we are reading the constitution on the floor for the first time in our history. we are also making it easier to cut spending. we are approaching the whole culture of this congress. the $35 million we are going to cut from our own budget is just the first step. we will cut spending to pre stimulus levels. what does that mean for familie and small businesses. we believe to fix our economy, we need to fix our congress. a more open congress will be forced to listen to the people and act on their properties instead ofashington's. we are poised to make tough choices instead of avoiding them. -- we are going to make tough choices instead of avoiding them. that is why we are going to repeal the health-care law that

was passed over the objections of the american people. i believe this lot will ruin the best health care in the world. businesses are worried about how this will affect their livelihood. the heah-care law's impact on our economy will be examined. this health-care law, by raising tas, imposing mandates, and increasing uncertainty, is already destroying jobs in our country. the report shows how the laws making it harder to and the spending that threatens our children's future. when you look dollar by dollar, the numbers do not add up. with 10% unemployment and massiveebt, the american people want us to focus on cutting spending.

that is what repealing the health care law is all about. i hope that the house will act next week to repeal the job killing health care law said that we can get started on replacing it withommon-sense reforms that will reduce the cost of health insurance in america. >> we have a clear determination to fix what is wrong in washington. in so doing, we hope to be able to deliver results for the american people and get this economy going again so more people can get back to work. we believe that a significant impediment to job growth in this company has been the existence of the obama-care law. that is why we are taking action, and next week we will see a resolution to repeal the job-killing obama-care law so

that we can demonstrate that we are dead serious about cutting the disincentives in this town to job growth across this country and began to once again grow the economy so that more people to get back to work. >> questions? >> by taking this repeal to the floor of the commiee hearing, you promise $100 billion of spending cuts in the first year. also, tea party activists are talking about this. >> have promised a more open process. i did not promise every single bill would be a more open bill. as i said yesterday, we went through a whole congres two years, without one open rule. as i said yesterday, there will be many open rules.

second, when it comes to repealing health care, we made it clear going back to last spring after the bill was passed that it ought to be repealed and replaced with common-sense reforms to lower the cost of health insurance. we outlined on september 24, when we put the pledge to american out there, our commitment to the american people that we would repeal this job-killing bill. at the american people understand this bill. the members of congress all get a chance. they have had to debate it during their collections, they have had the chance to discuss it, and the fact is the committees are not constituted yet and we want to begin action. i believe it is fair. when it comes to spending, you'll remember that we called for the 2008 spending levels to be enacted going back to august in a speech that i gave in cleveland, ohio. on september 24, we made clear that we want to go back to 2008

spending levels. if we had been able to move on september 24, we would have been able to go back to 2000 spending levels. but we are halfway through the year. i will say this, we will meet our commitment to the pledge in this calendar year, no ifs, ands, or buts. >> the democrats are upset that within the gop rules, there appears to be a rule to allow paul ryan to set the budget lel for the next fiscal year. it talked to the ordinary american about why it is possible for that without a democratic vote? >> the democrats in the house last year did not pass a budget, did not pass any appropriation bills, which left us ia position where there is no spending limit under the law. between now and the time that a

new budget is enacted by the house, someone has to set spending limits. under our rules, we decided the chairman of the budget committee was in the best position to do that. but it is only in effect until the new budget is enacted. >> you put out a statement on the debt limits. it could be more specific about what you need to see happen in spending to pass the house and could you envision them not voting on that early this year? >> as you are aware, the limit issue was out there. the reason we asked to increase the de limit was because washington continues to spend more money than what we bring an. -- bring in. if the use is going to move an increase on the debt limit, i think we have responsibility t cut spending and make changes in the process by which we spend

people's money. i think it is irresponsible to try to deal with a debt limit without taking corrective action so that we're not facing this each year. >> he said the committees are not constitute the yet. why not juswait a couple weeks, go through the regular process? we have heard criticism, people say this is bad pr. >> it is no surprise to you and it should be no surprise to our democratic colleags or the american people that we want to repeal the health care law yo. this is in the way of what the american people want, which is a better chance of getting a job. >> will include a ban on insurance companies with preexisting conditions?

>> we have called for the repeal of the health care law and replace it with common-sense reform to bri down the cost of health iurance. we will bring with the result -- we will deal with a resolution instructing the committees with jurisdiction to combat with their ideas about what those replacements all to look-alike. -- all to look like. senate does not even have to take up the bill. what is the point of going through this process? >> we made the commitment to the american pple. we are listening to the american people. they want this bill repealed, and we will repeal it. weill do everythinge can never the course of however long it takes to stop this because it will ruin the best health-care system and the world, bankrupt

it, and ruin our economy. no, i do not. i believe it is our responsibility to do what we said we would do, and i think it is clear to the american people that the best health-care stem and the world will go down the drain if we do not act. >> the congressional budget office announced that repealing the health care bill will add at $230 billion to the debt. are you worried about the signal when you've got to cut the debt at the first major legislative action that you'll take will increase the debt? >> i did not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit. the cbo is entitled to their opinion, but they are locked within the constraints of the 1964 budget act. even the actuaries at the centers for medicare and medicaid have made clear this bill will not save the kind of money that was predicted earlier. >> what should the world expect

of this congss? what be a return to partisanship and bickering at the beginning of the 2012 race or will be more productive? >> i am hopeful that all parties have listened to the voters in the election, and if everyone in washington is listening to the american people, i think there's an awful lot we can accomplish. at the american people have said there is too much spending, get it under control. i would hope that the senate and my friends at the lighthouse heard the same message that i heard. at second, the american people said we want the economy fixed. we know that spending hurts the economy, we know the job- killing health care law hurts the economy. these are the things the american people expect of us. >> with the legislation of your own, how the move forward if you

do not trust what the cbo says? >> the cbo can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them. if you go back and look at the health care bill, and the assumptions that were given to them, you will see all of the double counting that went on. you will see the fact that documents that were not part of the bill. this is why the cms has made clear they did not believe the passage of this law will in fact bring savings to the american people. >> if you disagree with the cbo and think it will save money, why were republicans not more clear about your requirements that any bill be offset? >> if you believed that repealing obamacare was going

to lower the deficit, have to have some way to offset the spending. i do not believe anybody in this town believes that repealing obama-care will increase the deficit. at last one. >> whenever bill that you use to replace the bill, will you bring in a health care bill? >> we will let the committees do their work on how we should replace this and what the common-sense reforms will be. they will have hearings. it will be a bipartisan process. we will see what they come back with. thank you all. [captions copyright national

you can watch the proceedings live beginning at 9:30 eastern time on cease? -- on c-span 2 and c-span.org. >> house republicans are working to repeal the health care law. view the bill on line at c- span.org >> i think news organizations have adapted. is a great step they are probably not doing as much? the public has a responsibility. the public has a responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday, the abc senior foreign affairs correspondent looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan on "q&a."

president obama named bill bailey as his new white house -- bill daley as the white house chief of staff. he is the brother of chicago mayor richard daley. here is the announcement at the white house. it is about 10 minutes. >> please have a sea. happy new year. last october when rahm emanuel departed to pursue other opportunities in chicago, i asked one of my most trusted aides to step into the breach and lead us through a difficult

time. thanks to his efforts a time when many thought would be a time for retrenchment has turned into a time for our country. when you consider a first smelled him, and he told may his strong inclination was to leave government. [applause] the reason everybody is applauding is because they have heard him say that every day for the last six years. yet each time i have asked him to except one more assignment, he has taken the job, and it is

fair to say i would not be where i am today without his extraordinary council. he did not volunteer to serve as chief of staff. he accepted the responsibility though, and as he oversaw our strategy during the lame-duck session of congress, he was working to develop a plan i believe will serve the white house and the american people very well. one of those assignments was providing recommendations for candidates to serve as chief of staff going forward. as part of that process, i am proud to announce the appointment of an experienced public servant, a devoted patriot, my friend bill daley to serve as my chief of staff.

[applause] few americans can boast the breadth of experience bill brings to this job. he served as a member of president clinton's cabinet. he took on several important duties over the years on behalf of our country. he possesses a deep understanding of how jobs are created and how to grow our economy. he also has an awareness of how our government and politics works. you might say it is a genetic trait, but most of all, i know him to be someone who cares deeply about this country and considers no calling higher and more important than serving the american people. he will bring his experience,

strong values, and foreign- looking addition to this white house. i am convinced he will help us, and i very much look forward to working with him in the years to come. i should also confess i have to -- i have a deep sense of duty, and i am grateful he has agreed to one more turn of duty. [applause]

as you might have noticed, people like him. he is a unique and indispensable assets to meet and the administration. i cannot imagine life here without him, and i am delighted we are able to keep him. i will be making further announcements in the days and weeks ahead, and i am confident we will have a great team equal to america of's task in the years to come, but what i would like to do is introduce my new chief of staff, bill daley. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you very much. you have honored me and my family by giving an opportunity to serve you and our nation. 50 years ago this month a visited the white house with my parents, and my -- and a young president went on to show great strength and leadership in the face of great challenges. you are proving your strength, your leadership, your vision during a most difficult time for our nation and for the world. you have also shown to your example the public service is an honorable calling, and i am pleased to answer your call.

i look forward to working with the wonderful staff. the direction and great work he has provided, and the president talked about the enormous successes under pete's watch. he has dedicated service to our nation, and i am proud to call him my colleague. i assure you, as they have done in the last two years, this team will not let you down for the nation. thank you very much. i[applause]

>> tomorrow morning on "washington journal," we will discuss the new congress with the governor of massachusetts and bob bishop of utah. that begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, from monsoon,

the geopolitical importance of the indian ocean region. thomas daily on his experiences during the first month of the surge. and eduardo porter says there is a price on every decision of person makes and most do not realize how often it is a motivating factor. signup to get our e-mails directly to your in box. >> i think news organizations have adapted. they are doing more domestic news. the public has responsibility, too. the public has a responsibility of keeping itself informed for. >> abc's senior foreign affairs correspondent looks at the wars

in iraq and afghanistan. the new chairman of the house budget committee sat down for an interview with the wall street journal. they talk about the budget deficit and the republicans relationships with the president. this is about an hour. >> let me ask you toake your seats, and i will do >> let me ask you to take your seats. the first half will be on packer's prospects and wisconsin's unfortunate defeat. defeat, culminating a big week for the big 10.

at least wisconsin made a competitive. i edit "the weekly standard," but i am also on the board of these organizations. onef the sponsors is the manhattan institute. i am a also a relatively inactive member of the board, so i get to do the introduction and leave. listen, i should say, of course. listen attentively. but you all know it is a very fine think tank in new york. it was probably best known for its contribution to the policy ideas which mayor giuliani implemented in the 1990's, and many other mayors and governors took the lead on in the 1990's. in the last few years, they have done terrific work on the state pension crises.

and also on the fiscal crisis, the financial crisis. they are happy to be a sponsor of the institute. they're dedicated to innovative public policy ideas. both websites are really worth going to each morning. sign up and get the e-mail from them to save yourself having to find them each morning. i honestly recommend that to keep up on the economic policy debate, both at the state level and the federal level. both are worthwhile. we are pleased that we will

have a series of conversations with major public figures, and the conversation will be moderated and led by another major figure. it will have mitch daniels and a month and other governors and senators, actually, and oer political leaders who have consented to do this it is terrific to kick off with paul gigot and paul ryan. at the their needs and the introduction. bestgigot wrote the column and washington for the wall street journal from 1998- 1991, and -- from 1988-2001, and he has been editor of the journal. paul ryan came to washington in 1988 as a 7-year-old -- [laughter] yeah, he came as a young member

of congress. itard to believe that he just entered his seventh term as a republican member of t house from wisconsin, now chairman of the budget committee, obviously a crucial position to have. he was already crucial for his intellectual leadership, and not institutionally as well as for what happens in the next the years with fiscal and budgetary policy. i will turn over to paul gigot and paul ryan. >> it is a great pleasure for me to be here. it is a pleasure to be here with congressman ryan. the plan today is we will talk about 40 minutes and then we will open up for questions. before we get into the details of the budget year and the debate, let me ask you to think ahead two years, to 2012. >> t packers will have their second super bowl ring by then.

>> you are more optimistic than i am, i am afraid. buyou are running for reelection, you want to present to the voters what you have accomplished. thinking ahead, what is it that you want to tell the voters, show the voters that you have done in these two years? >> that is anmport question. what i hope we will have done is have been responsible. we will conduct ourselves with humility. we will have work with president obama on occasion where we find common ground on issues to get things done for the country. but at the end of the day, and 2012, -in 2012, i think there are large chasms of government philosophies that will not be bridged. i feel that we owe it to the country to give them a choice, an alternative future for the country. by 2012, hopefully americans will have in front of them a very clear choice to make.

on the one hand, it will be the future of what we have in front of us right now. based on the current objective we are on, based on all the government that has been created in the last two years, had been proceeding that, from both political parties, which is putting ads on a path of debt ruin, which is putting us on a path of beingore like a social welfare state. that is the path we are on today. hopefully we will give the choice of a different feature where we reclaim the erican idea, embrace american essentialism -- exceptional listen, and we are priced -- and we read apply the principles and we have a debt-free nation, prosperous economy, and opportunity with a safety net as opposed to a welfare state. and give the country a choice. i believe that we will win that

referendum and therefore have the moral authority and the opportunity in 2013 to make good on that vision, to reapply these principles and fix these things. it is also important that they see us as that, party of growth and opportunity, not crony capitalism. we have fallen into that party track before, that we believe in being pro-market, not necessarily pro-business. so what we believe then is a system and society where everybody has the chance to make the most with their lives and that we have prosperous, growing, internationally growing economy where people have a bright future. we know for a vote irrefutable fact we're getting the next generation and inferior standard

of living based on the future we have right now. we just created two new open entitlements. give the next generation higher living standards. t>> he did not mention any specific legislative achievements, necessarily. he suggested the main goal, as you look at two years from now, you think there is anything legislatively that you really want to have done? >> i think for that to take plac we have to define ourselves with our action. we have to draft and pass legislation in the house to frame that choice, accomplishments we want to have by then? it is difficult to have that question because we did not know what the president will want to sign into law or not. the way that i hope this goes is the president -i thinkhe

triangulation, whatever you want to college, is a foregone conclusion. he has to come to the middle to t some things done to work with house republicans. hopefully he will say on a, b, c, let's do these things. hopefully some spending cuts, trade, spending reforms, and we do those things. but on x, y, z, repeal of the health care law -- so we will still advance legislation doing these x, y, z things. at the end of two years, the people of this country have a have a clear choice. >> but you have to take care of th budget, fiscal 2011, and then pass the budget legislation. you are taking over it to committee with spending of gdp

is about 25%. the deficit is about 10%, roughly, and the deficit is about one $0.20 -- $1.2 trillion. is there tangible progress? >> we will get our first bunch of numbers at the end of this month. i think the president submits his budget february 14. then we get another set of numbers from cbo in march. that is where we see where we are and what kind of deficit targets we can hit. yes, i expect in the spring, probably april, when the deadline is hit. in apr, we'll have a budget resolution which will map out how we will do things differently, what are fiscal prescription for the country it will be.

containing, controlling, cutting spending, but also growing the economy to get an opportunity, prosperity, and jobs back in the economy. those will be in the budget resolution. the technical part of the budget resolution that is necessary is fiscal year 2012 discretionary spending. that is where the government shut down scenarios come into play. will have a lower number, probably lower than the fourth president. of the course of the summer and into the fall, -- over the course of the summer and into the fall, will have to negoate a resulting number that comes out of that for discretionary spending to continue. >> first you have to deal with fiscal year 2011. you have probably heard the democrats criticizing you for backtracking on the $100 billion reduction campaign promise. could you respond to that charge? >> if people think we are afraid

of cutting one of a billion dollars, they have another thing coming. -- if people think we are afraid of cting $100 billion, they have another thing coming. when we said we would bring down to 2008 levels, that was part of that. what has happened since then? the c.r. occurred. >> continuing resolution. >> and to things that happened sincet happened. he c.r. itself brought spending down, and have the fiscal year's spending has gone and out the window. hitting the spending target we have pledged to hit in the pledge to america now scores at around $60 billion, not $100 billion. so the savings estimates of our policy in october was one of a billion dollars. now ha the money is out the door because of the c.r.

it is not a backtrack of policy. the republican policy has stayed the same. >> is it fair to say thathe $100 billion, that is just a down payment? >> wait until we do it the fiscal year 2012 spending bills and the budget resolution. we will keep going. >> the discretionary accounts, you think that you could get a lot of that. does that include defense? >> yes, we have caps. you cannot throw $700 billion at the government and not expect weast to occur. >> you would reduce that? >> i would reduce the entire cap. iand then we would prioritize. i don't try to do the job of the

appropriations committee. they are guarded about their jurisdiction. the way i look at defense spending, first, let me say something that think might be counter to what you thought i would say, i would want that to be at a peace dividend budget, but we're not at peace. at second, there is waste at the pentagon and we have to go after that. we have to save money in the dod budget. >> any specific examples? >> there is lots of waste in operations and management accounts and procurement as well. about any particular programs? -- >> any particular programs? >> i have opinions but i will keep and to myself right now. i want to go after the waste, get the savings and the pentagon, and put that back into defense spending to prevent supplementals. what we typically do it is passed a defense appropriations bill, and we pass a supplemental

on top as if it is an emergency that we don't know we are in afghanistan. i would rathe see savings occur from within the pentagon budget by cleaning up the books at the pentagon and then putting that back into the pentagon to reduce the need to have the supplement pills which occur outside of the budget and on top. to me that is the better way to go. we need to force government to prioritize from within. and let's recognize the fact we cannot have a peace dividend at a time when we are not at peace. >> what kind of magnitude are you talking? where is the 2008 target still -- >> 2008. that your talking about lower? >> i am talking about more savings coming into the budget. i cannot give you the numbers because i do not have the cbo baseline. but we will continue cutting spending after this current fiscal year expires.

>> the other big question, it york on to reduce spending, are the entitlementccounts -- medicare, medicaid, social security. will you include those and reductions in those, reform and those? >> i literally do not know the answer to that question. what everybody seems to think these days, gosh, i am the chairman, i could just make my road map to the budget resolution. that is not how it works. i wrote the road ma from 2008- 2010, to reach the consensus of one person, melf. i now have to reached a consensus of 218 people, the majority of the republican caucus. it is difficult to say, especially since i don't have the baseline, but we have to deal with entitlements. what we will do, we a

launching lsf hearings on entitlements at ways and means, lots of hearings at the budget committee on entitlements. the commerce committee will do hearings on entitlement reforms. it will bring governors ought to tell us about the reforms. we will look at medicaid solutions, all parts of the federal budget. nothing is going to be immune fr oversight and from hearings, so we can get the best ideas to try to figure out how to get this turned around. ultimately, you cannot fix or preempt the debt crisis without dealing with entitlements. we have to take some sizable steps in that direction. >> so your argument will be that we must do something about the medicaid, medicare, and social security in this to your time frame, despite the fact the president is a democrat and the senate -- >> i look at the three of those in the same sentence. at the debt commission, social

security reform should not be a function of deficit reduction or debt reduction. social security reform should be to fix and reform social security. whether or not we do social security reform, i don't know the answer to that. i'd love to see if the president wants to engage in that dialogue. i don't know the answer. >> would you recommend it? >> the last budget that i wrote in the minority, but modest social security reforms in there. -- i put my best to socials kurta reforms in there. >> would you like to see that? >> i would. i think it is one of the policy options we should consider given this at fact that states are so different from each other. it is leading to state in solvency and contributing to their fiscal problems. >> what do you think the prospects of that happening are? >> in the interim, i think that

holds the best promi. i think social security and medicare reform will take longer to achieve, because i don't think this issues are there yet. because of the divided government that we have. >> medicare is obvious the most politically difficult -- >> i am familiar with that. >> not only because of the difficult politics, but the case your party ran against the medicare cuts as part o the health care reform. so has that complice your task this year? >> if you look at what we said, we were against taking $522 billion of medicare money to create another government program that did not do anything towards helping solvency.

a lot of republicans drop that last sentence and were just for cutting. >> imagine tha >> but taking $522 billion to create another in totten that was a bad idea. medicare is going broke. the biggest fiscal problem of all of them, i believe we need to make down payments on medicare reform. >> in these two years? >> i will have hearings from the budg cmittee on this. i don't know if we hav consens on this. i don't know whether we will be moving legislation on this, but i think it is something we need to consider and talk about. >> you are young, but you are still old enough to remember 95, 1996, when the republicans -- i think you were an aide at the time, newt gingrich was the

speaker at t time he pushed dramatic reforms in entitlements, medicare and medicaid in particular, and they were the party's and doing politically, -- they were the parties on doing politically. >> that is the historical view right now. >> i thi a lot of members of the party think that. so the question is, what is different politically now to make you think he could make the same kinds or similar reforms and survive politically? >> because the economic day of reckoning is right around the corner. because the tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities are in front of us. medicare is going insolvent

later in the decade, and medicare is the greatest cause of our debt problems. because the baby boomers start retiring this year, we're going from approximately 40 millio retirees to approximately 80 million retirees. we are increasing the benefit by 100%, but we're only increasing the texting generation by 17% to pay for these programs. we have a looming insolvency. if you look at the gao unfunded liability figure, the general accountability office, it was 62.9 trillion dollars. it is not 88.4 trillion dollars this year. we are going that much deeper into whole, that much faster. after the 1996 medicare imbrue political football -- after the 1996 medicare political football issue, this bipartisan

commission, that recommended some innovative reforms to medicare that would have put it on a path towards solvency. we co-authored some reforms that are innovative that put medicare on the way to solvency. a commission advocated medicare reforms and put it on the path to solvency. let me tell you what the road map does on medicare. what people like me have been saying is let's guarantee that current seniors with the medicare benefits they have coming towards them, people have already retired or near retirement. if you are under 55 years old, guess what, it will not be there for you. you'll have to severely and deep ration medicare to seniors at that time if we keep

the program going as it is, and the new law puts a lot of these rationing mechanisms in place. >> my guess that if you put a question of the it -- if you put a question to the american public about this, saying that these are real and if there understood, would you favor reductions in medicare spending in the future, you would get 60%, 65% against. but you have a significant technology and education hurdle in front of you? >> we do, but we will never fully fix the budget situation without addressing medicare. whether we do with this year or next, i don't know the answer, but we have to keep talking about this. whether we pass legislation, don't know, but we cannot stop talking about it. >> is this the kind of major ange that you need

presidential support for? >> i think so, for either party. >> to actually accomplish? >> yes. >> so with the president says, don't touch medicare, which just took $500 billion out of it to put to health care reform, then the republicans, should they marched into the fixed bayonets, politically? how many sponsors do you have? >> i have not reintroduced it. i was not looking for co- sponsors. i cannot tell you whether we will push comprehensive medicare reform and the budget or not, but we will be talking about it. will be doing hearings on it. i wi be personally advocating my own legislation and outside of my role as budget chair. >> ok.

let me ask you about the president. the last time we talkfter the election, you were pessimistic about the degree of cooperation you would get from the president as the republicans move forward on their agenda. since then, you have the tax deal, which was something that you supported, and it passed with big majorities in both houses. did that negotiation the judah ink that perhaps the president will move more dramatically than you thought, on more items or you could actually get things done? >> that does not lead me to think that because that is something he had to do. he did not have a choice of the matter. >> w? >> because of the votes and the date. the tax increase clip was happening, anybody, whether you are keynesian a classical economist, would argue that it would do damage to the economy. he had to do this, plus the

votes just were not there for his school of thought, i would say. he had to do that. i don't look at tax deal as necessarily a sign of things to come with respect to cooperation. i believe, i would like to tnk we will have cooperation on some issues, but i think days -- i think those will be more the exception than the rule. >> you mentioned trade. what else boxed -- what else? >> hopefully spending reforms. budget limits, budget caps, but reforms perhaps. i have a line item veto bill at i've had with democrats in the past. >> you want to push that? >> yes, that is among the things. >> does the leadership support that? >> they always have. >> out where else can you get agreement with the president? >> i am curious what he will do

with immigration reform, whether it will be a political issue or try to get things done on that. two years as a long time of not doing anything. obviously, the priority is getting the border under control, but we have all these other issues in the immigration law that have to be addressed, and that is also for economic reasons. i wonder out loud, talking to john mccain yesterday, and he seems to think there is a shot at this, i don't know if it is possible or not. energy policy as well. would like to thank -- i would like to think that somewhere this administration would allow us to explore for domestic energy supplies. >> what you havto get? >> more natural gas than oil. i don't think that he will open at outanwar, but i think natural gas, that is cleaner burning -- i don't think he will open up anwar, but hopefully energy

legislation and natural gas. epidemic is the price for that that would have to give green energy subsidies? >> my inion, no. >> so you are going after that, subsidies r wind? so you still think he may compromise on energy? >> i don't know, but i think there is a chance of it. >> what about tax reform? you have talked about this for a long time. dave camp has talked about it, even charlie rangel supported in the last congress a cut in the tax rate from 35% down to 30%. so the presidentay have headed at this -- the president may have hinted at this.

it is that something? >> we will see what he says in the state of the union address. i think so. most people -- i have been involved in tax reform for a long time, but they all involve broadening the base and lowering the ris so how you do that matters greatly with respect to our competitiveness, but i would like to think we can get a consensus on broadening the base anlowering their rates to make the tax code more competitive. i hold out some hope that there is a shot at some actual -- maybe not wholesale fundamentals, but hopefully a good step in the right direction to make the tax code more internationally competitive. >> would you support a more narrow flat tax, lower the corporate tax rate, and reduce

some? >> yes. >> how do you feel that goes with the caucus? >> i think generally speaking, pretty well. my own tax reform bill basically does that. the budget that i brought to the floor last session. the corporate rate down to 25%, investor based broadening measures. it has already been in the caucus. we have to confront the continent. i have been on ways and means now for 10 years, and the tax expenditure lobby has an interest in this. they succeeded pretty well and protecting those interests through both political parties. we have to confront that. if in 2012 we do our job right, we're looking out for the american people. we are looking out for the american economy. we're not looking out for narrow special interests that have this tax code carved out that serves

as a barrier to entry. we want growth, competition, lower barrier to entry. it won a haven for capital formation in this country, -- we want a haven for capital formation in this country, not some other country. >> there is a debate a lot about how to handle the debt ceiling. i think the president today submitted his formal request that the debt ceiling be raised. it will have to happen sometime this spring, some people disagree about the timing, but sometime in the next few months. there are a lot of republicans making this almost into a moral issue, saying i will refuse to vote for a debt ceiling increase without major spending reform >> i am glad to hear that. i am in the major spending reform camp. >> what do you think about that

strategy? >> just refusing to vote for it, i don't think that is really a strategy. i believe -- i don't want to rubber-stamp big government in raising the debt ceiling. do i want to see this nation default? no, but i want substantial spending cuts and controls in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. that i related. it is not unrelated. so i believe if we're going to do this, which obviously you cannot default, we need to have some real fiscal fixes to do that. this is very serious. it is something we care a lot about, and we will not turn the fiscal shi around overnight, but we want to point in the right direction. the debt ceiling is not dealing with current spending, it is old spending. it is the recklessness of the

past. >> but it is your watch. >> doesn't have to be raised what -- does it have to be raised? default is t the alternative. we did not want to just pass some naked debt ceiling increase. we want to have real fiscal controls, or spending cuts in order to do that. >> the fmer senator phil gramm once told me one of his political roles was never to take a political hostage you are not prepared to shoot. you have to pass a debt ceiling increase. so that is a hostage you are not prepared to shoot, because she cannot. how was that a winning strategy? >> how long will we raise it for? two years, one year? there are lots of ways of doing it that could speak to our strategy. i don't like negotiating in the

media on how we will propose this issue, but republicans are not interested in just a nak debt ceiling increase it. >> you well want something in return. >> at a minimum. >> what you what remains to be negotiated. >> exactly. >> if the president refuses and says you guys are irreonsible, you are wrecking the full faith and credit of the united states and that is irresponsible -- >> i think it is irresponsible if he refuses to sign a bill and country defaults. but it is his choice. >> but you think you cou do that when he has the bully pulpit? >> we are on the stage right now, a we? >> i am a local journalist. he has the bully pulpit. >> what we really do not like is runaway spending that

bankrupting this country. we want to see the fiscal direction of thicountry change. e debt ceiling is a symptom of the fact that the fiscal policy is way off track. we want to do some things that it was pointed in the right direction as the debt ceiling increase occurs. the letter this morning said march 31-may 16. there is an effective time frame. nobody really knows the answer. it is ceipts and expenditures and things like this that are a little on forseen. we're not interested in a naked debt ceiling increase. >> ok, another issue that is likely to come up is the fcal position of the states. there are a lot of them, including major states, and very tough fiscal positions, big deficits, and there is a prospect one or more of them will come to you and say we cannot avoid truly awful cuts in

services without help from the federal government. what is your response? >> california, we cannot do a bailout. if we bail out one state, then the other states is not just implied, it is almost explicitly put on the books. then the federal debt will go way up because of state debt. there seems to be some implicit belief that these are federally backed. they are not. it is important. i am a supporter of the nunes bill which is asking for more clear accounting. if you want to enjoy a taxree bonds at the state or municipality, give us a clear accounting of the liabilities. they have discount rates of something like 8%, which is just not reality. a, let's get more clear accounting, and b, we will have

lots of hearings on this. we need to learn more about what states are in what situations, what are the timing othese things, and what the proper response is. i have been working on something myself on what i think would be the proper federal response, but we're not interested in a bailout. >> so this is a flat "no." what if some states say they are in danger of default? >> they are already telling us that. >> take it somewhere else? >> should taxpayers in frugal states be bailing out taxpayers in other states? going to become a frugal state, but we have not been one. it should taxpayers in indiana who have paid their bills on time, should they be bailing out californians who have not? no, we should not and that is a

moral hazard we're not interested in creating. >> you have probably heard some democrats say and repeal of the health care bill, there will be a big hit to the deficit increase. what do you think of that idea, and why did you exempt the repeal from the new budget rules that make it impossible under the rules, at least, to increase the deficit? the only reason why anybody suggest that this will reduce the deficit is because the books have been severely cut. it is not the cbo that did the book cooking. the cbo has to score what you put in front of them. if you put a bill in front of them that ignores the discretionary cost of $115

billion. that double counts the medicare savings. that double count the social security revenues. that does not count the fix. if you add all that stuff up and net it out, we are talking about a $7.10 billion whole. if you actually do real accounting and get away from the budget gimmicks, this is a huge deficit increaser. it is better than accepting all of the budget debt -- budget gimmicks that democrats used to cram this into law. this thing will not reduce the deficit. i am very confident in saying that. that is not reality. >> will you seek a we score from the cbo? >> we got one yesterday or this morning.

it is about the same as it was before -- $145 billion. we are going to ignore these budget gimmicks. the press has been hitting us on this. we are bringing it up under a closed rule this week. we promised the american people that we would do this. i have a notion that if you say you are going to do something, you do it when you are in office. we said we would bring up a straight up and down vote to repeal this health care law. what are we doing? that is what we are doing in office. we do not think we should be paying for the repeal of a law that we believe will increase the budget deficit by $700 billion over the next 10 years. i get a little animated. >> fair enough.

[laughter] he mentioned that you want to have a growth agenda. >> if yes. a lot of things that are a necessity u have to do as budget chairman is through reducing this and reducing that. the danger, i suppose, politically is you become -- you get a reputation for austerity. the president takes the high ground and says he is the growth died. we need spending for investments and growth. i am the growth candidate. you began to look small and austere. you are the national accountants. how do you avoid that? obviously read rick is part of that. what do you do to be ablto avoid that austerity level?

>> it will be on the budget itself. let's focus on the foundations of we need for economic growth. i am not one of these people do things you can scratch some big bill with a magic silver bullet and turn the economy around. lower tax rates -- that is something we can do with a budget resolution. in your resolution, you assume whatever tax policy you will have going for. tax reform is number one. it is a key ingredient to economic growth. we need to go after regulations. that is not something you do on the budget, that is something you do on the other committees. we need regulatory uncertainty. we need businesses to understand what the rules are. we need fair, honest, efficient , a transparent regulations. that is the second thing we ought to address to get growth in this economy.

we also need to become the party of sound money. our money has to be honest and reliable to our values. we have a federal reserve and monetary policy that is anything but sound. >> that implies you are going to bring up chairman ben bernanke and talk about monetary policy. >> i am sure ron paul has a few plans of his own. [laughter] >> are you going to push your bill for the dual mandate? you want to see the boat for that in this congress? >> if yes. >> if you vote to get a bill on the floor. >> i have to do that, yes. >> what else? >> we need to focus on these foundations. we need to do the things we think are important to get growth in this economy and make ourselves better as america.

trade, led tax rates, sound money, as our resident -- sell regulations -- that is what we need to make us internationally competitive. some of these things are other bills will have to pass. i would also attack on top of that an energy policy that creates jobs here at home, makes usess dependent on foreign oil, lower our commodity prices, and lowers our fuel prices. these are the things we need to do to have growth. yes, we need to cutpending. we want to open it up for questions. >> it is important that we are the growth party. cutting spending now is really not a root canal. wait until we do not do that and what happens later. the question we have for this country is, do we reform government, reform r entitlement programs, getting

these programs to work in the 21st century, and have a growth policy that makes our businesses internationally competitive -- that is growth. what austerity is, is ing nothing and having our own debt crisis and our own europea kind of a fixed where we are raising taxes on the current economy to slow it down. the question we still cannot answer is do we have a pro- growth policy to get us going again? without economic growth, you cannot fix this budget problem. or do we manage load segment growth, watch us tip over to a debt crisis, and then manage our decline as we go into a welfare state? we are coming to a country where we are getting more and more takers than makers in america. if we have more takers, then we

are denying people their ability to make the most of their lives. it drain them of their intentions to make the most of their lives. that is the end, these types of policies we are discussing. -- that is the outcome of these types of policies we are discussing. [applause] >> we are going to open up the floor. we do have microphones. please identify yourself and ask your question. the gentleman in the corner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on the issue of entitlements, you mentioned that is the biggest area you would like to create a contract with the obama administration. quite the biggest area of contrasts -- i would say all of the budget.

>> and thomas is the biggest part of the problem -- and entitlements is the biggest part of the problem? you talk about the road map and the budget which seems like less of a likelihood. you also want to p the spending cuts out there before the state of the union. are you backing all of the willingness to go after this? >> we are cutting the congressional budget. we will put bills on the floor. i cannot speak to the timing of before or after the state of the union, but we will be bringing spending cuts of all first corder long. i am not suggesting the budget will be one thing or the other. i do not know the answer to the question. i do not have a baseline. it is collaborative process. we have not gone through that yet. we have not had our committee

hearings. we have not done the research we intend to do to fmulate a good public policy. it is not like we are the majority and we have everything figured out. congress has not had a lot of oversight in the past few years. we need to get into policy. we need to bring innovative policy makers in to discuss how best to achieve these goals of keeping america exceptional. we're not done all of that yet, so it is impossible for me to tell you what the budget resolution will look like. there i want the roadmap in the budget? i never intended when i wrote the roadmap that this would be the budget for the platform for the republican party. what i intended was to create a debate, create discussion, encouraging other people to jump in with me to discuss how to fix

these fiscal problems. what i wanted to share with the roadmap is that you can still have the american dream. but is still keep our government limited and our economy free. it is still not too late. think i achieved that. i want to advance the discussion to an adult level. it is not quite there, but it is getting closer. when i read the roadmap, that was not me saying, "this is exactly how to do it and this is the only way i wil go." far from it. this is one way of doing it and what i personally think is the better way to go. i want other people to bring theirdeas to the table to get the best outcome. we are in the process of getting other people to bring their ideas to the table. we have not completed that process yet. that is why i cannot tell you. weere just worn in yesterday. [laughter]

>> whave a microphone here in the front. >> i am from the washington post. the is the roadmap, according to the cbo, does not balance the budget until 2015. -- 2050. now that you are in the majority, wha your duty budget should be balanced? >> i do not know that. i do not have the base line yet. >> but the roadmap, which is considered lead -- which is considered to be a conservative plan -- has a 50 year time frame. >> this shows you how all all the numbers have become. the shows you how deep we have gotten. we are not measuring our budget deficit in billions amore, we are measuring it in trillions.

the baby boomers are starting to retire this year at full retirement. white budget people call -- what budget peoe called the "pig in -- pig and the python." if you choose to grandfather the grandparents, which is what the roadmap does, that does require more spending or borrowing to finance entitlements for people who are currently on them given more people are retiring. this just shows you how tough this is. it shows you how you are not want to balance the budget in a couple of years. why do i want to do? i want to budget -- i want to balance it as quickly as possible. it will not balance if we do not fix this economy. we will not budget be balanced -- budget the balance anytime soon. the cbo doesot menaced that

stuff. we need pro-growth and economic prosperity. that is how we will balance sooner rather than down the road. >> let's take one from over there. why in the middle. the woman. so we can hear it on c-span and other places, we would like to get the microphone if we could. right there. she has her hand up. >> my name is jennifer. you talk about all of the spending cuts. do you have any specifics? are you considering a run for the senate in 2012? [laughter] >> i thought you'd ask me about the packers or something like that. [laughter] i tried not to do the upper

creator's job. -- the opera creatappropiators . after the oversight hearings, we will come up with a list of spending cuts. i am not try to pass the buck. they will be doing the hearing and coming up with a list of specific spending cuts that are needed to achieve the spending limits that we will put in place and get to the committee. as far as 2012 is concerned, i am not thinking about 2012. i am thinking about right now. it is not even on my mind. >> the gentleman in the white shirt. right here. >> i am with cnnnews.com

the elephant in the room is the funding for the health care reform law. no one expects the repeal bill will pass the house ended will not pass the senate or be signed by the president. in your budget, will there be any finding for that bill? >> obviously, we plan to repeal it and our budget reflect the repeal of the health care law. the question you're trying to get at is defunding this law. that occurs in the appropriations process. we send the numbers to them and they write the bills. that is where we will consider other mechanisms to try and repealed this all. >> redshirt in the back on the inside. >> just to get back toomething brought up earlier, some groups

never to -- some deficit groups note that not security spending is only about 15% of overall federal spending. to what extent is it credible to say you can make a dent in the budget without going after defense, they a? >> that spending went up 24% in the last four years. this was a gusher of spending in this particular category of government. we want to bring it back. it was a huge increase and contributed to a much higher spending base. by the way, all that spending has kept our employment rate

from getting above -- all that spending was supposed to keep our employment rate below 8%. it is now at 10%. we have a big deficit hangover because of that. we want to take some of that spending back. >> second row on the far corner. >> mr. chairman [unintelligible] i hate to put you on the spot, but i will do it anyway. there is nothing -- i trust you entire, which is very i natural for me, but there is nothing in the replican party that signals to me that all of the mistakes of the past 10 years and a of the big government mentaty is gone. can you reassure me? in an easy question.

you're talking about lowering the budget caps. what are the reforms he will put in place to make sure -- >> the only thing we can do to assure you that the current republican majority will not go the way of the last republican majority is our own actions. look at the rules package we put out there yesterday. we will cut spending to help other spending. if we cut spending, we will put that into deficit reduction. we change the institutional bias in favor of cutting spending. now we have to change the policy bias in favor of limiting government and promotingree enterprise. those are things that will dominate our actions at this year. the only thing i can't really

tell you is that he will have to watchs and hold us accountable. we believe that we were validated in the last election. this was also the election that gave the republicans a majority. we do not think that. this was a repudiation election. it was a repudiation of the direction the president and his party took the country. it is not a validation of us. we have to earn the trust and support of the american people by being too we say we are. that is the mistake the last republicanajority made. they said they were conservative. they said there were fiscally conservative, but they did not govern like that. we have to make sure we do not do that. we want real binding spending caps. we need enforcement mechanisms. i call it the standard approach period. if you exceed the budget resolutions limit, you have

automatic cuts across the board. we have been toiling in the vineyards of reform for many years. we fully intend on moving forward with these packages. >> this has to be the last question. you there in the brown shirt, i think. >> i am wondering if you could elaborate. the you believe the republican majority in the house can eliminate items like the tax exclusion for retirement plans and the tax bill but in life insurance plans? >> i am not going to get into this tax expenditure and that tax expenditure. the advocacy of tax reform at the st way to go about lowering rates -- do i believe

that the majority -- that there is a majority within the majority for tax reform? yes, i do. we have to decide how best to achieve that. we've not got our hearings in research on these things. >> one quick playing -- a you going to run for senate in 2012? >> she just ask me that. >> you did not answer it. >> i had no plans to do so at this time. >> thank you very much, congressman. thank you very much to all of you. [applause] it has been a very lively session. thank you so much. [captioning performed by tional captioning institute]

members in the rear of the chamber please take seats. ld remind all members that they should not traffic the well while members are under recognition. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for the reading of the constitution. the gentleman may inquire. >> thank you. mr. speaker, appreciate the leadership shown to bring this

document for reading today, but i do want to i iuire of the chair and perhaps the gentleman who is the author of this effort today, mr. goodlatte, the language as i understand it that we will be reading today does not include some of the original language of thee constitution o the united states. mr. inslee: on multiple occasions amendments have purported to change some of the intent of the original document. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a parliamentaryry inquiry? mr. inslee: i do. will we be reading the entire original document without deletion, or will we be reading a document with deletions that may or may not have be accomplished by respective amendments? the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 5-a of house resolution 5, the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia to read the constitution of the united states. mr. inslee: may i inquire of the

gentleman,f i may inquir before we start this process, of the gentleman, if he would explain to us so that we will all be on the same page -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized for that purpose. mr. inslee: if i may ask gentleman -- unanimous consent if i may ask the gentleman the question. i ask unanimous consent to ask the gentleman would yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is not recognized for debate. this is not a debate. mr. inslee: i'll wait until mr. goodlatte is recognize the. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for the reading of the constitution, not debate. mr. i.n.s. ln: if i may ask unanimous consent to ask mr. goodlatte to yield for just a question so we all understand the reading. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from washington have a parliamentary inquiry? mr. i.n.s. ln: yes, may i ask the gentleman -- mr. inslee: yes, may i ask the

gentleman to yield to ask a question about this language we will all be reading in good faith and spirit today? the speaker pro tempore: that is not in order at this point. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, as a part of the opening remarks i will explain and i hope answer the question of the gentleman from washington. this morning for the first time in the history of the house of representatives, we are read allowed the full text of the constitution of the united states. we hope this will inspire many more americans to read the constitution. the text we are reading today reflects the changes to the document made by the 27 amendments to it. those portions superseded by amendment will not be read. in order to ensure fairness for all those interested in participating, we have asked members to line up on a first come, first served basis. i will recognize members based on this guidance in order to assure relative parity and fairness, i may recognize members out of order to ensure bipartisanship and balance. two members, one from each

party, will be recognized out of order. each member will approach the podium and read the passage laid out for him or her. the speaker and two members of the leadership of each party, will begin the reading and then i will recognize members in order. i thank the members of both parties in advance for their participation in this historic event, and i thank -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. point of parliamentary procedure. now thathe process has started, would the gentleman from washington's original question about parliamentary procedure, would his question be in order at this time? the speaker pro tempore: in light of the gentleman's modicum of debate, that would be appropriate.

mr. honda: thank you. mr. inslee: if i may make a unanimous consent to ask mr. goodlatte a question so that we all do understand the nature of the language that we will be reading. i think it would be very helpful to us on a bipartisan basis. i would like to ask mr. goodlatte if he could -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia may yield for that purpose. mr. inslee: mr. goodlatte, could you explain to us the decisionmaking process about which language to read today? the reason i ask is throughout american history we had a series of amendments that were intended to change the original document. but the amendments do not make specific deletions to specific language in the original document. and it's been up to us to ascertain to find out which language is s operative or not. but the language has not been specifically deleted by the amendment. so it could be subject to some

interpretation of which language really has been removed and which has not. and so i think it would be helpful to the members if you would explain to us how the determinations of what to read has been made or not made so that we all be on the same page as to congressional intent. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his question. we have consulted with the coressional research service of the library of congress. the library of congress actually maintains a copy of the constitution which includes those sections that have been superseded by amendments, so we are not reading those sections that have been superseded by amendment, and we have arrived at that determination based upon our consultation with the congressional research service. mr. inslee: and would the gentleman accept the premise that since we have not been able to review the exact language we will be reading today, that this is not -- this is not -- thank you, gentleman, but, mr. goodlatte, i'll wait

for a moment, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. inslee: we do want to have a good, bipartisan success for us today. this is a special moment for us all. so i guess the question is, i take it since we have not had discussion about which language to read or not that this is not intended to create any statement of congressional intent about the language but rather to do ourest to have a moment of comity to read the language as best as we can, is that correct? mr. goodlatte: i that i the gentleman stated that well. mr. inslee: thank you for bringing it to our a aention today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i'd like to ask mr. goodlatte a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman asking unanimous consent? mr. jackson: i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman yield? mr. goodlatte: i yield.

mr. jackson: every member of this body is approaching the reading of this constitution with the most sacred possible spirit in what is clearly an unprecedented moment in the history of the congress of the united states. and i don't take it very lightly when my colleague or when others before we begin the reading of our sacred document are raisi questions about what we will specifically be reading, what specifically will be dacted based upon amendments or based upon the recommendations of libraries of congress, but i also want to be very clear, mr. speaker, and mr. goodlatte, i recognize that this is a request, that in reading those dedacted -- this is very emotional for me. this is very emotional for many members given the struggle, and i am not trying to take a shot at the process. mr. goodlatte knows me and he knows the spirit which i am approaching this. given the struggle of african-americans, given the struggle of women, given the

struggle of others to create a more perfect document while not perfect a more perfect document to hear that those elements of the constitution that have been dedakotaed by amendment are no less -- dedacted by amendment are no less serious to improve the country and to make the country better and our sense in our struggle in whom we are at the congress of the united states at this pnt in american history and our desire to continue to improve the constitution, many of us don't want that to be lost upon the reading of our sacred -- of our sacred document. and so with that said, i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i just wanted to indicate that this is done with sincerity. it is not done to take a shot at the idea of reading the constitution, but certainly when we were informed, for example, that the 3/5 clause would not be mentioned and that other elements of the

constitution which justify why some of us fight for programs in the congress will not be written in the dedacted version, it's a consequence of who we are. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his comment and i take them very much to heart as our leadership. in recognition of the gentleman's concern, i mentioned in my comment that only two members would be recognized out of order to read sections. one is the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, the chairman of the judiciary committee, who will read the first article of section 3 dealing with the judiciary. the other is the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, who many regard as the foremost advocate for civil rights in the congress, he will read the 13th amendment. and in that regard, we hope to address the concerns that you raise. mr. gohmert: i ask the gentleman to yield for a moment. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent? mr. gohmert: yes.

the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman yield? mr. goodlatte: i yield. mr. gohmert: out of respect for this document that we revere, i think it is important that we use the language of the constitution itself. they are not deletions. they are amendments. and in that respect we go by the amended document, not by the deleted document. there are too many that have fought and died for those amendments to call them deletions. with that i yield back. mr. goodlatte: it is an amended document. we are going to read the document as amended. i thank the members of both parts in advance for their participation in this historic event. i thank the leadership and members for providing for this reading in the rules of the house. it is now my distinct honor to yield to the speaker of f e house to begin the reading. the speaker:we the people of the united

states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic anquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the minority leader, the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi. ms. pelosi: article 1, section 1, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of reesentatis. mr. goodlatte: iow yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: article 1, section

2. the house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. no person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and been seven years a citizen of the united states, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. the actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the congress of the united states and within every subsequent term of 10 years in such manner as they shall by law direct. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the minority whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: article 1, continuation of section 2. the number of representatives

shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of new hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, massachusetts eight, rhode isla and providence plantations one, connecticut five, new york six, new jersey four, pennsylvania eight, delaware one, maryland six, virginia 10, north carolina five, south carolina five, and georgia three. when vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. the house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to

the gentleman from california, the majority whip, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: article 1, section 3. the senate of e united states shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereofor six years, and each senator shall have one vote. immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. rothman. i would ask members to read the page right in front of them and not continue. mr. rothman: the seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second

year. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. mr. conaway: no person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years and if no nine years a citizen of the united states and who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. mr. scott:the vice president of the united states shall be president of the senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. the senate shall choose their other officers, and also a president pro tempore, in the absence of the vice president, or when he shall exercise the

office of president of the ited states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. mr. walberg: the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. when sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. when the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside, and no persoshall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to e gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. critz. mr. critz: judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under

the united states, but the party convicted shall vertheless be able and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: section 4. the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the congrs y at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places ochoosing senators. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner. mr. weiner: section 5. each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do

business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to da and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each house may provide. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. wamack, i apologize. mr. womack: each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disoerly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. ms. edwards: each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy, and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any

question shall, at the desire -- discretion of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller. mrs. miller:neither house, during the session of congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. . mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: section 6. the senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the united states. they shall in all cases, except

treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from thsame, and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place. . mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. mrpitts:no senator or presentative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the united states, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time, and no person holding any office under the united states, shall be a member ofither house during his continuance in office.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell: section 7, all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. the speaker pro tempore: i yield to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: every bill which shall have pasd the house of representatives and the senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the ited states. if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that house in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the objections at large on their journal, andndroceed to reconsider it.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. mr. green: every bill which shall haveassed the house of representatives and the senate shall be -- if after such consideration 2/3 of the house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objeionsto the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by 2/3 of that house, it shall become a law. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gtleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy.

mr. gowdy: but in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis. mrs. davis: if any such bill shall not be returned by the president within 10 days, suns exaccepted, after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo. mr. lobiondo: every order,

resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary, except on a question of adjournment, shall be presented to the president of the united states, and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by 2/3 of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. mr. langevin: section 8, the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of

the united states, but all duties, imposes, and excises shall be uniform throughout the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jerery, mr. lance. mr. lance: to borrow money on the credit of the united states. , to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of nkruptcies throughout the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. mr. kildee: to coin money,

regulate the value of there, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures, to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, the securities and current coin of the united states, to establish post offices and post roads. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling: to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limit times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to

the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee: -- washington, mr. inslee. mr. inslee: to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court, to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offensesgainst the law of nations. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. mr. duncan: to declare war, grant letters of maree and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use e all be for a longer term than two years. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt: to provide and

maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, spress insurrection and repel invasions. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. canseco. mr. canseco: to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be eloyed in the service of the united states, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the geleman from virginia, mr. scott.

mr. scott: t exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as may, by secession of particular states, and the acptance of congress, become the at of government of the united states, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, forhe erection of 40's, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. west. . west: and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the

government of the united states, or in any department or office of there. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. mr. keating: section 9. the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to t year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for each person. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. mrs. black: the privilege of

habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. no bill of attainder or ex-post facto law shall be passed. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. perlmutter. mr. perlmutter: no capitation, or other direct, tax shalle laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein, before directed to be taken. no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one

state over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obligated to enter, clear, or pay duties to another. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. honda. mr. honda: no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. garver. mr. garver: no title of nobility

shall be granted by the united states and no person holding any office or profit or trust under them shall without the consent of the congress except of any present, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from california, miss loretta sanchez. ms. sanchez: no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex-post cto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to

the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. mr. pompeo: no state shall, without the consent of the congress, lay any imposes or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, and the net produce of all duties and imposes, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the united states, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the congress. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. mr. rangel: no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of

delay. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hayworth. ms. hayworth: article 2, section 1, the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america. he shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows -- mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne. mr. payne: each state shall appoint, in

such manner as the l lislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress, but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the united states, shall be appointed an elector. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. mr. young: the congress may choose the electors and the day which shall give their vote, the same will be throughout the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: no person, except

a natural born citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible for the office of the president -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind persons in the gallery -- the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here at guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the chair notes the disturbance in the gallery in contravenges of the law and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order in the gallery. the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years and have been 14 years a

resident within the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith. mr. griffith: the president shall receive for his services a compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected and he shall not receive within that period any other money from the united states or any of them. fwood goode i now yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson. -- mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson. ms. richardson: before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation. i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of

the united states and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta. mr. latta: section 2. the president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the united states, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the united states, he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the united states, except in cases of impeachment.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: he shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided 2/3 of the senators present concur, and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the united states, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy. mr. cassidy: but the congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior

officers, as they think proper, the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette. ms. degette: the president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: section 3, he shall from time to t te give to the congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and

expedient, he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with -- between them. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich with -- mr. kucinich: with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper, he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. mr. chabot: the president, vice

president and all civil officers of the united states, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. mr. goof goodlatte: i yield to

the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: soaks 2. the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the united states, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, -- jurisdiction. ploo good lalt: i now yield to the gentleman from -- mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: to controversies to which the united states shall be a party. to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states,

between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. in all cases affecting -- subjects. mr. goodlatte: now yield to the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly. mr. donnelly: in all cases affectingambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. in all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make. goo goodlatte: i now yield -- forbes force mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pares. -- mr. pearce.

mr. pearce: the trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shallbe held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed, but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire. mr. altmire: treason against the united states shall consist only of levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open c crt. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. mr. turner: the congress shall

have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. ploo goodlatte: -- mr. goodlatte: you now yield to the gentleman from delaware, mr. carney. mr. carney:article iv section 1 full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. and the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris. mr. harris: section 2

the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs. mr. gibbs: section 3, new states may be admitted by the congress into this union, but no new state shall be formed or erected

within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of the two or more states, or parts of states without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as for the congress. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. . mr. nadler: nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the united states or of any particular state. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry. mr. fortenberry: or by

conventions in 3/4 there of as the one or other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress provided that no amendment may may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall affect northern ireland manner the fourth clauses of the ninth section of the first article and no state without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. . mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui. ms. matsui: article 6. all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the united states under this constitution, as under the confederation. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to

the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. mr. garrett: this constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united states, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer:the senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the united states and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as

a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn:the ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono. ms. hirono: the word, the, being interlined between the seventh and eighth lines of the first page, the word 30 being partly written on an erasure in

the 15th line of the first page, the words "is tried" being interlined between the 32nd and 33rd lines of the first page and the word "the" being interlined between the 43rd and 44th lines of the second page. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. mr. tipton: done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the 17th day of september in the year of our lord, 1787, and of the independence of the united states of america the 12th in witness whereof we have

hereunto subscribed our names. goode i now recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan. mr. carnahan: signers of the constitution -- george washington, president and deputy from virginia, delaware, george read, gunning bedford, john dickinson, richard bassett, jacob broom maryland, james mchenry, daniel of st. thomas jenifer, daniel carroll virginia, john blair, james madison, jr. . mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: north carolina

-- william blount, richard dobbs spaight, hugh williamson south carolina - john rutledge, charles cotesworth pinckney, charles pinckney, pierce butler georgia -- william few, abraham baldwin mr. goodlatte: now yield to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: new hampshire -- john langdon, nicholas gilman massachusetts -- nathaniel gorham, rufus king connecticut -- william samuel johnson, roger sherman new york -- alexander hamilton mr. goodlatte: i yield to the

gentleman from kansas, kansas. >>new jersey -- will livingston, david brearley, william paterson, jonathan dayton pennsylvania -- benjamin franklin, thomas mifflin, robert morris, george clymer, thomas fitzsimons, jared ingersoll, james wilson, gouverneur morris . -- governor morris. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: the preamble to the right of rights.

congress of the united states, begun and held at the city off new york, on wednesday, the fourth of march, one thousand seven hundred eight nine. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby. mrs. roby: the conventions of a number of the states, having at the time of their adopting the constitution, expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declare torrey and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the ben fits -- befishent ends of its institution.

mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. ross. mr. ross: resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america, in congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the constitution of the united -- united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from alabama, mr. bonner. mr. bonner: all, or any which articles, when ratified by 3/4 of the said legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said constitution. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to

the the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa. ms. hanabusa: articles in addition to, and amendment of the constitution of the united states of america, proposed by congress, and ratified by the legislatures of the several states, pursuant to the fifth article of the original constitution. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the the gentlelady from arizona, ms. giffords. ms. giffords: congress shall

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta. mr. guinta: the second amendment. a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infriried. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. mr. sherman k4r0 --

mr. sherman: the third amendment. no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: amendment iv the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. mr. lynch: amendment v no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. denham. mr. denham: -- i now yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. mr. franks: nor shall any person be subject for the same

offense to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. speier. ms. speier:

>> in to be informed of the nature and cause of the acquisition. to be confronted with the witnesses against him. and how complex toward process when obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. >> i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. le pen's the. -- mr. lipinsky. >> amendment seven. in suits of common law, where the value shall achieve -- shall exceed $20, the right of trial shall be observed. no trial by jury shall be otherwise reexamined in another

court of the united states and according to the rule of the common law. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. >> i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walls. mr. walz: the ninth amendment. the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. mr. goodlatte: amendment 10.

the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the people -- are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. i now yield to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicile nembings. >> the judicial power of the united states shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the united states by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gray.

-- graves. mr. graves: amendment number 12. the electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice president. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice-president, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the united states, directed to the president of the senate.

mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman: the president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. the person having the greatest number of votes for president, shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as president. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. mr. price: the house of representatives shall choose immediately by ballot the

president. but in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote. a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. sutherlin. -- mr. souterland. >> if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers of the list, the senate shall choose the vice president. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentlewoman from california,

ms. chu. ms. chu: a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. but no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the united states. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. mr. lewis: amendment 13, section 1. neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof

the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the united states, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. ridge ill -- mr. rigell. mr. rigell: all persons born or naturalized in the united

states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and the state wherein they reside. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt. mr. watt: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman.

mr. wittman: section 2. representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding indians not taxed. but when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for president and vice-president of the united states, representatives in congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being 21 years of age, and citizens of the united states, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such state.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. clarke. ms. clarke: section 3. no person shall be a senator or representative in congress, or elector of president and vice-president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the united states, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of congress, or as an officer of the united states, or as a member of any state legislature. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers. mrs. ellmers: or as an

executive or judicial officer of any state, to support to the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. but congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. israel. mr. israel: section 4. the validity of the public debt of the united states, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. but neither the united states nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the united states, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall

be held illegal and void. mr. goodlatte: the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. mr. gosar: section 5. the congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. amendment 15, section 1. the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop.

mr. bishop: section 2. the congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. amendment 16. the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. mr. olson: amendment 17. the senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof,

for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from washington, mr. larson. mr. larson: when vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies, provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. birkle.

-- ms. buerkle. ms. buerkle: amendment 19. passed by congress june 4, 1919, ratified august 18, 19 20. the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. ms. schwartz: the terms of the president and vice president shall end at noon on the 20th day of january and the terms of senators and representatives at noon on the third day of

january. of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified the terms of their successors shall then begin. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. mr. scalise: section 2, the congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of january, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. section 3, if, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the president, the president-elect shall have died, the vice president elect shall become president. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green.

mr. green: if a president shall not have been chosen for the time fixed at the beginning of his term or the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, the vice president elect shall act as president until the president shall have qualified and the congress may by law for the case written where in neither a president elects or vice president shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as president or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a president or vice president shall have qualified. mr. good lat: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. mr. hurt: section 4, the congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the house of representatives may choose a president whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon

them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the senate may choose a vice president whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano. mr. serrano:section 5 sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of october following the ratification of this article. section 6 this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. platts. mr. platts:amendment xxi

passed by congress november 20, 1933, ratified december 5, 1933. section 1 the eighteenth article of amendment to the constitution of the united states is hereby repealed. section 2 the transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the united states for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. mr. schrader: section 3 this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have

been ratified as an amendment to the constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the congress. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. mian -- mr. meehan. mr. meehan: amendment xxii passed by congress on march 21, 1947. section 1 no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of president more than once.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnely. -- mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee: but this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of president when this article was proposed by congress and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of president or acting as president during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of president or acting as president during the remainder of such term. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. mr. miller: this article shall

be not apply to any person holding the office of president when this article was proposed to president. and -- or acting as president during the term within which the art erikle becomes operative from holding the office of president or acting as president during the remainder of such term. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming. mr. fleming:section 2 this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the congress.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. garne mendy -- mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: amendment 23, passed by congress june 16, 1960, ratified march 29, 1961. section 1 the district constituting the seat of government of the united states shall appoint in such manner as congress may direct a number of electors of president and vice president equal to the whole number of senators and representatives in congress to which the district would be entitled if it were a -- if it were a state. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: but in no event more

thanthe least populous state. they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of president and vice president, to be electors appointed by a state, and they shall meet in the district and perform such duties as provided by the 12th article of amendment. section 2 the congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. mr. courtney: amendment 24, passed by congress, august 27, 1962, ratified january 23, 1964. section 1 the right of citizens of the united states to vote in any primary or other election for president or vice president, for electors for president or vice

president, or for senator or representative in congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax. section 2 the congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. mr. dent: amendment 25, passed by congress, july 6, 1965. section 1 in case of the removal of the president from office or of his death or resignation, the vice president shall become president. section 2 whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the vice president, the president shall nominate a vice president who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of congress.

mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. mr. lank ford -- mr. lankford: whenever the president transmits to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the vice president as acting president. the speaker pro tempore: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy. mr. murphy: section 4 whenever the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as congress may by

law provide, transmit to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler: thereafter, when the president transmits to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body

as congress may by law provide, -- law provide. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: transmit within four days to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. thereupon congress shall decide the issue, assembling within 48 hours for that purpose if not in session. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson.

mr. gibson:if the congress, within 21 days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both houses that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall continue to discharge the same as acting president, otherwise, the president shall resume the powers and duties of his office. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. holt gren -- mr. hultgren. mr. hultgren: amendment 26, passed by congress march 23, 1971. ratified july 1, 1971. section 1 the right of citizens of the united states, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of age. section 2

the congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, who will read the last section of the constitution. mr. fincher: amendment 27, originally proposed september 25, 1789, ratified may 7, 1992. no law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker welcome apology to those few members who were waiting to read, we have now completed the first reading aloud of the united states constitution, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. nearly 1/3 of the house of representatives participated in that reading. unfortunately during the reading, one of the members while they were reading from

the notebook at the podium turned from the pages and two pages of the constitution were not read and so i ask for consent that i now read those pages and they they be placed into the reading of the constitution as it occurred earlier today so that we have a complete reading of the constitution. >> so ordered. >> i'll now read at the end of article 4, section 4, the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion and on application of the legislature or of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence. article 5. the congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this zution or on the application over the lurs of 2/3 of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in

either case shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states. that is the portion that was admitted earlier and that is now included in the reading of the constitution. i thank speaker and yield back. >> coming up, ahouse housekey on repeeling health care legislation and "washington journal," live with your phone calls and later, the house session. repealing the health care law. the senate budget committee meets today for the first time this year to hear testimony from federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. you can watch the proceeding live beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 2 and c-span.org.

>> house republicans are moving ahead to repeal what they call the job-killing health care law. the debate begins this friday. watch live coverage and the entire vote on c spanned view the vote online at c-span.org. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that they are not doing as much zsh they are doing more domestic news? the public here bears responsibility too. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday abc news foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan. at 8:00 on c-span's "q & a." >> the new republican majority in the house scheduled a debate on refealing health care law passed last year.

yesterday, the house rules committee considered the repeal. here is part of the hearing. it is just over two hours. >> reforms including health care litigation reform. i suggest that we pull obama care out by the roots, lock, stock and barrel and eradicate it completely and leave not one vestige of its d.n.a. behind because it is a malignant tumor and if it is allowed to have my particle left, it will regrow again and method arrest size like a tumor and grow back and consume the liberty and the vigor of the american people. we must pull it out by the roots. much, mr.nk you very king. where do you stand on this [laughter]

it is a national -- natural question we need to ask here. we want to ensure that every single american has access to quality health insurance and health care. the president of the united states indated in his first press conference following the press conference following the election that he believed the 1099 provision that imposes a burden on small businsesn this country needed to be addressed. most recently, judge henry hudson in virginia has determined the mandate is unconstitutional. we had the executive referring to this as a flawed bill. we have a court decision that has been made. it seems to me that the right thing for us to do is this two- step approach we are taking. number one, it is our efforts to

repeal the measure and, number two, the measure i will introduce which calls for us to get you working to ensure that every single american has access to quality health insurance and health care. i believe there are five simple steps that need to be taken that will immediately drive the cost of health insurance down. i think we should expand medical savings accounts, which should have associated health plans, which it had meaningful reform, we should have deals with pre- existing conditions, we should do everything we can to make sure people can acquire insurance across state lines. those five simple things, most of which are actuall supported by president obama. in every one of those instances, from the state of the union message to his interest in

looking at the purchase of insunce across state lines available there has been an interest. i know there are democrats that have. we have an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way. we know there was not bipartisan support for this measurehen we saw it in the 111th congress. i believe we can come together, democrats and republicans alike, working with the president to ensure thatvery american has access to quality health insurance by dropping this cost down. i thank you you all for your remarks. you have come forward with some interesting figures that are obviously going to be challenged by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. just this notion that 87 million americans, as she said chairman upton, will lose their health

insurance when, in fact, we are hearing everyone can keep their insurance. the fact that we had this cbo study that has come out showing we will see an increase in the deficit of $145 billion when, in fact, if you look at the gimmickry and vault, we are talking about $700 billion in gimmicks. to me, it is incomprehensible to think that putting into place -- that putting into place taxes, mandates, and extraordinarily borden's instructor like this is going to save taxpayers' dollars. we know the taxes alone in this measure are going to exacerbate the economic downturn through which we are struggling to date. again, i thank you all very much for your remarks and appreciate your call full approaches. i assume i have a commitment from all three of you that when

we pass might measure that direct your mmittee to begin work on an effort to put these measures in place that will decrease the cost of health insurance for americans, that you are committed to doing that. >> absolutely. without a doubt. we will be embarking on this almost right away. we will have a product that he will be very proud of. i would like to think we will be bipartisan in terms of what we would like to do to help working families and businesses provide benefits for their workers. >> the other two gentlemen nodded. i know you cannot speak for the entire committee. i feel very sanguine that your colleagues on the judiciary committee and chairman smith will lead the effort there. i got a great knowledge from chairman klein. we look forward to working together on a bipartisan way to drive the cost of health insurance down.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to each of you who are here today. we hear in the rules committee are looking forward to hearing, not only what you have to say, but also our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. during the last few years, this has been an active discussion. there are a number of people in the room today to our back to join the discussion including mr. andrus, who of given us all full of ideas. we want to examine, reopen, and make sure the facts of the case are better known. i will tell you this. the american people recognize, as gasoline nearest $4.50 dollars a gallon, that we recognize, or at least a group of people i hang around with

recognize, that gasoline at $4 a gallon combined with the economy we have is a drag on jobs. the health care bill is a devastating, not only for what it costs, but also the job loss that takes place. it is slowing our economy. chronic unemployment is what we now have. when you look up and see that gasoline is going to this price because of the economic advantages that are taking place in china and india, the are economies better booming and the united states is left out of that because we have been embroiled in trying to do a health care, cap and trade, and all the things that diminish our economic base. it is my hope that we will think about catching up as the world leader in job creation and innovation. i hope there will be some focus

on pharmaceutical companies that i believe have been dimished i believe have been dimished greatly in their capacity to prove research and development the advantages to small and cure problems that exist in the marketplace today. we can have a pharmaceutical industry back enter problems that doctors will not do. i am very excited about this new day that has dawned and what it means. we look for to hearing, not only from my colleagues, but also my colleagues on the rules committee that are democrat. we are going to look at this issue and move forward. mr. chairman, i appreciate your leadership. >> thank you very much, vice chairman sessions. we have a quorum call them has just been called on the floor.

i encourag members to record their presence downstairs. we'll continue with the hearing. quite good morning, gentlemen. we are happy to see. congratulations on your new posts. i think this is probably one of the first times that i have been able to speak. i understand your great determination to root it out. america should travel. you do know that the latest polls showed that 50% of americans really like this bill. some do not think it is strong enough. you understand the harm you are going to do. let me ask all three of you when you think about holding a hearing to do away with something of this magnitude? -- something of this magnitude

without holding any hearings in your committee? we find ourselves this morning with an emergency rules committee to get this done 7 next year you can and do this with no hearings. >>t is not an emergency meeting that is being held. >> i would just like to say that i appreciate the comments from white friend. -- from my friend. i would just note that our party leadership would -- with virtually everyone behind it announced last summer -- a first of all, there was not a single republican that voted for the bill last march. >> that is true. >> it passed by a 78 vote margin. we announced in the summer that if we tk the majority we would look for a full review -- full

repeal. it was part of our pledge that was publicly revealed in late september, early october. i would dare say that every one of the new freshman class and many of us that ran for reelection at this as part of our platform. it should come as no surprise. thatu're on the committee hill over 100 hours of hearing on this bill. how can you say that you had no input? >> you attended 100 hours of hearings. ur amendments were accepted. >> some of them disappeared in our committee. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will not right now. i know in the very beginning that 100 hours of hearings were held. the house heard from 181

witnesses, democrats and republicans. 239 amendments were considered. 191 were adopted. the democratic caucus spent time to go over ts bill section by section hours at a time. yet despite this and the fact that you were in those meetings, you continue to say that you had no input on this bill. how can you say that? >> if you could yield? >> i would like to hear from all three of you. >> chairman waxman had a 36-23 advantage. in the marquette we had last summer, unlike most marked ups whe the bill is able to be marked up title a, a title be, a tidal sea -- you can only do the first title -- title 1a, title

b, title c -- >> if you had no input and did not know what was in it -- >> thank you, ms. slaughter. i find it interesting that in spite of all the hours you talk about, you still had the fascinating occurrence of the speaker saying thate needed to pass it and find out what was in it. americans did not know what was in this thing. if this legislation was not written in a bipartisan y. quite the hearings were bipartisan. it was written uer the same way we write bills in the house. there are other things. i want to go on. >> let me make this one quick point. i read a lot of the bill. >> i hope so. >> always say to this section

that was testified on with regard to the section 1099, if you read that particular page -- pay 737 -- you would not have any idea that transaction filing by every business. >> we cannot discuss everything. >> that was in the bill before we took it up on the house floor. >> i do not know of the bill we have ever done in this house like that. for over 100 years, congress has tried too something about health care in the united states, starting with theodore roosevelt. we did not take it on because we wanted to have talmudic hall meetings with people throwing rocks and things at us. we did it because 17% of gdp was taken up with health care and

was rising every day. something had to be done. we were the only industrial country on the face of the earth that does not provide health care for its people. believe me, i went through this with the clinton administration. the eight years that you all were in charg he did absolutely nothing with health re. on top of that, i do not know what you call ts. this is an emergency session that was called last night. we are rushing this through. no doubt about it. no doubt about it. we had plans to read it all and have all of this time. you do not have the cbo estimate for whatt would cost, do you? is there a cbo estimate on repeal of this bill? >> yes, madam chrman. yes, mrs. lauder, there is.

-- mrs. slaughter, there is. it is on page 4 of the letter. it is on page 4 of the letter. >> $1.20 trillion for the second? you talk about this being a job killer. i do not know how you arrive at that. 935,000 jobs have banned added -- have been aed since it has be in effect. i was so happy to hear that. i have done work on this one. 10 federal judges through the case out. two federal judges said it was absolutely constitutional. you do not read that anywhere, but it is a fact. judge hudson is a referred -- is a confirmed republican. they say he was in the right place at the right time.

he is a co-owner of a construction firm, a republican consulting firm, and his client is the attorney general of the state of virginia that brought the lawsuit. if there was ever a case that called out for recusal, this is it. i have respect for all three of you. it embarrasses me for you that you would use him as your case knowing about the other 10 who said it was constitutional. we are rushing through here, getting ready to do something pretty devastating, i think. >> my recollection is that the consulting fee between the consulting -- between the attorney general of virginia is part invested by judge hudson,

but less than $10,000. they severed the relationship demille. >> as far as i am concerned, a federal judge should not be part owner of eight republican consulting firm. . . it wasn't jurisdiction. we didn't address those massive hundreds of millions of thrars of costs that are unnecessary in our health care. we can do that. that is one reason there was not a legit means to have a voice on this bill and i'm surprised that you would raise the issue about emergency rules given how many times that i have seen the language change interest a committee on its way to the floor.

it is a legitimate process here. >> no, we did not. >> we have a unanimous position. the republicans in a bipartisan position, when the bill comes to floor, i believe there will be significant democrat bills for this. everybody understands this bill. we have debated this for a year. >> 15 seconds. our committee, we had eight republican-passed amendments and now is they disappeared between coming across the street to here to being part of the debate. >> they have nothing to do with the rules committee. >> i don't know what happened but they were not there. the other thing is we try to actually in our committee to have -- something that the president told a number of us one-on-one. he wants tort reform as part of this package. we tried -- our side tried to offer that amendment in full committee and we were denied because over the jurisdiction issue but again, it never came back from the judiciary so it

couldn't even be considered then on the house floor. ort ref y a state issue. that's really done by the state. >> well -- >> but there is $50 million, i believe, in this bill. >> the president asked for it. >> we tried to do that as well, to repeal the ferguson act, which you'll happy to say almost everybody voted for in the house. which is something that needed to be done. it's been around for years, it's inhibiting and a great gift to the insurance industry. and we wanted to get that done. we wanted to do the medical malpractice along with it, but we were unable to get that done. and i would say to you that that really does need attention. the mccann ferguson act really ought to go. i just find myself flummoxed after 20-something years here that -- of course, we had this happen with the catastrophic illness bill years ago. heaven knows how much further ahead we would have been if we had been able to keep that. but i understand --

>> again, i was here when that happened. i don't know that mr. klein or mr. king were here then. but that bill passed. >> i wasn't here either. >> yes, you were. when we repealed it. you and i, i think, were elected in 1986 together. >> right. >> right. >> that bill passed. people found what was in it. and a year or two later it was repealed almost overwhelmingly. >> it was. >> and my bet is that you, mr. dreier and mr. upton voted for the bill, and then voted to repeal it. and that's what i did. >> we were here when the bill came up. i can remember looking at it. all right. >> we found out what was in it, like the american people have, and wanted it repealed. >> the thing that has made it so distressing to me is we had no fingerprints, we knew nothing about this bill, which we all know is not true, that we jammed it down the public's

throat which was not true. if you call that a jamming, i don't know what this is. maybe we'll come up with something on our side that will be appropriate to that, thank you very much. >> thank you have,s mrs. slaughter. let me just respond to a couple of comments briefly, and then we'll call on ms. fox. first, this is technically first, this is technically designated as an emergency meeting r the following reason. we took the oath of office less than 24 hours ago. and the minority was informed of this meeting at the beginning of this week, and today is thursday. from my perspective the notice clearly was provided. so that's why i said this is not considered an emergency meeting. so everyone knew that this was happening and it has been made very clear. i want to make sure that every member has gone down to record their presence on the quorum call. i have not. i'm going to call on ms. fox now and turn it over to vice chairman sessions, the gavel.

>> thank you, i was not here when the catastrophic illness bill passed. it maye that her memory on that is not as strong as it might be. and i think her memory on what happened to this legislation may not be as strong as it might be. i've been puzzled constantly at how our colleagues across the aisle have talked about how many hearings were held, how many amendments were offered. i just -- i got the record on the two bills, and i think it's reallymportant that we correct it. i'm not quite sure why my colleagues, chairmen of the various committees, have not done this. done this. but the bill that passed the house was hr-3590.

and indeed, there were hearings on that bill and there were amendments offered on the bill. there were hearings in different committees. however, the bill that finally passed was hr-4872, which came from the senate and had nary a single hearing on it. and i think we have to correct the record, and that every time our colleagues say this, we've got to correct the rcord, because that bill had no hearing. not one. that bill was not allowed to be -- well, excuse me. there was one hearing in the rules committee. it did not go -- mr. mcgovern, it did not go -- mr. mcgovern, if you can show me the record -- i'm not going to yield time. but when it comes time, i invite you to bring to the record the dates and times of those hearings. i would really like to know about those, because i have the

timeline on that bill. but there were no hearings on it. and it is deceptive of our colleagues to continue to say that, and i think the record has to be clarified on that. has to be clarified on that. and i would like to ask us all to do that, and i think mr. upton nts to add to my comments. >> well, do, and i thank you for your comments. it was the senate bill that passed. you'll recall when it passed on you'll recall when it passed on christmas eve morning, there were actually a number of senate democrats who said, don't worry. we know that this is not a perfect bill that's going to be fixed wh it goes to conference. it never even went to conference. they took the senate passed bill. how it got an h.r. number, i don't know. but they then took the senate-passed bill and that was it. no amendments at all when we passed it on a sunday afternoon a couple of months later. as it reflects on our committee

-- and i did not serve then on the health subcommittee. it's my understanding that there was one legislative hearing on the house -- ended up being the house-passed bill, not the senate bill. and the secretary at the time said something along the lines of we're not permitted to answer direct questions on this bill because we have not read it. and i'm getting nods from my staff that in fact that did transpire. so at the end of the day it was the senate bill, not the house, and really all of the efforts -- and there were hearings on health care, but on the legislative hearing, there was only one. it was, in essence, all nor naught, because the house pass -- for naught, because the house-passed package, which was passed in the fall of 2009, was not part of the final bill that

was enacted in march of last year. >> well, again, i think we have to make sure the american people understand that our friends on the other side of the aisle are mixing up apples and oranges. and want to ask in the future if we can do that, that when comments are made about what bills had hearings, that our coeagues be very explicit that it was hr-3590 on which hearings were hold, and not on the bill which passed, which was hr-4872. i do think that's clear. i really am pleased that the american people are paying a lot more attention to whas lot more attention to whas going on in congress. we've always said over the years that proess is dull and nobody wants to hear about the process, but in this case process is extremelyimportant, because it's the process that made the difference in the way this was done.

so i'm glad to be able to get this in the record. mr. upton, you say there was one hearing. >> one legislative hearing on the bill. >> one legislative hearing. the rules committee did deal the rules committee did deal with the bill here. but, mr. klein, were there any hearings in the education committee? >> we would have liked to have had them, liked to have had jurisdiction. it would have approved the final policy. >> well, mr. chairman, i just want to say, to back up what want to say, to back up what you and chairman dreier have said, republicans are very concerned that we have affordable health insurance and affordable health care in thi country.

what passed in this congress does not provide that to the american people. in fact, what it does is give government control over insurance and health care for the american people. that is not what this republic is about. we are not to give our lives to the government. we don't live in a nanny state. and this repeal needs to be done so that we can get on with putting in common-sense refoms related to health insurance and the health care. the health care. and i look forward to this action and to what's going to happen after that. thank you, mr.chairman. >> thank you, mrs. foxx. i would lik to, once again -- the chair would like to thank each of the members that are here, and the gentleman and mrs. foxx. we are not in a rush. we arehere to openly, forthrightly discuss this

subject. and i appreciate you taking the time that's necessary, mrs. foxx, the gentlemen, mr. mcgovern, that's recognized. >> again, not a single hearing has been held on this repeal package, not a single one. we are meeting hertoday, and you haven't told us of a single meeting in any of your committees. i think people who are watching this are probably saying to themselves, well, why don't you hold hearings, figure out what the impact is. you may not agree with everything the democratic bill has passed, but there may be some things that you do. why not do this methodically and do this in a way that makes sense. but instead we're coming here, we're rushing something to the floor. i mean, this is not a -- whether we do it today or monday, you know, or next thursday or a week from thursday doesn't make much difference. but not a single hearing has been held. i have a question for the vice chair of the committee, because we've been talking about process. and i just wanted to correct

the record on something that i've read, a statement from the majority leader, mr. cantor, who has said at a press conference that this package that's going to come to the floor next week might come to the floor under a restrictive rule or a closed rule. given what mr. boehner said yesterday, given what mr. dreier has said here, i would like the assurance from the vice chair that this will come to the floor on an open rule. if you could give me that if you could give me that assurance that, would be -- or at least tell me that mr. cantor misspoke, that wod be helpful. >> what i would say to the gentleman is that what we're attempting to do is not a surprise to the american public nor to any member of congress nor to any member of congress that has been reading about the expectations of performance. this was a promise that was made during the campaign and the election, where people would decide who they would want to be their member of congress. i believe that the gentleman,

mr. cantor, the majority leader of the united states congress has forthrightly said that he believes that we are going to schedule the hearing today, which we are doing. he believes that we will then have a vote on the rule, and he believes on or about wednesday allowing the time for dissemination, discussion and a full vetting of the process for there to be a vote where the american people understood what this is about and every member of congress knew what they were doing. >> right, right. >> as it relates to whether this will be an open or closed rule, i think the gentleman knows that at the end of this hearing, before we vote on the rule, there will be a discussion about that, and then we will decide that. >> so mr. cantor spoke ematurely. >> you know what, i believe that the gentleman i entitled to an opinion about what he believes, and i will take the gentleman at his word. >> well, let me ask the three gentlemen here. would you support an open rule

for the discussion of this next week? >> yes, mr. klein. >> i thank the gentleman. i think that we have been very clear as a party, the majority leader we were just talking about. we believe that we owe to the american people an up or down vote on this law. and s i would not spport an open rule in this case. >> i would say that the way, as i understand the bill -- the bill is repealed in place. this is the first step. it then directs the proper committees to come back and talk about how we want to replace it. that work has not been done. that's where we're going to have the hearings. we're going to havehe markups, whether it be in the oversight and investigation subcommittee, whether it be in the health subcommittee, and that will be when the time is taken to thoughtfully put together a piece of legislation that in fact replaces the repealed bill. but on repeal it ought to be

yes or no. >> no open rule, no process to amend. >> i don't think we need an open rule. we'll let the committees then take the action to -- >> mr. king? >> mr. mcgovern, it's suggest there's nothing to amend. this is either repeal it or not repeal it and pull it all out by the roots. i think there's something completely left unsaid here, and that is there is a piece of legislation that passed the house without hearings, as mrs. foxx said. >> well, i am stunned. >> this is an illegitimate bill that didn't happen before the majority in this congress. >> i am stunned in light of what mr. bhner has said and what mr. dreier has said and what others have said about open process and what all three of you here are saying, that we should have a closed rule. it is really -- it is really stunning. and i don't think it is as simple as an up or down vote, and that's one of the reasons why this is kind of a travesty here is that it is a

complicated issue. and quite frankly, i'm looking -- i was just looking at a kaiser poll that just came out where, quite frankly, when people realize what is in the bill, you know, more and more people do not want it repealed. in fact, only 24% of the people that they polled wanted it a total repeal. there were things in this bill that i would think that even republicans would agree. so this notion that we're going to go in, we're going to throw everything out and start over again, without caring about a c.b.o. score -- i mean, all of a sudden the campaign's all about reducing deficits and lowering the debt, and we have a preliminary c.b.o. score that says this is going to cost a great deal of money to repeal. but that doesn't matter. and no hearings, no hearings. this is not a thoughtful process. and then you're all telling me that you want a closed rule. bring it to the floor, no amendments, no input. so much for the open process. there's none, there's none. >> mr. mcgovern, i might note,

as i have looked at some of the questions by not maybe specifically the kaiser poll that you're citing now, but other polls and which suggests that this is probably the case for the kaiser poll, when you look at a number of different individual elements, there is strong support for them. no pre-existing conditions can we allow for discrimination. allow for insurance across state lines. take the president's promise. if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. i think those things most americans would support. and i would bet that at the end of the day, when we come back with a charge, whether it be the education and labor committee, whether it be the energand commercial committee, whether it be the ways and means committee, hopefully perhaps the judicial committee as it relates to tort reform, something that the president supports himself, those will be common-ground issues that republicans and democrats support, something that we did not see in the last

congress. >> this is all backwards. you should do the hearings first, you know, and then figure out wt makes sense, and then do the legislation. what you're doing is the legislation and then saying, oh, don't worry, we'll do hearings. then you issue a press release, a statement of principles. quite frankly, which are already taken care of in the bill that has already been passed. so, i mean, it just strikes me as, you know, as unbleemble that after allwe heard about -- unbelievable that after all we heard about openness and about full discussion that we are rushing this totheloor in an emergency rules committee meeting. this is going to be brought to the floor and the majority the floor and the majority leader is saying that under a closed process -- and you're all agreeing that itshould be a closed process. so where's the openness and where's the discussin? >> let me ask you a specific question. you know, some of the health care provisions have already kicked in. i have a lot of senior citizens in my district who have fallen victim to the doughnut hole.

remember, you guys shoved through a medicare pescription drug bill that wasn't paid for, that added incredibly to the deficit, and then you allowed this doughnut hole to be there, so people, when they reach a certain level in terms of their cost of prescription drugs, they have to pay out of pokt expenses. that is being reduced. i can't tell you how many senior citizens who have told me, ireally appreciate that, because it is a real burden, this doughnut hole. i look t the statement of principles and there's no mention of the doughnut hole or the medicare prescription drug bill or any of that stuff. but if you got your way and we repeal the bill today and it became law tomorrow, what happens to those senior citizens who are beginning to get relief from the doughnut hole? do they get a tax increase? >> two things i' like to say. first of all, if the repeal bill does pass next week, it's not effective immediately because the senate hasn't taken it up and neither has the president signed it. so we have a good number of

time tween when we can actually come back and report a bill that allows it to be replaced. second -- and i don't know the massachusetts plan as i do know the michigan plan. from the start, the michigan plan had at least -- michigan seniors had at lea three plans among the 30-some that they could pick and choose from. remember, it was individual choice, where there was no doughnut hole. and in addition, seniors, low-income seniors, did not have a doughnut hole. there were provisions in the medicare part d program when it passed that provided the subs deso that they did not have a -- subsidy that they did not have a doughnut hole. >> it's a real issue. it's a real issue, and you're going to repeal it. >> well, that will be something that we takep and consider as we look at the replacement part of the bill down the road. >> well, look, i appreciate you being here. and at first when i heard about

althis, i was kind of -- i thought it was unbelievable that this was the first item that you were going to take up and that you were going to do it in such a closed and restrictive way. but on the other hand, i've been thinking about it, and it's actually a good thing that you're here and it's actually a good thing that you're bringing this issue up, because i think the american people will have an opportunity right at the outset of this newcongress to see the clear differences between democrats and republicans. if i could finish my statement, mr. chairman. democrats believe that insurance companies should be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing on the basis of pre-existing conditions. republicans do not. >> that's simpl not true. that's simply not true. >> you opposed the bill. >> it was an alternative, sure. >> that we should close the doughnut hole and reduce prescription drug prices for our srs. republicans do not. democrats believe that young people should be allowed to remain on their parents' health

insurance until they're 26. republicans do not. i can't tell you how many people, how many parents have come up to me and said how grateful they are that they could keepheir kids on their insurance until they're 26. insurance until they're 26. it is a big deal. it is a big del for a lot of parents all throughout this country. democrats believe that we should provide tax breaks to small businesses and subsidies to low-income americans to help them pay for health insurance for their workers and their families. republicans do not. you know, for 80 years americans of both political parties have talked about the need to address health care. in the last congress we actually did it. we held dozens of hearings and markups. and to dr. foxx's issue that she raised, you know, the fact that the bill that we voted on here was not exactly the same bill that we introduced at the outset in the house. that's how the legislative process works. when a bill goes to a conference committee and comes back, it's different from the original bill we voted on here.

but we actually did something. we listened to hundreds of witnesses, expert witnesses in the congress. we considered hundreds of amendments. the bill was passed notwithstanding incredible obstructionism by the republicans on the floor of the house and the senate. and now in the first order of legislative business, the republicans want to take that work and just toss it in the trash. and how many hearings have you held on the impact of repeal? zero. how many markups have you had? how many markups have you had? zero. and, you know, and most shockingly to me, given all the rhetoric at we haveheard, again, from the new speaker, from the majority that we've heard of this new open process being how many amendments are we going to be able to consider on the floor? on the floor? and you're all telling me zero. that's what you're advocating. you know, look, instead of a thoughtful reasons legislati language to address this, you provide us with a press release. these are our goals,ou know.

on all the issues thatprotect consumers, you've been on the other side. and here we are, you know -- i mean, i'm sure the insurance companies are thrilled that you're here talking about repeal. but i think -- i thnk this is -- i think this issue here defines the differences between the two parties, and so on one hand, as frustrated as i am that you're trying to undo something that help as lot of my constituents and helps people across the country, i'm actually kinds of glad that you're showing your hand up front. there is a clear difference here. i look forward to fighting you on this. >> i thank my friend for yielding. i wonder if myfriend washere

when i offered my opening remarks. i think i might have been a little bit late. >> i think that you were here, actually, when i offered my opening remarks, during which i spoke specifically about our commitment to five specific proposals that would deal with the issue of driving the cost of health insurance down, and they included a number of the provisions that my friend has made in his written statement that he has there. and i also think it's important to note as we talk about this process that last summer, as mr. upton said, there was a commitment that was made. that commitment was made was that we would immediately have an up or down vote on repeal of the measure that was signed in march. that commitment was made last summer before the election, and so it should come as absolutely no surprise. now, let me say about the process. it was very clear also that we said that if we were to come to majority, we would have a more open process.

it has been less than 24 hours since we've taken the oath of office. we indicated that this measure would be considered immediately and i have introduced h. res 9 which calls on these committees to have jurisdiction to immediately proceed with dealing with the five issues that we've talked about and other ways that ensure that needs that we all share must be met are in fact met. and so i will just say that gentleman points to a number of issues that we want to deal with in a bipartisan way, which was not done in the 111th congress. >> i want to chang the gentleman for is comments -- thank the gentleman for his comments. first of all, yeah, it's been less than 24 hours and it's less than 24 hours and it's been pretty restrictive. an emergency rules committee meeting. >> i don't know if you heard what i said on that. at the beginning of this week we informed the membership of this committee, minoritynd majority, that we would in fact be holding this meeting, and we are acting as expeditiously a

possible, bcause e believe that this issue needs to be addressed. >> thank you. and we have the three gentlemen before you advocating f a piece of legislation that has had no hearings, nobody's had any input, republican or democrat, and you're all advocating for a closedprocess to bring it up on the floor. so, yeah, you've been here for 24 hours and already you've broken your promise. so i'm not sure what that means for the rest of the session, but we'll wait and see. >> we'll just wait and see. >> i'm looking forward to that. the other thing is, again, for the checks that have gone out to help the people deal with the doughnut hole, are you going to ask them to send the money back? i mean, is that the way you envision this? would you ask these senior citizens to forego it, or would citizens to forego it, or would they retroactively have to send back the money that they got to help offset the cost of their drugs? how do you -- how do you see this working? >> mr. mcgovern, having drafted the legislation to repeal obama

care in the dawn in the middle of the night after it passed, i contemplate add lot of these things throughout the summer as i gathered bipartisan signatures on the discharge petition that reached 173. a lot of questions came up, and that was one of them. and drafting this repeal legislation is one of them and how it does affect those things. it would scom to a halt. as chairman upton said, it can't be anticipated, because the timing of the repeal can'ting predicted. ut what the legislation contemplates as i understand it, is that when and if the president should sign the repeal legislation, then things come to a halt as of that moment. so we can't really lead this thing far enough to make this prediction, so there wouldn't be, in my view, a call to go back and gather any of the back and gather any of the funds that have been stributed. >> but the way that bill was written is that the relief in the doughnut hole gets bigger and bigger as the years go by,

so the relief would stop. >> the bill is written so that all things stop at the moment of its enactment. >> so that would stop. >> that does not mean that there wouldn't be replacements in place to address that subject matter. >> what's curious is i'm looking at your press release on the statement of principles. doesn't mention anything about the doughnut hole. i'm just curious. you mention a lot of other things, but you don't mention that. i mean, why? i mean, why? >> well, mr. mcgovern, you've identified about for popular componts that can be potentially defended within this entire 2,500-page bill and that's where the focus of this discussion has been, and i've listened to the points that you've delivered here and i'd suggest in summary that rather than putting an agenda before republicans, i would say that republicans support a constitutional bl that is fiscally responsible that protects the patient's rights, patient's relationip with the doctors and it allows for free market. not an unconstitutional not an unconstitutional socialized medical bill. >> i appreciate your comments, mr. kane, but basically what

you've given me is a sound bite. and you're saying let's repeal this bill, we don't have a replacement. there's no replacement, there's no specifics, there's nothing. so here we are. the beginning of the process, closed process, and i think if you got your wish, a lot of people would be hurt by it. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'm happy to yield. >> thank you. this is another argument that i've made for a long time, and i have resisted the idea of putting repeal and replace tother, because if do you that, that interrupts the process of having an actuall clean process, where all members of this congress can weigh in. if, let's just say, leadership presented a replacement bill that was attached at the hip, then that list components that mr. dreier listed in the opening statement, there would be members in this congress that would say, well there, are five things on mr. dreier's proposal, i don't like one of them and i want another one and the list gets so long you ends

up with another back-room deal. we want to do replacement through a leitimate prcess so legislation can be built with the wisdom of the new freshman class, coupled with the experience of the members of this congress. that's why replacement can't be a part of the repeal. >> i appreciate it. but i'll just close by saying this is not a legitimate process, this is an illegitimate process, no hearings, nothing, and we're going to the floor under a closed process. that's not the way this hould be done. i yield back my time. >> thank you very much, mr. mcgovern. mr. new jenlt. thank you, mr. hastings. thank you, mr. hastings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank you and our colleagues on our committee for all your patience with regard to time in this matter today. i especially am grateful for our witnesses and our colleags that are here to testify and apologize to them if, in the next few minutes, i spend time inordinate on what

some might consider to be particularly important, because all of our matters are important and they have just as many important things to say. i associate myself with the remarks of ms. slaughters and the remarks of mr. mcgovern. i do believe that we're embarking down a path that will ultimately be not only to our detriment -- and i wish to correct a few things along the way. mr. king, obviously you and i haveour friends and ideological opposites, have fundamental disagreements on what can and should be done.