thanks to each of you, america is now moving forward again. let's look at the alternatives we see on the other side of the aisle. the current crop of tea party republicans founded by wealthy economic royalists who all have a very small view of america. we have seen this story before. hoover called supply-side economics. reagan called a trickle-down economics. george w. bush halted focusing on my base. [laughter] we call it selling america short. [applause] i don't know about you, but i have had enough of tea party republicans like ted cruz, haven't you? [applause] these guys are too much, twisting the words of our

founders to justify their own mean-spirited, short down, pro- shutdown ideology. what senator cruise doesn't understand is the patriots he founded new hampshire, the patriots he founded maryland did not pray for their president to fail, they prayed for their president to succeed. [applause] delivern't intelligence, they didn't belittle earnings. they actually aspired to it and they hoped others would as well. they did not appeal to america's fears, they brought forward bravery and they would never have abandoned the war on war on to declare a

women, war on workers, war on immigrants, a war on the sick, and a war on hungry children. [applause] i know that people like mitch -- inell and kelly ayotte know they have been trying to distance themselves from the tea party ever since they nearly drove our country into default. but the truth is, sadly, there is very little difference today between the tea party and so- called mainstream republicans. just ask terrell shea porter. just ask annie custer. they see it every day in the now sadly unrepresentative house of representatives. [applause] daylightvery little

between the tea party and the republican party. think about it. both would have millionaires do less, cut taxes for big oil, cut taxes for multinationals, reduce social security, cut veterans benefits, invest less in affordable college. do nothing to fix our immigration system, and give families who are trying -- keep families who are surviving on minimum wage to ever earn another penny. rush limbaugh did not get an applause line here in new hampshire. [laughter] the real and serious question we thisto ask one another is

believeuch less do we would be good for our country? how much less education would give our children -- would make our children smarter? how much less opportunity would allow the nation to succeed? childrenmore american can we no longer afford to feed? week,erans day, just last i had occasion to be with some of our nations finest. at the world war ii memorial at our nations capital, i was very blessed, humbled to be in the presence of four recipients of the congressional medal of honor. my parents, like so many of yours, grew up in the depression. my dad flew 33 missions over andn in a he 24 liberator,

my mom, at the age of 16, got a pilot's license and joined the civil air patrol. [applause] our parents and grandparents understood the essence that we share as americans. at thehe truth that lies heart of the american dream. the stronger we make our country, the more she gives back to us and to our children and our grandchildren. they did not serve, fight, sacrifice come a work and in many cases die so their grandchildren could grow up in a country of less. to us a larger and stronger country than that, a country of more, country of more opportunity, country of more freedom and justice, a country

we now have the ability to pass the word to our own grandchildren, stronger and better if only we choose to do so. progress is a choice. job creation is a choice. we have followed our president's call to make better choices so we can achieve better results. we have done more, not less, to build a modern and the structure. we have done more, not less to create jobs and those emerging industries. we have done more, not less to improve our children's education and make college more affordable by freezing college tuition for years in a row. jobs.sult is more there's no progress without jobs. last month, we've reached a milestone of having recovered 100% of the jobs we lost in the bush recession. [applause]

last year, we achieved the fastest rate of new job growth of any of the states in our region. not only do people now i'm highest median income in the nation, but we are one of the top state for upward economic mobility and, for the last two years in a row, the u.s. chamber of commerce, hardly a mouthpiece for the maryland democratic , the u.s. chamber of commerce named maryland number 14 entrepreneurship. none of these things were the product of chance. they were the product of choice. hope drives believe. believe drives action. action achieves results. that's the sort of leadership moving new hampshire forward. that is the leadership our country needs, and that's why you are going to let democrats

in new hampshire -- why you are going to elect democrats in new hampshire in 2014. [applause] it in conclusion, not that it's ever over, america's work is unfinished. , i want toon tonight share this final story. i'm joined tonight by my son him of who i am very proud. he is 16. [applause] william was born a very old and wise soul from the moment he could talk. when he was about nine years old, we found ourselves at home watching a history channel special. it was about rosa parks and civil rights and as he watched the story, he turned to me and

back then, by which he meant sometime between the extinction of the dinosaur and the paleozoic era, he said somebody told you that some of you had to ride in front of the bus and some of you had to ride in the back of the bus? and you guys actually listen? [laughter] said, it's hard to imagine, but honestly, that was just the way it had always been. then he turned to me with the clear wisdom of youth and said, realizen't you guys that you were all going to the same place?

[applause] the truth is, we are all going to the same place and we are all on the same bus. am aampshire for maryland california, mississippi, and we will move forward or slip back together. we will succeed or fail together, and we will rise or we will fall together, and we cannot allow ourselves to become the first iteration of americans to give our children a country of less grade this not a matter of wishing or hoping, it's a matter of leaving and taking action. we are americans. we make our own destiny. it means new hampshire must stand up and maryland must stand up. it means each and every one of us must stand up. it only takes one person, then another

and another to stand up and say enough. finger-pointing, enough wasted time, let us achieve like americans again, let us leave like americans again, let us believe like americans again, and ourselves, and our nation, and in one another. , wether we can, together must and together, we will. bless you, new hampshire. [applause] ♪

>> i want to thank all of you for coming tonight. this is a record, they largest we've had in 10 years. thanks for all of you for being here. sponsors,for our thank you for all coming. we will see you in a couple of months. thank you all. [applause] ♪

>> i appreciate your speech because it's all about success. >> thank you. [indiscernible]

>> great job, great speech. >> thank you. >> i love your waterfront. it reminds me of else point. impressed with what you done and do how you have articulated it great very good, and i wish you well. thank you.

>> we will have more coverage from the road to the white house in just a moment. first, a look at this picture posted by: i read -- illinois resident just after a tornado moved through the area. the associated press reporting the midwest under high tornado threats as a powerful storm heads east from the great lakes. adamois congressman kinzinger says my thoughts and prayers are with all of those experiencing violent weather in illinois. these stay safe. illinois senator dan coats says severe storms expected in indiana. follow your local news station and fema for updates and he links to a website for more resources. on a recent election in louisiana, representative steve kelly says congratulations to .ur newest member i look forward to serving with him in congress. at the "new york

times" -- sorry, this is congress. we turn now back to the road to the white house. capitol hill, both chambers back in session tomorrow. this is from paul ryan from last night. [applause] hey come everybody. it's nice to be back to see each and every one of you. this is our first time back since the campaign and jen -- jim, i want to thank you so much. but we say wisconsin through the nose. it has been one year. a lot has happened. and seei got to come old friends and see people and see some memories.

maybe we should come back and do this more often. people are really friendly here. [applause] -- at first iite thought it was an invite from dr. phil. is terry's this birthday, i wanted to bring something from wisconsin i thought was appropriate. [applause] wisconsin.ice of the packers are pretty popular here in iowa, correct? more so than the vikings, i would like to think. maybe not. i also want to sit here as i look out, i see three people.

i want to talk about terri a little more. i've seen a guy who has been a workhorse where i work, in congress. i see tom latham who has been working hard and is fighting every day for the conservative common principles we share and i want to thank tom for what he does and send him back. this man works hard. he's one of the hardest working guys we have. want to talk about our good friend, chuck grassley. chuck and i have been seeing a lot of each other lately. we keep making the same argument and because we make these arguments, we are not where we need to be right now. i think the money that comes from the government is not but ourrnment's money, money, the tax players who made it in the first place.

made the taxpayers who first place. i'd like to thank chuck for all he has done. chuck grassley, thank you for all of your service. we are indebted to your gratitude. some people say president campaigns are rough on campaigns. a are really tough. that's not the experience that jenna and our three kids had. some of the great memories we northern,raveling up southern and eastern and western iowa. going over where my grandfather went. where'd jenna's mom is from. house sheto the learned to walk on and they had the little height notations where she and her three sisters grew up. the homeowners cap that there.

is that not good iowa cultural values or what? we are excited about this coming march when one of jenna's relatives will have a cap -- have a statue put in the capital. this is a state that not only shares the same kind of values, had greate where we memories with. i want to thank each and everyone of you. iowans whof those did so much for watching this last campaign. we did not quite deliver, but on tt and myself, thank you for everything you did. thank you for fighting for your country. we want to say thank you for that. we appreciate it. [applause] we are not here simply to celebrate your governor's

birthday, we are here to celebrate your state success. look what success stories we have right here. terry ranson and kim reynolds came into office little over two years ago. they came in with a split legislature, huge deficit, high unemployment. sound kind of familiar? look what they faced. , ay faced all these problems divided legislature, and look what they have already done. a surplus.ning your unemployment rate is down. they passed the biggest tax cut in history. these are leaders. this is a man who did not have to do this. he served his state honorably and served it well. then he went and served in another venue in higher education.

he saw liberals come in and do things to his state that he didn't like. what did he do? he stood back up and went at it to fix his state and he has done that. that's an example. thank you, terry, for doing this. thank you for putting the uniform on for getting back into the game and scoring some touchdowns. did you see the wisconsin- indiana game today? he put principle ahead of pride and is putting prudence ahead of pride. he's putting our principles in practice. people in washington could use a few pointers. they could learn a lot. i don't know if you have noticed this, but obamacare has had a

few hiccups lately. [laughter] were you are member, we told we had to pass this bill in order to find out what was in it? here we are. maybe tom canll jog my memory, one of the guys who was fighting hard where this law was a guy named ruth raley. you know who that is? this law is doing real harm to real people. this law is taking people and disrupting their lives trade millions of people are getting cancellation notices. families are seeing their premiums go up. that rod is this threee, where they had years to prepare, half $1 billion to spend, is the same

crowd that is now poised to take over 16% of our economy, the presidente sector. obama says he didn't know any of this stuff was going to happen. he said he had no idea these problem's were in the offering. we had kathleen sibelius come and say everything was ready to go. here is the issue. if you outlaw the kind of insurance people actually have, they won't be able to keep those plans. they passed a law three years ago to outlaw the kinds of insurance people had. look, we talked about this in the 2010 elections and the 2012 elections. we knew all this was happening at the time. we had all of the soaring rhetoric and promises. the way i see it, there are only

two explanations. either they were being dishonest or they are incompetent. frankly i'm a i don't know which one is worse. think they are learning a pretty valuable lesson. i think the valuable lesson we are learning here, unfortunately with all of this obamacare spectacle is that you don't shut out the opposition, you don't you a bad bill into law, don't say one thing when you know it's another. when it all blows up in your face, i'm sorry is just not going to cut it. that is the lesson i think they are learning. you have a famous politician coming through iowa, breezing through the town, talking about big government,

let's be a little more skeptical. when you take a look at the arguments that were made to sell this law, they were attractive arguments. when i look back at this campaign, it was a tough loss. we were in a funk for a good six months. we knew the stakes and we knew what we were going to do. we know what we believe and we know what needs to happen to get things done, and it didn't go our way. it's obviously very frustrating. as i look back at the campaign, one of the problems we had was we were arguing against big government in theory. president obama passed his row gram in the first two years of when nancyncy, pelosi and harry reid were in charge of the place. those programs did not take effect until after the 2012

elections, things like.-frank and obamacare. we had to campaign against big government in dairy come a they rhetoric, the empty promises, if you like what you want, you can keep it. here is the difference now. we have big government in practice. what we are realizing is the results are nothing close to the rhetoric we used to sell them. what we are realizing is this was not all of was cracked up to be. i wonder if people who know what they know now would rehire these people again? what do you think? when you take a look at these isues honestly, that is where see optimism. that's where i think we have a chance. this is where we have a real opportunity. we are no longer looking at big

government in theory anymore, we are seeing it in practice and we see the hollowness of these promises and these issues as they come forward and we do not like it. i'm not talking about we republicans, i'm talking about isricans. what we have to do we have to show the country we are not just the opposition country, we are the proposition country. we had to show truth to power and expose these ideas for how hollow these are and we also had to show who we are and what we believe in. we still believe in the american idea, we still believe as our founders did that our rights come before government. the declaration says it comes from nature and nature is god. we still believe if you work hard and play by the rules in this country, you can get ahead. we still believe in that american dream, but millions of people don't see it. they don't know they have a crack at it.

they don't think their kids will be as well off as they are. i think we understand something the left does not understand, that the people who are focused on selling big government understand. what we understand is the american people don't just want comfort, they want dignity. they want the dignity of being a self-governing people. obamacare is just the opposite. i remember all of these debates -- chuck grassley can say the same thing. we were in all of these meetings and debates and they kept saying health care is a right. a new government-granted right. here is the problem -- if government is the grantor of our rights, government gets to decide who, from where we get that right. that is what we are learning under this health care law. we are seeing choices go down, prices go up, and we haven't even begun to see all of the

things that will happen at the hospitals or providers. the next time, i think people will be more skeptical because now we see big government in practice. easierhey have made it for exposing these problems for what they are, we have to do what we can believe in. we need to have a mandate that is an honest mandate. we need an honest and petitions that we can resuscitate this idea and save this country. this, weake a look at are confident in our ideas. we know what fiscal responsibility actually looks like. all you have to do is look at terry -- don't spend money you don't have and if you are, get it under control. we know what patient centered health care look like. don't wait for the government to tell you what to do. don't have the government tell you who your insurer is or what

dr. you have to go to. those health care providers, whether it's hospitals competing for our business, not the government's favorite business. we know what real tax reform looks like. loserscking winners and in washington. lower our tax rates for families and businesses so we can keep more of what we earn. [applause] the way it works these days is you have nine out of 10 businesses in iowa and wisconsin pay their taxes as individual -- as individuals. all of those people at industrial parks, the top tax rate now because of obamacare, 44.6 are sent. do you know what is in canada question mark 15%. 25% in china.

this tax codes where our taxes are really high and then, if you send your money to washington but do some things we approve of, we will let you have some of it back. i have a better idea. keep it in the first place. you decide what to do it the cousin is your money. reform what real tax looks like. those are the kinds of things we have to propose. [applause] onalso know what a real war poverty looks like. it does not look like the one that has waged for the last 45 years. $15 trillion spent at the federal level and the highest poverty rates in a generation. washington has gummed up the works come amid harder for people to get ahead, and the idea of upward mobility is slipping farther and farther away from people who have not

seen it for generations. we can do better than that. we can restore america as the party of equal opportunity to show how these ideas prevail. we have had big government in theory, we have it in practice. it doesn't work. -- of my favorite economists it is a fatal conceit, to borrow his words. we have these incredible examples. look at what kerry has done here. if we follow these examples, if we highlight our ideas, we are going to do this. this is why i am optimistic. know what is going to take. it's going to take people of courage, conviction, people like terry branstad. keep sending people like tom and check grassley -- if chuck somebody else -- the guy who

voted for obama care. [applause] i have every confidence we are going to do this. this is a packed room of people who care about the country and air here to thank their governor for doing what they have done for years. make sure you can help us do it for the rest of the country. a song going to sing like that wonderful young man who sang at the beginning of the program, but they told me i had to start by singing happy birthday. would you please join me? to our governor, terry branstad. happy birthday to you ♪ ♪ happy birthday to you ♪ happy birthday, dear terry ♪ happy birthday to you

let's hear it for our governor. [applause] >> thank you. >> happy birthday. >> thank you. with teddyd roosevelt. i knew so much had been written about teddy that i needed another story. i got into taft, knowing they had broken apart in 1912. then i figured out what was the difference between the two and their leadership. about thereading progressive era and the public and the magazines and the press. a single guys played role. the best historians writing secondarily will say these

people were the vanguard of the progressive movement. then i started reading about them. the others, so he came into my life. >> roosevelt, taft, and the muckrakers. tonight with doris kearns goodwin, at 8:00 on c-span's "q and a." >> now, the national republican committee chairman, greg walden, talks about the 2014 elections willow the health care law impact democrats. he spoke friday at the christian science monitor's requested washington d.c. for about one hour. >> ok, here we go.

yesterday, representative greg w speaking, and his last visit was in may 2012, and he was born in oregon, where his family came to the state by wagon train in 1845, and he grew up on an 80-acre cherry orchard and graduated from university. early on, he was a disc jockey and eight talk show host, and he was elected to congress himself in 1998, and in 2010, beaker john boehner named him the chairman of the republican leadership. after the elections, he was unanimously elected as our chair, and he also serves as chair as the energy and commerce panel subcommittee. are on the record here. please, no live blogging or , except or other means

that our friends at c-span have agreed not to air video of this session until one hour after the brick is is over to give reporters in the room here time to file. like to ask aould question, please send me a nonthreatening signal, and we will start off with our guest making opening comments, and then we will move off around the table. with that, you have had your tutorial bites of breakfast. >> welcome, everyone. i am delighted to join you this morning, and i appreciate that warm introduction. i would also add that my wife and i were owners and operators in the radio business, and i have done everything but way by play sports. probably have wired a few broadcast studios or two, and they probably worked, and i have a degree in journalism, so it is good to be with you all.

at me start with my role as chairman and talk about 2014 and what we see. and i want to start by recapping what i said when asked about would saw -- thought 2014 look like one year ago, and i believed then and believe now that 2014 will be about the president's health care law, obamacare, and i believe it more now than ever, and now it has become a category five political is not justat causing havoc in certain regions of the country. it is ripping apart every region of the country, from tiny hamlets and towns to major cities, where people are finding confusion, chaos, cancellations, cost increases, all of which were predicted as if you had

noaa reporting that the storm was coming three years ago, and the administration and the democrats in the house or in denial. they missed lead and did nothing to prevent what is now unfolding, and so i think 2014 is going to be a referendum on the failures of this administration and its notion that bigsophy government has the answers, big government can do things better, and americans now fully appreciate and understand that that is not the best approach, and further that they want a check and balance on the obama administration and its big government ideas. thatthey did not have check and balance when the health care law was passed only with democrat votes. pelosi shut out

every single amendment in the house that was tried to be offered in the rules committee on that fateful day. the president has apologized to the american people in different ways. i think it is time for the democrats who voted for this law and for the speaker of the house, and today would be a perfect day, to apologize, as well, because the american people feel very missed lead, and a bond of trust has been broken with the president and the democratic leadership in the house, and when you lose that trust, it is a very difficult and soo ever get that, nobody wants to see what is happening out there. i did eight days straight in my district on the road last week, 2476 miles by air and ground, and no matter what their purported agenda for our meeting

was, it always got to obamacare and veryancellations, personal and specific examples of people who not only have lost their coverage but also were now finding out their preferred specialists, whether oncologists or cardiologists, they were no longer in their network, and that their deductibles had now toe from $1000 to $2000 $12,000, $15,000 for a family, and some whose cancellations of their personal policies were now being replaced with a forest participation in medicaid, something they did not want, and there are a lot of other issues involving the economy, and i will just touch on one and be happy to open it up to your questions. the other thing that came about as a subtext of discussion about the failures of the rollout and the broken promises is an

insidious thing that is going on in the economy affecting real people in their everyday lives, and it is nothing that employers are holding news conferences to announce, but i tell you, it is going on in every town, and it is employers who cannot afford the cost of mandated health insurance and are therefore reducing the hours of people who work for them to under 30 and/or getting their total workforce under 50 in anticipation that the penalties will apply in a year, and they going to get ahead of it, and that is a really tragic thing for people who are trying to hold a job to see their hours cut back. i had a letter from an individual in the southern part of the district who talked about his daughter who was training to be a pharmacist, and her hours were cut from 42 under 30, and she can no longer live independently as a result. she still does not have health

care, and she was moving back in with her three-year-old into her father's home. that may also be why he wrote me to seek help. a realy suggest, this is and serious problem out there, and i think in terms of the political landscape, all of this is boiling at the surface or over, and there is a big problem, so let me stop with that, and, again, thank you for posting this, and with that, i will take any questions you have. no relation at the back table there, but on their website, they summed up the situation targetables not many seats and a shift in the house, and for the democrats, you probably picked a good time to be chair, because for the democrats to take back the house, they would then need to win all the likely democratic the leadnd 13 of 16 of

republican districts, so it is obviously looking like a good time for the republicans. sense of out whether the health care kerfuffle causes a wave, or do swingill see a 6, 7, 8 either way? >> i think we have the ability to net gain seats in 2014. lay of the at the land and read the independent rock gnostic caters that put an enormous amount of time and energy into this, -- independent in ansticators that put enormous amount of time and energy into this, and i will not get into specific numbers, but i do believe we can have a net increase. we have women candidates. we have reconfigured our analytics department, creating

probably the biggest digital department in republican politics very early on. grassrootse the data, the digital components to do more highly targeted voter identification and turnout, and i believe with , andecruits and the issues with history on our side, we can gain seats. look. history does not repeat itself automatically. you have to go earn these seats. you have to earn these seats. we know that, and that is why we have been so laser focused, making sure also our incumbents go through the patriot program, which has been a huge success study back in the 2009-2010 election cycle. members and our patriot do a great job, they have raised a lot of money, and more than just money, it is the mechanics behind it that gives them the

team and the strategy and the plan to win. let's go one more from me, and then we will go to another. to me ask you about risks your rosy scenario. the new york times says in 2014, there will be at least 18 republican house primaries, and at the this week atlantic washington ideas form, karl rove talked about the republican coalition being in a state of flux. he said now it is starting to sort out and that we are past the point of greatest warfare, this affectingee your job? >> well, i think the democrats have a number of primaries that are causing them intraparty warfare, and i will talk about them in a minute. in terms of republicans, in nearly every one of those cases, they are solid republican seats,

and in nearly every one, they are going to be republican seats. you cannot say that about the democrats, and you look at the challenge to mike mcintyre. you look at what is playing out in the california 31 gary miller seats, and they picked their candidate, who, by the way, did not get into the runoff last a former member of congress, joe baca, is a nether candidate there in a jungle primary. republicans are not the only ones that have some primaries, but democrats where they have them, like john tierney in think that is a serious challenge that he has in the primary, and they will be weakened as a result. on health care, do republicans have to unite around republican alternatives? and be,now, a, we have,

we can lay out how we have this in the system. the challenge we face though is we have a long situation. the president of the united states has made it clear he has no intent of ever repealing while he is in office, and even so our multiple attempts to suspend it, repeal it have met with pretty unified resistance from most democrats and certainly the majority leader of the senate and the president, so at some point, you say, we tried to warn you. this goes back to a memo from the energy and commerce committee a couple of years ago, i think while we were still in the minority, talking about the plans and the cancellations, because i think the ratio range was within their own documents, then.

get muchd not attention, but they have seen this coming for a long time, so i think now, it is how is all of this going to play out, and they have waited too long. the storm has hit. congressman, where democrats are trying to wallop you, you control the house. you have controlled the house for three years, but you are not getting anything done. the plan last december, etc., me one example since january where the house of representatives has passed legislation where you can go out there and say, look, we have been effective. not messaging, but we have been effective. >> let's back up here. the reality of this city is we are in the minority when it comes to passing legislation. every morning,

and you have the president of the united states and harry reid on the other side, and i know people do not like to hear that, that is the reality of legislating. we passed legislation. we passed the debt ceiling legislation earlier in the year, and we set tax policy in permanent statute. i can go back to legislation i worked on in a bipartisan way, the spectrum bill, which will be part of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the high- tech world. there is legislation that we are working through. one bill moved through the house with very big support. we passed some appropriation bills over to the senate. >> the transportation bill you had to pull the cousin of dissension within your own caucus. another bill did not even make it to the congress. >> how many has the senate taken up that we have sent them? effectivenessthe of the house. >> right, so when you had the

leader of the senate, and correct me if i am wrong, but to say publicly that he was not going to take up any appropriation bills at the house sent over, is there not some responsibility there? takes two to dance. you know, for four years, i know you do not like this, but for four years, the senate -- three or four years, they did not even vote on a budget. we did each year. he may not have liked our budget, but -- >> again, if you're caucus, if you go down the list, plan b, you could not even get support in your own caucus. i'm a democrat, and i say you guys are in effect it. >> so we look at this and say we have passed a bill each year we have been in the majority. we are the only ones that passed a budget that actually balances, and it took sort of a shameful -- noch in the no-bid

budget, no pay provision on the debt ceiling increase to get the senate to even take up and vote a budget. how do you even have a discussion with the other body when they do not vote? admittedly,place, but at least they are having this discussion, the maybe we can get this back on track. i do not disagree with that. >> i mess with my brother at great peril. christina? >> immigration and the primaries. to do afterething the deadline? >> so we have a different approach in the house than the senate, as you well know. the american people are very skeptical of big, huge, comprehensive bills, and we are looking at real reform that is

done a piece at a time, step-by- step so that you can have it be transparent, so people can have a chance to actually understand -- eachth of the way, step of the way. the speaker has said on more than one occasion i believe that this is a federal problem. i have said if it is a federal problem, it needs to be dealt with by the federal government. i think you will see it, as a matter of timing, in part because of everything else that has not been done yet, with the whole government funding issue, and all of that is -- has eaten up a lot of time. my guess is it is later next year. with the political calendar, is it hard to do it during an election cycle? people know their districts pretty well and what they can and cannot support, i think, going into it, so i do

not think it is that big of an issue, and you're going to have primaries all of the way to august, so -- >> ok, we are going to go with the next two, including tom and david and emily. alex? >> all of the meetings with obamacare, would that all be squandered if the government is shut down again in january? >> look. the thing about obama care it continues on. it continues on. the government got funded, got and i thinkrunning, on the ground in the the shutdown was not that well received by many. there are others, frankly, in some districts that probably given the overarching reach of the federal government, they would like to see it shut down forever probably, but obamacare

affects everybody, and it continues to, and it will continue to affect them, and i think it will be the dominant issue. it was said if, it comes to a second shutdown, if it happens twice within a few months of each other, it could hurt. >> and it should not. we should keep the government open and operating. >> cameron? >> making sure that the caucus does not get sideways and divided on this, with a focus on obamacare. there is a lot of division, and last time, you your self voted against the bipartisan plan. your primary opponent refused. whether you feel any pressures from the caucus on this. >> there are, obviously. there are people with a strongly held opinion.

some of our members remembered equal and was the opposite reaction to the overpowered government that was spending like there was no tomorrow, and these members are reflecting a view in the country that is strongly, passionately get that if we do not control of deficit spending and itll will be lost, is pretty easy to make that case when you see these deficits racking up, $1 trillion, $1.5 trillion. somehow, that was celebrated as a great reduction, and yet, the long-term forecasts are not good, and the next generation pays the bill. there is a very strong feeling we have to do more, and we just on the had a partner other side of the capitol and down in the white house that would work with us to get that

done. having thesituation, type of brinkmanship you had last time, a distraction from the problems of obamacare. >> i think we will work through it. i think we will work through it. >> tom? >> a piecemeal approach. in the summer. the house never voted on it. that you want to handle a piecemeal approach if you're not going to consider the regular order? >> as you know, different bills get work to a certain point in the process, and then you have to get the right for time, and that happens in both chambers, and that is a matter, as i said, with everything else that happened this fall. it kind of affects the schedule. the majority leader and others

figuring out when next year it makes sense to have the time to work this through in a thoughtful way, and we need real reform, and i think you are going to see it come forward. tom? i am sorry. tom? >> mitch mcconnell pushed back against the far right. he said the most important election was the one in alabama, where he sent a notice to the tea party candidate who he marked as naïve lost to a member of the business community, and he also went after the senate conservatives fund, counterproductive, costing republicans jobs and electing more democrats than republicans. should we expect house republican leaders to push back against the far right, especially with growth, especially with the incumbents? defeaty job is to

democrats and elect republicans, and republicans that are chosen by republicans in their thaticts as the nominees, is really where we are focused, and i think the extent to where range ofve our wide outside organizations focused on that, we will be more successful at growing our majority in the house, and so my words of encouragement always are, sort of the bill buckley line, nominate the most conservative person that can win in a general election, and that is, i think, really critical, and focus our attention on defeating democrats who are continents apart philosophically from where we are, and so that is my view of it. the caucus news further and further to the right, making it more and more difficult for

speaker boehner to leave it in any specific direction, is that part of the equation in electing republicans to the house? >> when you're in the majority, you have the responsibility to govern, and we are a center- right majority, and we have to be able to govern, and we need people to come here and who will fight as hard and tenaciously and thoughtfully as possible, but at the end of the day, we still have the responsibility to govern. >> david? >> yes, mr. chairman, two very specific questions. first of all, democrats say they ave a great candidate, with special on march 11. do you have a grade a candidate, we have hadf all, six retirements on the republican side, including two sophomores, which is unusual,

and fewer democratic retirements so far. anticipate more on your side saying, this sucks, i am out of here? [laughter] >> oh, david. first of all, in florida 13, i think our hearts are still broken by the passing of bill young. what a great, great republican for many years, and we all knew that bill had a special relationship with his constituents in that district, and that district had changed when he noars, and longer was serving, that district would be a competitive district, and it is just the numbers. you do all of the analysis. i think the president has carried that district the last two cycles. having said that, we will be competitive in that district.

the filing deadline has not closed yet. there are a lot of people andying around mr. jolly, our job is you pick the nominee, and then we go and win the seat. some explaining to do about her tenure in florida. she has to move across the bay to even show up in the district, which i think has some issues associated with it, so we plan to be on full offense there. she was an early and strong advocate for the president's health care law. she will have to explain that 760it is ok to take the billion dollars out of medicare and put it into medicaid. she is going to be an owner of obamacare. bot.as an obama all lined up and going

in the same direction over and over. we intend to make this a very big race. >> retirements? >> retirements. as chairman of the nrc see, nobody wants to have retirements, but it is a natural evolution, and i feel pretty good about where we are at. we never want any. you never want an open seat, but in most cases, i think we are in good shape, and i think it would be us rather than them. we have more members. on redve got to go win territory. they have got to go pick up seats that romney carried, and i think they have got a big uphill climb to do it, but we have got to be on game and on message, and have the right people in the right places. >> actually, two questions. a number of questions you have had about governing, that

in some ways, you have got this built in advantage in the districts, where you are probably going to keep the house for a while, barring something unusual, but how do you make sure that that does not work at cross purposes for the republican party -- the desire to be a national party again. to be competitive in the national election, because as people talk about, your majority is probably now more conservative than what you need to win other elections, and is that part of your responsibility. is to makensibility sure there is a check and balance in washington and not a runaway. we saw the impacts of that when we saw senator pelosi and senator harry reid and president obama with no questions about things like the irs and benghazi and whatever else, and said that is my focus, the house. we represent --

individual districts. while we have some that seek the presidency, it is rare that they get there. we really are a different entity. and i think our leadership and the way we speak can actually help the republican party. we have had initiatives in on the grow agenda to recruit more women. we are trying to mechanically build out, and then we stay on message of trying to create private sector jobs and have positive alternatives going forward. and have a referendum on how the other side does. these elections are about one side versus the other.

people make a choice, and they have a clear choice in this cycle about gay, government-run takeovers, and how that plays out in their daily life. when the president continued to talk about if you have your plan, you can keep it, there was a talkshow friend of mine who apparently said yesterday that if you don't like your democratic house member, you do not have to keep him or her, period, is really how this is going to play out. the tierneyoned race in boston. in hope of winning seats boston and beyond that? >> i think so. we are not done recruiting in some of those seats. we have some really interesting people who are looking at running very seriously and are working through their own issues, family issues, you know. it is always important to have your family fully supportive

when you venture down this path, and when you go up to new hampshire, frank is running richard, as you all know, is running again, and i just think that we need to be competitive in new england and can be competitive in new england. can grow. remember, we came out of 2010 with the biggest majority since world war ii. the second biggest majority since world war ii in 2012. a point i have to often make to our donor community who are still wondering if mitt romney actually won because they had invested so heavily, he must have, and by the time we get to what i actually have the responsibility for, the house, most people don't realize we have the second biggest majority since world war ii. this is a bigger majority than

in 1990 four, and they have to go to the chiropractor because their neck snaps around, like, what? so we have figured out how to do our job. we have a great team, and i think we will grow our majority. democrats in primaries, speaking of candidates, and they have said, we do not get involved with primaries, but in districts where people have a ?rimary, what do you consider >> we do not spend money. do not go in and drop money on the races. out therere recruiting, and there is always that line. we have self-starters, people you do not even know that are see oneeir, that you day driving past the secretary of state office, and it happens, but we are open to work with every one of those candidates.

we have a program that reaches out to them. we will give those candidates siloede sideload -- coverage. whoever is the nominee, whoever is choose an in that district, we want them to be as capable and competent as possible, so they can win, but, certainly, as we go out around the country, we are trying to identify ourselves who is the best one to run, and we have got some great ones. i do not know if you are tracking the stuart mills up against nolan in minnesota, but it is a mills farm, a farm, co- chain, and a store he oversees about 5000 employees and their benefits. he knows obamacare inside and

out, and we just have got some really good people. another one running against barbara. retooling in terms of her campaign and how to approach the race this time against matheson. jenkins. a democrat senator for a long time. he changed his party and is now out raising in west virginia. so we have got some interesting dynamics folks in the running. >> congressman, i am interested in one district where republican candidate will have problems because there is no immigration least,rom the house, at and the candidate would be in a lot of trouble on the democrat side because of obamacare. what is your take on that particular race in california, especially given that it is

pretty much a moderate district, where the others are gaining ground. i think voters are more motivated when something is taken away from them. and i think voters are rightfully upset, maybe angry, at times about the president's and that would, be the overriding one. i think they will take immigration legislation and a piece by piece approach. with due consideration. those are decisions made by others in the leadership, not me, but that being said, obamacare will live on, with the cost increases, the confusion, the chaos, and the

cancellations, and i think that will be the dominant issue, because that affects everybody. it affects everybody, and when people figure out they can no longer see their doctor, that will be the next less than , another broken promise, because what i am hearing from my constituents that have been canceled, when they get a new policy, some provider they have trusted their health care with and have trusted, they are no longer in their network. it is true that they will be able to see them, but they will now have to pay full price, because they are out of the network, and deductibles are off the charts. out, this those play is a hurricane of mammoth proportion that is going to strike everywhere, including there in california. state, you have

schrader. , and there isasio a lot of discontent about obamacare. and there is immigration. to perhaps support today's bill in the house, what do you make of it? to be really concerned. >> this is sort of like a guy who robbed the bank and has a bag of money going outside the door with a bag of money and gets caught and says, here, i will give you back the money. sorry. it does not work that way with voters. i watched this play out with my who was chastising the president for not being truthful only to have it pointed out

that he had the same claim on his own website. so they are getting caught. they are co-conspirators. you cannot get away from that. there is this thing called the fourth estate, the press, two kind of document all of that. and so i think they are in real trouble. something,nator said that told me that panic had arrived area >> we are going to go to these next people. francine? >> if you look at the latest developments in obamacare, strictly from a policy point of view, whether it is the president's executive order, or whether it is what mary landrieu was working on, would not allowing people who have these individual plans to keep their plans, would that not mess up the overall concept of

obamacare, because supposedly the people in the individual plans are more healthy, and that would remove them from the overall population and messes them up, so this is the deal, allowing the circuit -- certain segment to keep its plant, would that not have a negative effect overall? >> well, that made the true. i think the bigger, broader effect is in the individual lives of people who are now getting plans they can no longer afford, and by that, you look at premium increases that are going up hundreds of dollars per month, sometimes $1000 per month. it is a wide range. some people will get subsidies, but there is this group in the middle and make just enough, they get no subsidy, and the price of their premiums for their plan is going up dramatically, but moreover, and this is after 36 meetings in my

own district, their deductibles, their deductibles are at a level where unless you have a catastrophic health event in your family, you really do not have health insurance because you are paying upwards of $12,000, $15,000, where it was and so you can always go into the emergency room, right? the penalties are not more than the premiums. talkingthe chaos i am about out there, on the ground, in communities, all across america. there been time to actually figure out as this legislation has been going on which is the worst-case? these folks whose premiums are going up, or what happens to the i would argue>>

on the side of the individual whose plans are being terminated, and they do not have access to a website and have to figure out what the alternative is to what the subsidy will be were what the costs are. that is the world we are in right now, which is a more important world for the ofividual than the effect obamacare for the long haul. you have a situation in my home state. pool forhigh risk people who had pre-existing conditions, and i was in the legislature back in the early 1990's and late 1980's, and we worked for them having a place to go, and that risk pool ends at the end of this year. replacesed it down to it with cover oregon, which has signed up zero people. the government has now hired 400

individuals or are in the process of hiring who will manually go out and sign people up by paper, and they still have to figure out how to get it to work in the system by the end of the year. happening in fast time. that is why i equate it to a category five hurricane. all over the country. i did this town hall, a town of, i do not know, mobley 80 people, and there were 51 at the meeting tuesday night a week ago, and there were people saying that it is working great, and you republicans and this that and the other thing, and all of these cancellations, that is not true, and a fellow there said, here is my letter, and the morecement policy is x premium, and people are sitting around kitchen tables saying, now what do we do?

>> you mentioned about the partrsations with donors, of your job. despite being in the minority, the democrats have done a good job with their fund raising the last few years. a lot of this has been fueled by large numbers of small donations. you doing on that front? on the largeligned donors, and is it possible for a toublican party apparatus activate grassroots donors at this point, given the levels of distrust? >> i do not buy into the last piece of that at all. biggest datahe digital team in republican politics at the beginning of this year, and these young people are creative and brilliant and have done amazing things and have grown our

presence online dramatically. they can give you all of the metrics, but our facebook likes are off the charts. we have grown our e-mail dramatically. we have tripled our monthly fundraising online. all of that is good. we have a long way to go. business, small town, we had a target of opportunity to grow our revenues, but we figured out how to do that now. we have been very thoughtful, creative and building out our presence online, becoming more and inntent provider, our comparisons with our competitors in terms of how people share the information we put out, it is doing all of the right things, and now we can begin to invest more deeply in that and build that presence.

we have a long way to catch up. our small donor base is coming, is fired up, and finally, remember the president, for all of the things i may disagree with him on and say he is not good at, he is darn good at raising money, and he committed to my counterparts to do six events around the country -- and he haseing been to chicago and will be in seattle on the 24th. it is hard to compete, because they have got the president, president, the vice the whole infrastructure, because there is one thing he wants more than anything right now, and that is to govern in his last two years like he was able to in his first two years without us taking him down, and if we are out of the way, he will never have another

oversight hearing on the iressa or benghazi or these other issues that people are rightly and they willt, all get along. legislation will pass, as well, it is just, will you have time to read it? >> life without darrell issa would be hard to imagine, wouldn't it? >> i wanted to ask you ,pecifically about the race certainly the most vulnerable democrat in the country. campaign has been retooled, and what needed to be retooled? >> i am not going to get into all of the specifics in a race, but i will say this. a very dynamic, impressive individual, a wonderful mother who served her community as mayor, and i think

the country saw her in that brief moment during the convention, and they loved her, and she has been a very successful fundraiser. she has outraised him, i think, in the last quarter 2:1, so she track on the fundraising side. she is much more engaged locally then perhaps she had time to be last time, and i think with that and her team being assisted by some of the top pros in utah, campaign,or hatch's we learn. we sat down with each one of these candidates who wanted to run again and created a special project. what do you think worked, and what do you think did not work, and then how do we fix that, and then this is what we think, and then we compared notes, because nobody wants to run in one of these races and come up short.

it is not that much fun. second is not a good thing. so we try to identify strengths and weaknesses. how would you do it differently and have what was not there last time, and i think she is now clearly on the path of the three. >> we have time for a couple more. stephanie, and then david. with the presidential election, the opposition to the -- rdable care act >> would you speak up a little bit? >> the opposition to obamacare during the presidential election. what are you going to do to actually give a response, or what can you do? perhaps there are a lot of -- as long as the president is in office. is it just enough to be the alternative? about people who are

actually seeing their premiums go down? >> i think you have to factor that in. i was in a meeting in the northeast part of my district on saturday, late afternoon, much better, and this woman talked about being put offer individual plan and being put into medicaid , and remember, the other piece of that, where the funding comes from is out of medicare, so you still have this element of seniors, especially in some of the rural districts where this major part, like keeping your provider, they are cognizant. they took money out of medicare to put into medicaid. that is an issue. our issues are very capable and competent in talking about alternatives with the health delivery system, but it does not do much good to put that out on the floor in a comprehensive

way. let's be honest, the senate is not going to take it up, and the president is not going to go along with it, so when one party passes something exclusively and denies the other party to even offer a single amendment, then they own it. bracedve owned it and in it and overpromised and under and it is the tsunami that has washed up, and there is a lot of debris on the ground, and i think it will be the defining issue in 2014, and they have got to explain it. major programsr were created, they were almost always created with bipartisan votes. major entitlement programs, going back to when reagan did some of the reforms. he did it with tip o'neill in a bipartisan way. this one, they made a conscious choice to lock this out. henry waxman at a conference.

spent 4.5 years on a hospital board. i chaired the board that implemented the oregon health plan ultimately. i think there are all kinds of reforms that need to be done. thes part of the process on higher risk pool. care, a lot with health and i was an employer that paid 100% along with my wife for our employees. the nonprofit and rural hospitals. i would like to help. i said that also. and there is that thought, if the phone does not ring, it must be me, and that is kind of how we retreated. ok. here we are. now you own it and get you keep overpromising. how are you going to fix it? they admitted in august that it would not be ready and would be over budget, and now they are admitting it will not work before the end of the year.

typical advertisements promoting it. you cannot use it, and now they are hiring 400 people at $3 million, and they are only going to the more urban areas of the state to talk about it. it is just a mess. >> last question. >> oh, not him. >> again. >> talent for near 36. i am curious. your candidate does not seem to have crossfire or much money. to go back to the drawing board there? ande are fully engaged intend to win california 36. stay tuned. do you know what california 36 is? >> i do. you one sort of longer-term thing? >> i think you said that was the last question? >> i did.

also this week, there was talk about the overarching trend confronting republicans, and i take the point that your job is to elect republicans to the house. he said isthings that the country is becoming in theite, with a rise latino and african-american population. morere going to have a democratic electorate as these rise. worry, not in your specific alley, but just more generally about the state of this party? >> sure. to always have a positive agenda. better at need to be , because that agenda

we are not always good at that, and we can improve, and i think needs to cut across demographics and age and everything else. it is an agenda about believing in the individual, as opposed to big government. it is an agenda that, frankly, i try to promote in my subcommittee on communications about future innovation and what america can be, does of what we are and the creative brilliance we have, and we need to harness that more and create more jobs that pay better. the democrats generally want to divide. obama andpresident the joe the plumber exchange. we want to add to wealth. we want to grow this country. we want to grow jobs in the that becauser

companies are successful, they can pay more and expand, and again, i go back to the president's health care law. it is a depressant on economic growth in every community in the district, and i will take off my and rcc hat and just put on my small business hack. a state like oregon that is dependent on many small businesses, they are saying, i cannot afford the mandate. i have to get under 50 employees. i have to reduce workers, but that does not work because i want to grow my business, but i cannot, because of the cost, and i am telling you that nobody goes out to have a news conference to say they have reduced their hours or employees to say they have gotten under 50 employees, and yet it is happening. sector, vibrant private

regulated where necessary, so you have competition, but you are growing jobs, and not shifting jobs overseas. this gives into immigration reform. both high tech, and in my part of the world, i grew up on a cherry orchard, as was mentioned. if we did not have guessed orchards then, we would not have cherries in the buckets. it would not have happened, and that is a skilled workforce. they need thinks not, a refresher course and need to go out and work in agriculture. it is technical. it is skilled, and it is hard work. we have unmet labor needs at all levels. we need to improve our education system and deal with these complexities, and if we do, we will address what carl has spoken about eloquently, because we are the party that believes

this is our core. americans will figure out how to ike things work, and again, go back to obamacare. can you imagine any website out there -- they all have their problems, but to undertake this, can you imagine apple rolling out their next product and having this happen? do you think this ceo would be there very long? this is what happens when government says, we know better. everything, i think it is a case for why big government in washington does not work and why the future really can be much brighter and better. >> we look forward to having you come back as this progresses. thank you, sir. >> glad to do it. appreciate it.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] "washingtonxt obamacare andng the health care law. our guests include those from bloomberg and politico, and then a look at what types of sent to thets deceased because of inaccurate records at the social security administration. we are joined by a representative from the washington post. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and later in the day, health byicials will talk, hosted an alliance on c-span2. earlier this month, the supreme

court heard oral argument in a case questioning the constitutional amendment of the u.s. treaty powers. this case, bond versus the u.s. states, involve the prosecution of a pennsylvania woman under a federal law designed to ban chemical weapons. bond was set to have spread chemical weapons and was then hot stealing from a mailbox. she was charged under a statute of the 1993 chemical weapons statute. the oral argument is one hour. argument first this morning in case 12 one 58, bond versus the united states. serve? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, if the statute at issue here does include any malicious use of chemicals in this nation as the government insists, then the government has exceeded its numa rated powers.

this is the bedrock of our system that congress lacks a general police power to criminalize conduct without regard to a jurist to channel area or matter of federal concern. the president's negotiation and the senate to ratification of a treaty with foreign nations does not change that bedrock principle of our constitutional system. >> you said the treaty is valid, legislation --g it's a puzzle that implementing legislation that adds nothing is constitutional. >> i guess i would quarrel with your premise.

it is true the convention in the statute used similar terms of terminology. there is one important difference between the convention and the statute, and differentiates its case. does notntion itself directly regulate individual conduct at all. tells the convention state parties, go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state artie's. -- parties. legislation does as justice ginsburg does, does mirror the convention, as the convention contemplated. >> to be quite precise, what the convention says, article seven, it says that33a, each nationstate agrees in accordance with its constitutional prophecies to pass penal laws that make unlawful for individuals conduct

that would violate the convention if undertaken by nationstate. the translation between what violates the convention if you are a nationstate and what would be comparable individual conduct is not obvious. when the government does that through penal legislation, there's no reason why that penal legislation should not have to -- >> why not? >> as we promised with our constitution. >> there can be no doubt that chemical weapon tree is at the forefront of our foreign-policy efforts right now. look at the serious situation alone. ironic thatdeeply we have expended so much energy courtizing syria if this were now to declare that our joining or creating legislation to implement the treaty was unconstitutional. putting aside the impact we could have on foreign relations.

if it's ok to regulate the , asession of marijuana purely local crime, why is it unconstitutional to regulate the use of something that can kill and/or maim another human being, a chemical? i don't understand where the disconnect is in terms of our federal or state system >> it really gets down to the difference between lopez on one hand and [indiscernible] on the other. thatere is no dispute these chemicals were transported along interstate lines. that's not even disputed in this case. >> i don't think it was disputed

in lopez. the problem in lopez was the federal statute was not structured in a way that had a jurisdictional nexus that made the statute only applicable as a regulation. the government did not even assert the commerce clause. it asserts that now, but as we took the case, the issue was whether the treaty supported the laws. >> that's right. we do think the government, like the private party, can waive a constitutional argument. we think the commerce clause argument has the same basic defect as the treaty -- mr. clement --, could this treaty have itself regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have been self executing? >> that's an interesting

question, and i don't think the court needs to answer it. i would take the position that if there really were a self- executing treaty that tried to impose criminal prohibitions -- if there were one, i would say here that it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution? >> there's clearly a treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations. if you go back to the founding history, it's very clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations. james madison and others decided not to impose them. where would you find that limitation in the constitution? limitationfind that in the structural provisions of the constitution and enumerated powers of congress. is an enumerated power. the enumerated power is the treaty power. we have to find a constraint on the treaty power. where does it come from? >> where i would come from is

the structural provisions of the constitution. if we had a self-executing treaty that reported at a national level to commandeer local and state police officers, i think there might be a 10th amendment objection, enumerated power objection. >> don't you think the word treaty has some meaning? it is true that going back to the beginning of the country, there have been many treaties that have been implemented in ways that affect matters that otherwise would be within the province of this dates. -- the states. one of the objectives of the constitution was to deal with the treaty power, to deal with you issue of debts owed to british creditors. there have been cases about the property rights of foreign subjects tom about the treatment of foreign subjects.

until fairly recently, certainly until generally after world war ii, all of those concerned matters that are a legitimate concern of a foreign state. that was the purpose of the treaty. can't we see something in that, in the meaning of the treaty, what it was understood to mean when the treaty was adopted? >> i think that's right. not mean to fully accept the premise that there is no limit on the treaty power whatsoever. it's important to recognize that in the non-self-executing treaties, there's a real opportunity to leave for another day the question of whether the treaty itself is valid. sometimes a treaty is not self executing precisely because the senate recognizes -- >> if you had been the president's council, would you have advised him it was unconstitutional to sign this treaty as written? >> no. because it's a valid,

non-self-executing treaty by its terms. it doesn't do anything to directly regulate individual conduct. if i were the president's counsel, i would have said, i don't think this requires us to have any law that applies to garden-variety assaults with chemicals. we need that, the states are absolutely ready and able to shoulder that task. there's no state in this country that doesn't have a general assault statute that would be covered by this conduct. there's no state that doesn't have a murder -- the victim many times went to the state police and said, please help me. they turned her away a dozen times and finally they said, go to the post office. you are arguing that this in trenches on the state's domain.

it wasn't until the state referred her to the post office that she got any [indiscernible] >> the state of pennsylvania executed its discretion not to pursue this matter. i don't think the government says that that exercise put is in violation of our treaty obligations. our treaty obligation is to have a law that prohibits this conduct, which the states to do. the treaty obligation is not to make sure that every single malicious use of chemicals is prosecuted by the state or local officials. >> could i make sure i understand your testimony? to everyect prosecution under this treaty, a court has to ask whether the prosecution has a significant nexus to national or international concerns. is that your test? >> no.

i would say that the one thing i think i know from this course -- court is that the federal government does not have a police tower. can look at the statute, it be saved by creating a jurisdictional element. statute has his control character, the least when applied to -- general character, at least when applied , it cannot be constitutionally applied. >> i thought the test i articulated was out of your briefs. if you're suggesting that's not the test, give me the test that we're supposed to ask with respect to this case or any other as to whether the prosecution is unconstitutional. >> it's whether the federal statute exercises the general police power. >> i thought you made very careful to talk about that this was as an applied challenge to this particular prosecution.

>> the only relief i'm seeking is to have my client's conviction vacated. the reasoning of the court may employ in vindicating my challenge may suggest the statute is unconstitutional in some or all its different applications. >> you are saying if the statute that we haveings generally thought of as part of the police power, that sufficient? if it criminalizes conduct, that statute exceeds congress's power. that was the case in lopez, in morrison. concern to a national is what i understood you to say in your brief. they may give you a hypothetical and you tell me whether your test meets it. let's say it's the same convention, except it

relates only to sarin gas. , andchemist out there implement the legislation mirrors the convention. gas.nufactures sarin he sends it through the ducks -- ducts of a house and kills everyone in it. does that have a nexus to national concerns? >> it does. sarin is something that congress could prohibit in all its uses. as i understand how the statute applies to sarin gas and other things on schedule one, those things are unlawful. what is unusual about the statute's application to something like potassium die chromate or vinegar or whatever you have is that most of its possession and usage is perfectly lawful.

what makes it a chemical weapon in the government's theory is when it is used purely interstate in a malicious way. >> in my hypothetical, and you it not run away from it all, is a completely domestic use. a chemist did not like his neighbor and used to sarin gas. you're saying the difference is what the treaty makers did was to find the category of chemicals more broadly. but i want to know is, you are imagining a world in which judges day today try to get inside the head of treaty makers to think about, in this case we understand there's a national interest in regulating sarin gas, but we don't think there's a significant national interest in regulating some other chemical or some other chemical pursuant down the line. it seems to be a completely indeterminate test and one that would have judges take the place

of treaty makers in deciding what is in the international and national interest. our approach to this case avoids judges being put in that position because we distinguish between the validity of the convention and the validity of the implementing legislation. as the implementing legislation, we simply ask the courts to do what they do in every other context, which is to check and see if that implementing legislation is consistent with our basic chartering document. position government's -- their theory is if the non- self-executing treaty is valid, the implementing legislation is ipso facto, somehow valid. and by the convention before this court -- think about the convention before this court. it puts an obligation on any arresting official to provide notification. a rationalt would be

way to implement that convention, to have a national police force. every arresting officer is a federal officer who is fully apprised of the convention and responsibilities. it would not be remotely consistent with our constitution. that same non-self-executing treaty could be validly implemented by chartering the state department to work with police officers to understand their obligations. >> do you think it would be difficult for a judge to ask, is there any possibility that there is any other country in the world that has the slightest interest in how the united states or any of its subdivisions deals with a particular situation involved in this case? >> that would be one way of approaching the question. >> that would be beyond the ability of federal judges when a case like this comes before them? >> i don't think it would be a bond -- beyond their ability, or

the ability of a federal judge to say, let's ask the question in the absence of the non-self- executing treaty, would congress have the power to pass the statute? if the answer is no, the burden shifts to find out why it is that the treaty add something to the powers of the federal government. just to make clear, this is a different context from what the court had. the treaty itself prohibited individual action. an individual violated the treaty if they took migratory bird out of season. enforcemente, the statute did nothing more than put a criminal penalty on violating conduct that was already prohibited to the individual. that one way to characterize your argument, or two unfairly confining to your argument to say what you're suggesting is something like a clear statement rule, that if the treaty intends nationstates

to have their own constitutional structures superseded, at a minimum it has to say so, and then we will come to the question whether or not they can do it. >> it would be a fair characterization of our argument. the one place this convention talks about imposing obligations on individuals is a promise by the nationstates to pass penal legislation that is in accordance with their constitutional system. it's very bizarre that article seven, section one says in 33 -- -- a united states promised to pass legislation that comports with our constitutional process to say the convention allows us to pass legislation that does not comport with our constitutional process. i don't understand how you distinguish sarin gas. why is sarin gas different from vinegar? >> because sarin gas is more

equivalent to something that the congress would try to deal with like the way they dealt with marijuana. it is a reflection of the idea that when you are talking about things, where the federal government is trying to , there is a greater federal power to do it. it may be that with sarin gas, the federal congress can say, it is inherently a chemical weapon, and were going to prohibit people from having that. that's very different from the situations where if you think about it, the only thing that makes these chemicals chemical weapons instead of chemicals is their internal intrastate use in a malicious way. that is different from hypothetical statute that says -- there are three schedules in the statute, 43 different chemicals particularly problematic. if the federal government were to regulate those and prevent

unauthorized possession of those, i don't see why they can't do that with or without the treaty. what was so anomalous here is the idea that these chemicals, everything, rat poison, vinegar -- these things are perfectly lawful and we don't think of them as chemical weapons unless and until they're used in a malicious way. then all of a sudden they become classified as chemical weapons. it's a very odd statute. it does operate in a way that is inconsistent with the bedrock principle that congress just doesn't have this kind of police power. >> one of the chemicals listed in the annex to the treaty -- not one certainly listed on the three schedules. there are 40 three chemicals. neither of these are on there. there's an important difference. this is perhaps an odd way to think about it. this is a statute that's trying to regulate now. with respect to something like recognized chemicals or staring gas, it makes sense to say,

those are chemical weapons. with respect to otherwise harmless chemicals, the only thing that under the government's theory turns him from chemical weapons -- turns them from chemical weapons -- to chemical weapons is there malicious use. if congress had come in and said, there are certain chemicals that by their very nature are inherently westernized, i think congress would have a lot more authority to proceed. that in all sorts of definitional sections of the criminal code. we call it a dangerous weapon, anything you used to inflict serious injury on someone. i don't think a car is a dangerous weapon. it is something i used to transport myself. it's only when i'm using it for that it turnspose itself into a dangerous weapon. i'm having a trouble with this noun verb distinction.

the intentional killing of another human being using chemicals the essence of what this treaty is trying to stop? i thought that's what it was trying to do. you want to add on warlike purposes. the treaty permits exceptions for any peaceful purpose. righterally, you might be that the criminal law takes objects otherwise innocent and say they can be used in a malicious way and criminalize it. most of that work is done by state and local criminal law. at the federal level, you need something else. you need a jurisdictional element, something that has a distinct federal concern here it -- >> treaty power. >> when there is this much of a disconnect between what the treaty power does and what the statute does, which is the

treaty does not directly regulate at all individual conduct, it is regulated nationstate conduct. i don't think nationstates poison romantic rivals, attempt to commit suicide, or get rodents out of their houses. when individuals do those things, it is hard to draw an analogy between what is forbidden to a nationstate and individual action. in thek that is done statute by drawing that analogy is done by the statute, not by the convention. thesea terrorist took chemicals and put it on every doorknob in boston, that wouldn't be regulated by this? the exact same chemicals. >> we would say under our narrowing construction that that is covered. also point out another record that that same conduct would obviously be covered directly.

no matter how you decide that case, whether you -- if you accept our narrowing construction, that conduct will be covered by two federal statutes. if you hold the statute unconstitutional, that conduct is still going to be covered. when you're trying to think about what the convention is after, it is not really after ms. bond's conduct. none of our treaty partners said, there has been a deployment of chemical weapons. i sure hope the u.s. steps up to its treaty obligations and prosecutes this horrible deployment of chemical weapons. nobody would say that. nobody speaking normal english would identify this as deployment of chemical weapons. the treaty was after enforcement as to individuals with respect to all the prohibitions. going forceaid, this as two individuals.

do it consistently hear constitutional processes, and then congress passes a law that is consistent with its constitutional processes, and it mirrors the treaty. i don't think this is consistent -- >> i'm still trying to figure out why. holmes dealt with this in missouri v holland. he said there is a treaty power, necessary and proper clause that functions to allow congress to give effect to that treaty power . this is a situation where there is a prohibition on the states in terms of entering into treaties or in terms of sharing that power in any way. he says, it's these invisible radiations that you think come from the structure of the constitution. he rejected this argument, the same argument you are making, they print number is and emanations of the constitution.

i think you have to read it in the context and the argument. he made a strange argument, one no modern litigant would make. they went out of their way to identify conflict between the federal treaty and state laws and said, we went under the supremacy clause. home scratched his head and said no. the treaty under article six is supreme to state law, not the other way around. thatid one sentence bedeviled the lower courts. if the treaty is valid, the legislation is valid. that makes sense in the context the treaty had before it. he had a treaty that prohibited individual conduct, and a statute that he forced that individualized rubbish and with criminal penalties. in that case, i suppose it was right. that's not the case here, if i could reserve my time. >> thank you, counsel.

mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the framers give the federal government exclusive control over the treaty function so it could keep the nation together as one. petitioner's ad hoc to local limit on the treaty power can't be squared with the judgment the framers made. this court's president, or historical president -- prec edent. >> let's suppose there's a multilateral treaty. the international convention to ensure that national legislatures have full authority to carry out their obligations, that the national legislature has the police power. congress passes a statute saying we have the authority to prosecute purely local crimes pursuant to this international convention that the president

has signed. any problem with that? first, i would make the point, mr. chief justice, that it seems unimaginable that a convention of that kind would be ratified by two thirds of the senate, which it would have to be. >> is also unimaginable that you would bring this prosecution. [laughter] it is a transfer of authority from the states to the national legislature. i don't know why you would look to the national legislature to say, we would never do that. the framers thought that the two thirds ratification requirement was an important structural guarantee to protect the interests of the states at a time when the state -- senate was elected by state legislatures. there's no doubt the framers thought that would be an important protection. this court has said that there , never held that

a provision implementing exceeds a government's constitutional authority. >> if that unimaginable thing should happen, it would be ok. >> no. the court has said there is an it is ainto whether proper subject of a treaty, and the inquiry could take into imposing ather it is fundamental change in character of the government, but that's not a question the court needs to answer here. this treaty the petitioner concedes is a valid exercise of the treaty power, and the legislation implementing this treaty is coextensive with the obligations of the treaty. >> i don't know if that would not be a valid exercise of the treaty part.

look, the federal government does not have the authority to tell the sheriff in texas what to do. that caused a great deal of strain in our international relations. nations couldited well say, we don't want treaty parties to have to deal with other it is somebody in this state who has the authority. every signatory must have the authority. notoes not strike me as reasonably related to international obligations. >> this is a valid exercise of the treaty power, and there's no daylight between implementing legislation and the obligations -- >> i know. >> that may be a question the court would have to answer in a different case. this case does not present -- >> the basis of my hypothetical was trying to find out if there's any situation in which by theieve intrusion federal government on the police power could be a constraint against an international treaty. >> there may be an out of bound.

this case is nowhere close to it. a to local exception to the treaty power. >> you're saying there may be an outer bound, but this case is not one of them. >> you are subjecting yourself to the same criticisms leveled against the other side, that you are proposing a case-by-case evaluation with respect to each treaty. >> no, your honor. the question here is whether this legislation implements a valid treaty. the treaty is valid. to explore that. your proposition there is no daylight between the treaty itself and implementing legislation. to me there's a lot of daylight between the two. i picked this example not because it's controversial, but because it relates to an area where the federal government has