendment as recent. page five between 530 and 31 the language on the screen and funny. we strongly support tax reform, in the event we do not achieve this, we met -- must preserve the mortgage interest deduction. at this time i will call for the vote on ms. wiseman's amendment. all in favor say aye. all of those?

-- all opposed, nay? the ayes have it. the amendment is accepted. okay, are there any other amendments? no other amendments? okay, at this point in time financial services no more too big to fail. we will show that 1:43, this section is closed. all right, we will move to the judiciary. we are beginning on line 31 of page five. i have one amendment to this -- i have to amendments to this section. and at this time i will recognize mr. barton of texas for gr-4.

mr. barton. >> in the section i recommend the removal of the phrase is agreed as cases. there are six clauses addressing impeachment that adds to these issues. it is itself a difficult process. i worked directly with the members of u.s. house impeachment. the last two with edward difficult. one was a sexual predator. it was hard to get an impeachment against him. he is now a joke at the second was a federal judge who was killed in federal felonies. it was tough to get an impeachment on them. we don't need the word egregious. >> amendment has been read and seconded. it i is not open for discussion. [inaudible] >> we are calling for the question. at this point all in favor of calling the question? all opposed? the question has been called for. we are now on mr. barton's amendment. page five, line 35, removing the word egregious. all in favor say aye.

all opposed? the amendment has been adopted. we now move to page six, line five, mr. barton, you recognize on your amendment spent in this clause on line five recommend a couple changes. one is removal of the word sovereign. states are only sovereign and unenumerated areas. there's 18 areas, so sovereign is an incomplete word constitutionally but the next clause is attempting to assist the federal government. they are being sued for doing tenth amendment activities whether the essence of the federal government or not. we have 21 losses. the attorney general from georgia mentioned seven i would recommend we delete the cause that this is a sissy the federal government. i recommend deletion of the clause, sovereign. >> the language is in front of you on the screen. so what we will do with this is to remove sovereign.

that word will be struck. >> madam chairman? >> we need a second. >> madam chairman, cannot inquire? what amendment number is this? if you said it i didn't hear it. >> gr-3. it is on page six, line five. striking the word sovereign, and then strike also that are attempting to assist the federal government by, and the new language will read, stop suing states for exercising those powers reserved to the states. am i correct, mr. barton? >> that is correct, madam chair. >> it's been read. it's been seconded. it is open for discussion. [inaudible] >> called for the second. the question has been called for. the question has been seconded. it is not debatable. all in favor of calling the question? all opposed?

the ayes have it. mr. barton's amendment, gr-3, on page six, line five, the language is before you. all in favor of this amendment say aye. all opposed? mr. barton's amendment is adopted. that is all the amendments that i have for the section on the judiciary. >> madam chairman, could i get clarification? mr. kerby, you're saying line six -- i mean page six, line eight? >> yes, sir. what i want to do i couldn't find a good place to put this, so between judiciary and u.s. postal system, i'd like to put a segment called congress. and i have a couple of amendments and i would actually like to do number 221st.

-- 22, first. >> so if you are not adding, seeking to add this to the judiciary section? >> that is correct. it would be a new section in between judiciary and u.s. postal. >> before i recognize you on your amendment, what we would need to do then since we have no further amendments to the judiciary section, what we would need to do is close that section. are there any other amendments or comments? there are not so the record will reflect that at 1:48 we have no clothes the judiciary section. at this time mr. kerby, i recognize you for the addition of a new section in the form of an imminent. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. so this section would be entitled congress, and the

amendment is republicans will lead the way in government reform by seeking to adopt a system where any new legislation will require adequate time for any vote can be taken to ensure that there's time to read and, the read and debate new bills. we can take out that second because that is bad english. >> okay, the gentleman's amendment has been seconded. okay, mr. kerby, hold on just a second. so the new section would be -- we've got it. it's coming onto the screen a. republicans will lead the way in government reform by seeking to adopt a system where any new legislation would require adequate time before any vote can be taken to ensure that there is time to read and debate

new bills. >> yeah. i'm sorry for -- so, so adequate time before any vote, you can take out the to read on the third line. there you go. before any vote can be taken to ensure that there is time to read and debate new bills, that's correct. >> redoing the language. do we have the language correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> okay. is there any discussion on the gentleman's language? the gentleman from virgin islands is recognize, and i apologize that i called the question before you got your light on. >> that's all right. i'll get even with you. thank you, congresswoman blackburn. i just want to say that the rules for congress are created

by congress, and for us to suggest reforming congress without congress passing their own rules in which they conduct the orders of business and house and the senate would be mostly restricting them into an area that they don't like to be restricted. the idea is good, i just don't think it's appropriate. >> the gentleman is correct. congress does make the rules. and then the house we have a rule of the house, that it has to be, legislation has to be public 72 hours. i recognize my co-chair senator open for comment. >> right now the house has a rule that requires 72 hours posting the bill, not only for the members to rebut the public as well. there's not a similar rule, but the house does have a rule. obviously, anything has to passed the house so de facto that