Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  July 12, 2016 5:00pm-7:01pm EDT

5:00 pm
>> the motion is adopted. the next proposed amendment is by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. gardner. page 8, line 26. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. jonathan gardner from new mexico this. amendment strikes the restroom. this was the language used in the values plank adopted yesterday. >> motion has been made and seconded. all those in favor of the motion please say aye. any opposed? >> point of order, madam. we haven't had discussion offering. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> i had a point of order over here. >> oh, i'm sorry, i did not see you. >> sorry. point of order.
5:01 pm
we just ask or request for discussion. i just wanted to make a statement. >> i didn't see anyone who wanted to discuss so if you wanted to discuss it. >> so i just wanted to say that i think we have a bathroom or restroom obsession in this platfo platform. >> anyone else? >> the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i would call the question. >> the gentleman calls the question. is there a question? there's a motion and a second to call the question. all those in favor of calling the question and voting on this motion now please say aye. any opposed? the motion then -- the vote now is on the motion by the gentleman from new mexico relative to page 8, line 26. all those in favor say aye? those opposed say no. >> no! >> the ayes have it. >> madam chair, virginia.
5:02 pm
i would like to just point out there are certain delegates who are turning on their microphones when there is a voice vote. i find it hard to believe that that's an accident every time and i would ask my fellow delegates not to turn on their microphones when we're doing a voice vote because it skews -- it makes it hard for the chair to hear what the actual vote is. >> duly -- >> point well taken. i accept. >> duly noted. the next motion is a motion from the gentleman from south dakota. the gentleman from south dakota has an amendment page 9 between lines 2 and 3, the gentleman from south dakota is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. hal wicks, south dakota and though i could talk about this for an awful long time i can feel a railroad train coming and
5:03 pm
don't want to slow it down at this point so i would simply say that when i started working on a balanced budget amendment in 1977 it was because our debt was $777 billion, and -- and that was with a "b." i didn't think my two girls, and i only had two girls could, pay off that kind of debt. i have been concerned about the debt for so long that it shows my age, at least a little bit, but today as we approach $20 billion and as we forecast possibly 30 billion i think it's time we really do something. i realize this is in another section, but it describes exactly how it would be done. this amendment, and i'm not going to read, it basically says that it can be either done by congress or article 5 and it points out the fact that there are 28 states that have approved an article 5 right now, and a
5:04 pm
lot of work has been done to make sure they are all coordinated and they are all asking for the exact same thing. there's only one thing they can work on if they call a group together or the states, and -- and seven states have passed delegate limitation acts so that those people that go to a -- go to a convention to work on this would not be able to do anything except work on that subject and could be charged with felonies if they didn't and called home. so i think the protections are there to make sure that this can work and the that we can have a balanced budget amendment hopefully before the end of next year because we don't have much time left and it's absolutely anybody insane for anybody to think we're putting the kind of debt we are on future generations. we've got to start cutting it down or pay it off or do something so we don't encumber future generations and destroy this nation. our military and a lot of
5:05 pm
military leaders are saying the biggest problem this country has is not the size of the military or anything else, but it's the debt. some of them recognize that as the problem. so i encourage you to accept this and the we'll have to clean it up afterwards with removing the other one. >> the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. >> thank you. monette merrill, washington state. i just would like to ask a question and then make a statement. is the gentleman from south dakota, is this for a convention of states? >> the gentle asked the gentleman a question. >> madam chair, if i may, this is for an article 5 convention. it is not a convention of states. there's a difference. it is defined and different. >> the gentlewoman from michigan
5:06 pm
is recognized. >> justice scalia said himself that an art can a 5 convention is a quote, unquote, horrible idea. those are his words. the convention cannot be controlled, and it could repeal the second amendment and insert a right to abortion in our constitution, so i reject this, and i ask all of my delegates to think carefully before they vote to support this. >> the gentleman from minnesota's recognized. >> as much as i believe spending in this country is out of control and is one of our largest security risks as a nation, i'm terrified of the idea of anyone who is currently occupying an office, who is currently ignoring the constitution getting a chance to tread our constitution officially. they ignore it already. the courts are not enforcing a lot of constitution already. let's not let them anywhere near this document while it's still intact. >> the gentle woman from missouri? >> thank you, madam chairman. i concur.
5:07 pm
and i question the numbers that we're giving as far as the number of states that have adopted this. i've been watching it fairly closely, but i'm against this because we can see that many of us who have the same goal, we're so divided in this room as far as how to get there that even with good intentions our side isn't really ready for an article 5 convention so i -- i would oppose this amendment. >> the gentlewoman from louisiana. >> thank you, madam chairman. i'm horrified at the concept of nancy pelosi and harry reid rewright the constitution for me. a constitutional convention, an article 5 are owl based on art 5, section 2. united states constitution, and it clearly says that if you pass this throughout the states congress shall make the call, and it says the call is for the passage of amendments. there's an "s" behind amendment
5:08 pm
there. it is a very, very risky thing, and i strongly oppose this particular amendment. thank you. >> the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. >> i disagree with the concept that this is -- obviously the national debt is horrifying. that is not the biggest question facing us as a party at the moment. the biggest question facing us at this moment and why i traveled up here we need to elect a new president. united states and that's what is before us and i hope that we can go on with that. >> the gentlewoman from nevada. >> i, too, stand and oppose this. if anyone in this woman or anyone out in tv land has not attended a convention they need to try to attend a convention and get some kind of consensus
5:09 pm
there. conventions have their own roberts rules and it's dangerous. the body they can do anything they want. this horrifies me. i am opposed. >> the gentleman from texas. >> convention 5 or the call 5 thing, this is one. things that has divided the republican party recently. there's people clearly on both sides. this is not an 80-20 issue like so many of our other things are and if there's a way to do the rhetoric, get rid of the rhetoric and say we really want a balanced bjt amendment and not stipulate the process and the argument goes away because this is not a clearly decided republican issue and this needs to be a statement of our principles to what clearly majority of republicans believe. >> the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. >> call the question. >> the gentlewoman makes a motion to call the question. is there a second? >> second. >> the vote will be on the motion to call the question and
5:10 pm
have an immediate vote on the amendment. all those in favor of calling the question say aye. those opposed say no. the motion is adopted. those -- we're now voting on the amendment by the gentleman from south dakota. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> no. >> the amendment is not passed. i'm not sure what that one is. >> that was the second half. >> there's a motion from the gentlewoman from georgia, page 6, line 20. >> yes, madam chair this. came from working with fellow members of our subcommittee and staff. they ask that we tweak this by striking the age of emancipation
5:11 pm
and inserting adulthood. i ask for support on this motion. >> there's a motion and a sec. >> i'm seeing no request for further debate. all of those in favor of the motion of the amendment by the gentle woman from georgia please say aye. >> those opposed. >> okay. >> the motion -- the amendment is adopted. the next amendment that i have, it may be out of order in yours because it's a little mix-up up here. it's a motion by the gentleman from virginia for an amendment on page 7 line 4. does the gentleman from virginia still wish to submit that
5:12 pm
amendment? >> yes, ma'am. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. tommy valentine from virginia. this is just a -- a minor rhetorical change removing. it is -- well, we're trying to make it not so much a defensive statement because the democrat party always calls the republican party extreme but we're not going to answer to them. we're going to state the fact that it is the democrat party that is extreatment as the youngest member of the platform committee i can attest that my generation is the most pro-life generation and quite some time. and i think it's high time that the republican party calls out the democratic party for their extremism on abortion and that we stop running away from our pro-life position and we embrace it because young people are with us. i hear all the time every day republican party needs to attract young people. let's change our position on this. let's change our position on
5:13 pm
that. how about we look at the positions we already have. young people support us and young people are pro-life and i encourage everybody to read the full paragraph. thank you. >> there's a motion and a sec d second. >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> madam chairman, you would think parsing the language on abortion is the most important thing but it is not. when i left here it's ta pocket constitution, wonderful document. why can't we come up with a simple document and quit parsing words. waste of time. >> there is a motion and a second on the floor. is there any further debate. the gentlewoman from michigan. >> i just want to say that i
5:14 pm
worked with tommy valentine on the constitutional committee and what an extraordinary young man. i feel like we should all give him a hand. anything that tommy -- anything that he would have to say that would draw young people into our party that would make our party more attractive, he's 22 years old. i asked him if he was single because dwrf a 19-year-old daughter. but, unfortunately, he has a girlfriend. anyway, i wanted to applaud tommy valentine. >> the gentle woman from west virginia. >> yes. i would just like to comment. i'm in support of this, but we cannot overemphasize the sanctity of life enough. when a sperm fertilizes an egg, there is a burst of light that goes off. life starts at the beginning of conception. if we do not have respect for life, we have respect for nothing else.
5:15 pm
>> the gentlewoman from the virgin islands is recognized. >> i call the question. >> the gentlewoman calls the question. there is a second. the vote that is about to occur will be on passing the motion to call for the question. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? >> no. >> now the vote is on the motion by the gentleman from virginia, page 7, line 4. all those in favor please say aye. any opposed? okay. the motion is adopted. the last amendment that i have in front of me is a motion by the gentleman from maine and it is page 1, line 27. we can.
5:16 pm
>> thank you, madam chair. this is a very simple amendment. it strikes the word in the line consult with the words receive authorization from in the context of president obama failing to consult congress regarding military action overseas, the constitutional requirement is not that he just consult congress and have a meeting with them and inform them about what he's going to do but he has to receive positive authorization from congress. >> you've heard the motion from the gentleman from maine. is there a second? there's a second. any further debate on this motion? the gentleman from minnesota. >> i think we should just be clear. my understanding is congress does not authorize. i mean, they declare war and then the president acts. everything else it's presidential discretion on military force overseas.
5:17 pm
congress holds the purse strings only, so i think we have to be very careful about the language we're using on these types of things i think -- the intent of this is more than just this little sentence. i think this is following up from previous motions that failed. i think let's just be really careful about, again, this is a two, three-word change, but, again, we're getting really into the weeds and putting a lot of details into the platform that are not at our discretion. >> the motion on the floor is from the gentleman from maine. it's a motion and a second. all those in favor place see aye. those opposed say nay. the motion is not adopted. now i turn the chairmanship and the gavel back over. >> thank you very much. we have a couple of motions that have been laid aside. the first one from the gentleman of louisiana, mr. perkins.
5:18 pm
>> the gentleman withdraws that amendment. the next is the amendment offered by the delegate from arkansas, madam attorney general. >> thank you, chairman, and this motion was -- we set it aside because there had been some confusion so after speaking with all the members of the subcommittee and staff we are in agreement that this was the intent coming out of this subcommittee was the motion before you all and that was the motion regarding page 6, line 32 through 36. >> it's on the screen now. >> so we're very pleased that after having those conversations during the break we were all on the same page. we just needed to collect ourselves. >> is there a second for in. >> discussion. all those please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it and this is adopted. we still have the one set-aside
5:19 pm
from the gentlewoman from louisiana. >> yes. i think someone with the staff has it, will have it up in a minute and i'm going to ask mr. perkins to present it because he's rewritten it much better than i could. >> we'll temporarily wait on that. the gentlewoman from california. >> could i actually see what says that was adopted that is included in there because i couldn't see it. >> put it up, please, the last amendment just approved from arkansas. >> we commend republican leaders for -- sorry. is it the yellow part that has been adopted? or the red part? >> yes. that is the -- the we support state and federal. >> okay. so the part before that says about clinic regulation and we support funding, that's
5:20 pm
included? >> that's still in. >> oh, okay. thank you. >> anyone else wanting to be recognized on other issues as we're waiting for the final w k work. the gentleman from missouri. >> yes. we all talked about amending issues and i hope we'll all be unified and let mr. trump run for president. >> thank you very much. the delegate from west virginia. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have a motion that haven't voted on the prevailing side of a particular amendment that we did not long ago, the one designated, attorney general rutledge's amendment. i would ask we reconsider our amendment and be asked to speak on that motion. . it's moved and seconded. yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is the amendment rejected. i think it was fairly close on
5:21 pm
the judicial imimpeachment issue. i'm asking -- so the motion is to reconsider that. i believe mr. bopp has some changes to that amendment that he thinks, you know, will help provide more and more support for that amendment and hopefully make some changes in that that we can generally agree on. my motion is to reconsider the action by which we rejected the amendment so a yay vote would be to reconsider, allow mr. bopp to make changes and hopefully come on the amendment and come out with a better outcome. >> the delegate from indiana. >> thank you very much. i support the motion to reconsider. if you look at attorney general rutledge's amendment, there was actually two parts. the first part was the change to
5:22 pm
leet weakest branch and the second part was to delete impeachment of judges. i did not agree with the first part. i thought we should leave in the words weakest branch, but i do -- would like to see the second part be deleted so if this motion is adopted we would like to place it on the floor -- i would like to place that on the floor as a substitute amendment for attorney general rutledge's motion if the motion to reconsider is adopted. >> okay. speaking in favor of the motion to reconsider, the delegate from utah. >> sorry. >> i support that as well. we don't need the second statement in there. this is one more thing where we're just adding something that doesn't need to be explained, and anyone who thinks that senator lee, senator sessions or ted cruz is not going to use
5:23 pm
their full power, we're entering an alternate universe. >> the delegate from vermont. >> yes. i support the substitute >>the discussion. delegate from virginia. >> okay. i remember this very clearly because i was paying very clear attention because since the time i made this motion i have been approached by staff. i have been approached by numerous people trying to take this out. that says to me that this is a very crucial issue, and i remember the vote and it was not close. there was a resounding no to do the amendment, and the reason is because we have a judiciary run amok. everyone thinks the judicial branch is the strongest branch. you always hear the most important thing is the appointment of supreme court justices because we fear the supreme court, and the reason we do is because congress does not do their act to impeach when
5:24 pm
they need to and -- and the senate is the one that tries the impeachment. this is just a statement to override, and i use the word ignorance, not as a pejorative as a truthful issue that too many people are not aware of the fact that the federalist papers clearly stated that it was a proper check of congress to impeach judges who utilize unconstitutionally utilize article 1 power. now i don't know where this motion is coming to keep going back over and over and over and who this threatens, but this is something that is very important for our platform to include. we resoundedly voted that we did not want the amendment to go in and change this and so i take issue the to the fact that we think this is unnecessary language. i talked about alexander hamilton's language. i talked about the fact that this is a proper check and this
5:25 pm
needs to stay in. >> the delegate from gentleman. >> call the question. >> yes, sir. >> point of order. >> ben berger, iowa. do we have to vote on whether we reconsider this? >> the question is not on the amendment. the question is whether we open this up for discussion and reconsideration and then there can be a full discussion. the discussion here is the motion to reconsider. >> okay. >> then if it opens up, the full discussion occurs, so the question has been called on the motion to reconsider. that takes two-thirds to shut off the debate on reconsideration vote. this is only on reconsideration. then that puts that on the floor. so this is a motion to reconsider. this is calling the question. all those in favor of calling the question on reconsidering requires two-thirds to shut off discussion on reconsideration. a two-thirds vote. we're now on the question of
5:26 pm
reconsideration. those -- the question is, and this is a majority of those to reconsideration, the vote -- the amendment by the delegate from west virginia to reconsider please say aye. opposed. the vote to reconsider fails. the delegate from minnesota. >> i think this is the last point in the day, and i would like to make some comments. first of all, thank you all for getting us through this. this has been an incredible two days, and those of you who are new thank you for coming and that includes myself but there reese something more important that what we've got that we don't market enough. there are very few places in the world that can do what we have just done these last two days, and i work with a lot of new americans. this concept of roberts results
5:27 pm
and debate and procedure is foreign and when they get the hang of it they will tell you, you can't do that in my country because so many places are top down, and we do get buried in the weeds and we do get our emotional ideas, but we have got to remember is we go through this election cycle, that what we have is so rare and we need to tell people that because we take it for granted. so from my unsolicited two cents thanks to everybody and make sure that we internalize what a unique system and environment and country that we have. >> thank you. you know, there are a lot of people we want to thank and -- and we want to do some that have while we're waiting for the -- for the final word, from the final amendment which is coming up from the delegate from
5:28 pm
louisiana, but i'll call on a couple of people that want to be recognized, first the delegate from west virginia and then the delegate from new mexico. >> i'm sorry. new mexico. >> i make a motion to reconsider the amendment that got passed right before we went to the break that was submitted by delegate finch from mississippi that state the failure to require a father to be equally responsible for a child placed on -- on unequitable burden, upon the mother and creating a financial and social hardship on bother mother and child because there was no debate about it at all. we just -- there were many of us that had wanted to seek about it, and it just went very quickly so we could all go to break. >> there's a motion to reconsider. is there a second.
5:29 pm
>> second. discussion on the motion to reconsider. additional comments on whether we should reconsider that motion. hearing none. all those in favor of reconsideration at this time please signify by saying aye. those opposed nay. in the opinion of the chair the decision is to not reconsider. thank you. delegate from connecticut. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to expression our very sincere gratitude for the time you gave us, your patience with us. you've been very, very generous, and -- [ applause ] -- i do think we have to thank and congratulate an extraordinary staff. they made our lives so much easier. >> and with your per mix i'm going to actually want to go
5:30 pm
tlult names of a lot of those staff members who are here so we can truly thank them, because this has been i think a special memory for all of us. this is very, very important work that all of us do. the number of people that we want to thank, and i want to just start thanking with governor fallon and congresswoman fox. i know you want an opportunity to make a statement to talk about what this means for you and then with your permission, we want to go through and name all of the people that have helped make this possible. govern governor. >> this is the first time i've had the opportunity to be on the platform committee, and when i came here earlier with no suitcases and was late i told you about reading the platform when i was a young girl and deciding i was a republican because my parents are both democrats and they told me to register as a democrat so i registered as a republican, but -- by the way, for those of
5:31 pm
you i'll remind you that the platform i looked at was one page with about ten items so it was pretty simplified, but i say that because the work that you've done today to give of your time, your effort, to pay personal expense, to read the material, and i can't tell you how impressed i am that you are so informed on these issues and you're so passionate and you're educated and you are bold enough to speak up and speak your mind, to try to make a difference for the united states of america, and it truly is a remarkable process that we can all come together with this group of people and decide about our conservative principles and ideals and put it forth for the american public to see and for all our candidates running for office to have a guiding foundation of these conservative principles to consider, and so i want to say thank you to all of you for the tremendous work that you've done to read the material, to propose all the
5:32 pm
amendments, to study, to debate, to be so passionate to care and love america and i certainly thank john, thank you, senator, so much for all your busy work. he's a very busy man. he's missing votes and this is important vote. congresswoman virginia fox, great friend that i had the opportunity to serve of with. she also is very, very busy. they, too, are in session and thank you so much for your time and then, of course, to the staff. you have a remarkable staff and probably have watched them scurrying back and forth with different pieces of paper to us and keeping us on track. you've got a tremendous staff and to all those who work so hard, all the volunteers we appreciate your time this. truly is, you know, what a democracy is about. it's the voice. people. grass roots of the people and today we've come together to do excellent work and bring forth great ideas, and i'll be proud to go to the convention next week with this platform. thank you for the opportunity.
5:33 pm
>> representative fox. >> well, thank you very much. as i've said yesterday, when you're third, there isn't a whole lot left to say but i do have some comments to add to what have been -- those that have been used today. i've never been on a platform committee either, and when the speaker asked me to come to represent him i really questioned him and said are you absolutely sure you want me to go, and he said, yes, and we are missing a lot of votes. i've been in congress for 12 years, almost 12 years, and i've only missed 18 votes and i'm going to miss 18 votes yesterday and today which is tough on me because i'm pretty good about not missing votes, but it has been worth the experience. you know, winston churchill said
5:34 pm
democracy and the american way is the most inefficient form of government except for all the rest of them or the worst form of government except for all the rest, and so we are engaged in a great experiment here, and it's wonderful to be an american. [ applause ] the gentlewoman from minnesota talked about that. you know, i grew up in a house with no electricity and no running water. my parents had a sixth grade education and a ninth grade education so there's no reason in the world that i should be in the house of representatives except for the great opportunities that have been afforded to me in this country
5:35 pm
so i'm very grateful to the country, and i want to keep what's great about the country for people in the future so that's why i do what i do every day. this week -- last week i spoke to a group of students called the junior statesmen, and usually when i talk to a group of students i start out talking about the constitution, and i tell them that the most important words outside the bible in my opinion are the words we, the people. i didn't do that the other day because they wanted me to talk about the congress and what we do a little bit and so i did that, and about education. they wanted to talk about education, but when i got through speaking, they gave me a cup, and on the cup it said be
5:36 pm
the people, and i stopped and went back and said, you know, i talked a little bit about the constitution and those words we, the people, and i had my copy -- the pocket copy of the constitution that i care with me all the time and i said, you know, those words are big and bold for a reason, and i've contemplated that experience and so with bill's help i have some comments i want to read to you so that i can tie it all together because in a row it's a charge to you and to other people. we all remember ronald reagan's historic challenge. if not us who? if not now, when? those words inspired a generation of young americans who understood what reagan meant. if we are to enjoy the blessings of liberty, we are responsible for safeguarding our freedoms
5:37 pm
and advancing them for others. as we come together in this great city of cleveland we find banners everywhere with the words we, the people. the opening phrase of our constitution. that phrase i think should be our response to the reagan challenge. if not us and we respond we the people will be the people. we will be the people who restore constitutional government in this republic. we will be the people who get america growing and working again. we will be the people who bring americans together to restore our nation's sense of moral purpose, and if anyone is wondering when the answer is now. starting with this platform, this blueprint for an american
5:38 pm
recovery and more than a recovery, a resurgence to the greatness we know is our country's calling. starting with this platform this convention, this campaign and god willing with victory in november so let's be the people. thank you very much for this honor. [ applause ] >> inspirational. you know, one of the things we promised it would be an open
5:39 pm
process. great civility. the people have been -- you have all been absolutely magnificent. there are some people behind the scenes that you haven't met, but i just first wanted to start by thanking all of the people who agreed to co-chair and ask each of the subcommittee cochairs to stand. we'll start with andy budget from kell, delbert hossam mohammad amin, sgro girouders, vic sprous, kelly armstrong, russ walker, tom screener, jim carnes, ron rabun, steven yates, pat longo, carolyn mcclarty, raina casey, leslie rutledge and kathy kieran. can you please stand and let us thank you for all the hard work that you've done. i also want to thank dave shopa, the parliamentarian who worked in the senate for 29 years. i met him the first day i entered this senate. we go bay back. he has incredible expertise, and i would like to thank you for the days that you've been spending with us right now. thank you.
5:40 pm
[ applause ] also want to thank our clerk, mary elizabeth taylor who works in the senate. counsels justin reimer, alison curry, sloan skinner, grant gardner, tray trainor. if you could all stand and let us thank you. [ applause ] we have a professional staff who are staffing the committee. many of them work in the house and in the senate and i'm going to ask all of them to please say, justin minot, cyrus arts, eric uland, jeff, michael stransky, jonathan burks, robert wilkie, katie, danielle katrona, robert porter and stephen higgins. thank you for all your hard work. [ applause ] i also have a number of my staff here. my chief of staff dan kunzman, my policy director for the
5:41 pm
republican policy committee, arthur moody and ronwin lance chester who works in our press shop and is communications director so could you please stand. [ applause ] and then, ladies and gentlemen, none of this would have happened if not for ben key. i'll tell you, this guy knows how to make the trains run. [ applause ] >> you know, the -- at one point, and this is -- this is where the chairman puts together a preamble of -- for the
5:42 pm
document and it's something i worked on the last couple of weeks and want to share it with you, because like virginia, i was raised like so many, my dad was in world war ii, battle of the bulge, had to quit school in the ninth grade because of the depression and never got an education. wanted his kids to study hard and work hard and from the time i was a little kid, he'd have me out doing comment contracting work and pushing we will barros of heavy wet cement so i would know what hard work is about. he would say john, you should thank god every day you live in america and you don't know how blessed you and we're so blessed all of us to live in this country so it's a privilege to be here with each and every one of you with this so what i've written is the preamble and here it is. with this platform we, the republican party, reaffirm the principles that unite us in a common purpose. we believe in american exceptionalism. we believe the united states of america is unlike any other nation on earth.
5:43 pm
we believe america is exceptional because of our historic role, first as refuge, then as defender and now as exemplar of liberty for the world to see. we affirm as did the declaration of independence that all are created equal, ebb endowed by their create ore with inalienable rights with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. we believe in the constitution as our founding document. we believe the constitution was written not as a flexible document but as an enduring covenant. we believe our constitutional system, limited government, separation of powers, federalism and the rights of the people must be preserved uncompromised for future generations. we believe political freedom and economic freedom are indivisible. when political freedom and economic freedom are separated both are in peril. when united they are invincible.
5:44 pm
we believe that people are the ultimate resource and that the people, not the government, are the best stewards of our country's god-given natural resources. as americans and as republicans we wish for peace so we insist on strength. we will make america safe. we seek friendship with all peoples and all nations, but rerecognize and are prepared to deal with evil in the world. based on these principles, this platform is an invitation and a road map. it invites every mesh to join us and shows the path to a stronger, safer and a more prosperous america. this platform is optimistic because the american people are optimistic. this platform lays out in clear language the path to making america great and united again.
5:45 pm
for the past eight years america has been led in the wrong direction. our economy has become unnecessarily weak with stagnant wages. people live paycheck to paycheck are struggling, sacrificing and suffering. americans have earned and deserve a strong and healthy economy. our standing in world affairs has declined significantly. our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no longer trust us. people want and expect a america that is the most powerful and respected country on the face of the earth. the men and women of our military remain the world's best. they have been shortchanged in numbers, equipment and benefits by a commander in chief who treats the armed services and our veterans as a necessary inconvenience. the president and the democratic party have dismantled america's system of health care.
5:46 pm
they have replaced it with a costly and complicated scheme that limits choices and takes away freedom. the president and the democratic party have abandoned their promise of being accountable to the american penal. they have nearly doubled the size of the national debt. they have refuse to control our borders but try to control our schools, farms, businesses and even our religious institutions. they have directly attacked the production of american energy and the industry-related jobs that have sustained families hand communities. the president has been regulating to death a free market economy that he does not like and does not understand. he defies the laws of the united states by refusing to enforce those with which he does not agree and he appoints judges who legislate from the bench rather than apply the law. we as republicans and americans
5:47 pm
cannot allow this to continue. that is why the many sections of this platform affirm our trust in the people, our faith in their judgment and our determination to help them take back their country. this means removing the power of unelected unaccountable bureaucrats. this means relieving the burdens and expenses of pirning government regulations and this means returning to the people and the states the control that belongs to them. it is the control and the power to make their own decisions about what's best for themselves and their families and communities. this platform is many things, a handbook forry returning decision-making to the people, a guide to the constitutional rights of every american and a mannium for the kind of sustained growth that will bring opportunity to all those on the sidelines of our society.
5:48 pm
every time we sing "god bless america," we are asking for help. we ask for divine help that our country can fulfill its promise. we earn that help by recommitting ourselves to the ideas and the ideals that are the true greatness of america. thank you. [ applause ] we're going to accept that last amendment as the words are finally being worked through because it's something the people generally agreed on so i want to call on the chairman of
5:49 pm
that last section to close out that section if i could with an acceptance of that sixth plank of the platform. mr. chairman. mad ham chairman, sorry. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would ask this body to approve the adoption of the constitution plank with the amendments. >> second. moved and seconded. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed no. that is adopted. there are a couple more staff people, and, ben, i don't know if you were going to introduce them or not because these guys behind the scenes have done an incredible job, and not just here because some people just came in for this, but in terms of, you know, if you want to run through the list of people because they have been spending not just this week but months in preparation. >> thank you, senator. i just -- as you know, any time there's a team, it's a group of people and i'm a big believer in trying to find the best people and give them all the power you
5:50 pm
can and i was so fortunate that andrew brenberg was able to join us as our policy director. he's exceptional and wise in many ways and reminds me so man believe in this country and the future how great a future looks. mary salvy, our executive assistant. most of you have talked with her. incredible young woman at 23, ready to go to law school. our future is bright. bill gribbon, just a man of wisdom, a godly man who is a wordsmith in many ways and it's been an honor last time and this time to spend time with him. we have mike mears who has done a great deal of work with different coalitions and communications and we just -- it's a lot of the joy in our office. rachel our internal fresh out of pepperdine or going back to her sophomore year, thank you so much. senator, it's been an honor to work for you and these delegates. thank you very much. >> thank you, ben.
5:51 pm
thank you to your staff. [ applause ] i would welcome an amendment -- i'm sorry, a motion to adopt my preample at part of the platform. is there a second? any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. it is adopted. turn to the delegate from wyoming for any concluding amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is now my pleasure to move to adopt the work of the 2016 republican platform committee. >> is there a second? discussion? seeing none -- >> i believe we have a concluding quick item, as well, sir. dave, our parliament i believe has it. is that right? >> is there -- there is an anticipate that is out of order that is at the desk. if you would like to raise that, then we can have a vote on that.
5:52 pm
>> i defer to the gentleman from maine to comment on the out of order. the gentleman from i believe it's the gentleman from maine who has. >> delegate from maine. >> on the rule of order here. >> is it my understanding that the chair has said that it can brought up to be discussed. is that correct? >> i understand there's an amendment at the desk to delete entire platform and substitute for it something else. >> the 1860 platform that was brought up by the gentleman from utah. >> and i'm going to rule that that is out of order at this time. >> move to sus end. >> mr. chair, if that's the case i would make a motion to appeal the decision of the chair. >> the ruling has been appealed. all those who wish to sustain the chair please say aye. opposed nay. the chair is sustained now the gentle lady from wyoming.
5:53 pm
>> move to suspend. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to adopt the work of the 2016 republican party platform committee. >> discussion? delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. i will be brief. i think that there are some really great planks in this platform including things i myself have advocated for but myself personally as someone in my position of office taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states of america, i think there are some red lines in here that according to my own reading of the constitution, i'm not willing to cross. so i will be voting in the negative on this platform. >> seeing no other discussion, all those in favor of adopting the platform as amended please signify by saying aye. opposed nay? the platform is adopted.
5:54 pm
[ applause ] we would now call on the delegate from north dakota who lead us in a benediction. please rise. >> please join me in prayer. gracious and loving god, our blessings are many and our hearts are filled with gratitude for you have blessed our nation far more than we deserve. yet, father, we know all is not right in america nor in our world. there is discontent, division, and fear. we pray for unity and peace. may it be seen among our families, our neighbors and our nations. we pray for protection of our nation and the freedoms we so many times take for granted. we pray for the men and women who serve to protect those liberties and the families that support them. we thank you, too, for those things in our lives that are
5:55 pm
less than what we would want them to be. things that seem challenging, unfair or difficult. when our hearts feel stretched and empty and pools of tears form in our weary eyes, still we rejoice that you are as near to us as our next breath than in the midst of our turbulence, we are growing and learning. help us use these trials for your good. father, i thank you for each individual here. we pray our work is that of opportunity and hope. we know, lord, it's about doing right and not being right. we ask your continued wisdom and guidance as we continue our work in the days and weeks ahead. and finally, father, we thank you most of all for your unconditional and eternal love. in the name of your son, jesus christ, we pray. amen. >> you want to talk about
5:56 pm
monday? >> yeah. >> thank you. thank you for the wonderful benediction. we have a couple of housekeeping amendments that there was a question about whether we take the books with us or leave those behind and the specs when we reconvene when we get to be together against next month. >> i would ask to be recognized for a housekeeping matter, as well. >> rhode island. i think all of us were inspired by mr. matthewson's suggestion at the start of this process that we look at a simpler more workable document for marketing our brand. i appreciate what he did. we've done a lot of work. i don't mean to demean that in any way. i think it is worth taking a step back, all of us, and considering the goals that he laid out to mip mize to, shrink the platform in some bapz your co-chairs reflected on this. you yourself, mr. chairman have. so that being said, consistent
5:57 pm
with rule 34 a of the rules of the republican party, approximately one-third of us the delegates here to this plat for committee have signed on to a minority report that is a restatement of empty matthewson's languaging from that first amendment and so we just wanted to notify you pursuant to the rules that we'll be submitting that at the close of this process. >> okay. >> and a minority report, the last time a minority report was introduced was when gerald ford and ronald reagan were fighting against each other leading into the convention in 1976 and a minority report is something that would be brought monday at the meeting at that time, if it is still the decision of the delegates to do something like that. we can have the rules explained at that time. it's not something for this meeting. > i appreciate it. my understanding of the rule 34 a was that we had a limited amount of time prior to the gavel here to do that. i didn't want to miss that opportunity. and i recognize the history. i appreciate that. i do believe that this is a year
5:58 pm
for populist uprisings and grassroots excitement. i hope we'll all consider this in that light into if i might, chairman. that would be the limited amount of time on monday. to that point, the senator asked me to discuss what's next. are you free to take your book with you. i ask you to keep it close hold. it is a document that is yours and again, just guard it. as far as next monday, we will be gathering tentatively right now. the start will be to convene at the quicken center, the q at 1:00 as an entire convention comes together. be listening to your delegations. when you come to the convention, go to your seats down on the floor. after the convention is called to order, we will be released to the four standing committees. at that point our location within the center will be told and wimpb whips and people will help you get to the location. we will convene as a committee of the whole where we will go
5:59 pm
through the pro forma to pass this and pass it on. if there is above 2 votes you'll have one hour in which to get that down to the chair. so again, that's all. right now, we don't have specifics of when we will report within those four committees. that's at the discretion of the chair. sir, that's about as tight as i can give it within the parameters i've been given. thank you. >> any other discussion? hearing none it, until next monday, this platform committee is adjourned.
6:00 pm
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
6:06 pm
6:07 pm
6:08 pm
the republican party's platform committee has wrapped up its work on the 2016 republican platform. there are six sections of the platform dealing with the economy, foreign and defense policy, government reform, energy, and the environment, the constitution, and also health education and crime. platform committee met for two days starting yesterday at 8:00 a.m. and considered hundreds of anticipates to each section of the platform. from here, the draft of the republican platform must be approved on the floor of the republican national convention next week. the convention starts monday in cleveland. and you can see live coverage on our companion network c-span.
6:09 pm
right now here on c-span3, some of the platform committee proceedings from earlier today. >> so we're going to move to government reform. in a second, i'll call on the subcommittee chairman. russ walker from oeg and tom from wisconsin. we don't have all the amendments in our hands yet for government reform. so if you're looking for your own and it's not here yet, that will be coming. there are a couple of amendments that were turned in without anybody's name on. they'll be at the bottom of that second stack. after this, we'll go to constitution. we have over 40 amendments introduced for discussion this afternoon on constitution. so we still have a lot of work to be done. with that, let us turn to government reform. one of the things i might point out is in the haste to get these out to everyone, they neglected to put page numbers at the bottom of the page of the government reform packet. so there are nine pages. if you want to number your pages
6:10 pm
it may be easier to find a specific point we're amending. i want to thank the guy running the screen making sure all the amendments are up there. he's a counsel to the rnc. this guy has been making sure it goes smoothly. thank you for your efforts to make sure people know what we're voting on and can see exactly where we are. so the first amendment in government reform is by the government, the delegating from texas. david barton. i'm sorry. just so people have that in order so you're up first. before i go to to you, i want to go to the chairs to give as you overview of the committee. russ welker from oregon. >> thank you. i want to first thank your staff and, of course, our staff we had in committee. thank you very much for your hard work. they were very helpful. our committee members and the work they put into the committee we are pleased to say we got done on time. and a lot of it had to do with
6:11 pm
the willingness of all the committee members to work quickly. i want to thank them all. we did address immigration in our committee. we addressed medicaid, medicare, social security, internet freedom, the territories. we addressed a lot of different issues covering a lot of policy ground. so with that, i'm excited to get through this and submit this section of the platform. >> thank you very much. the delegate from wisconsin, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also would like to thank the entire committee for the work that we did. we covered a lot of ground from immigration to social security. the breadth and knowledge that the staff brought forgot with their expert tease was very useful many times during our deliberations. i'd like to give them a special shoutout. thank you for your patience. >> now to the first stake of amendments. we'll turn to the delegate from texas. >> david barton, texas. we have opened other sessions
6:12 pm
with historical statements. this was a good one to start. almost what we say before it. we wouldive sert james wilson declared that in america the people are masters of government. but that you in other countries the government is master of the people we pledge to make government work for the people rather than the other way around. >> this would precede line one, page 1 of government reform. that's the amendment on floor. discussion. >> it is moved and seconded. hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed nay. it is adopted. the next amendment from cindy graves from florida. page 1, line 4. delegate from florida. >> i think one of the big obstacles for us going forward is the borrowing of money. i know that my family and my county party are very upset about that how we borrow money from other entities and countries in order to give money to other entities and countries.
6:13 pm
it's a recipe for disaster and insanity. i and suggesting that we put -- we pledge right after return to the states online 4 that we write in that we pledge to elect fiscal conservatives who not borrow money from foreign entities to fund support for other foreign nations. >> is there a second? it's been moved and seconded. discussion? the delegate from massachusetts. >> amy from massachusetts. this is a little bit awkwardly written. the members of congress themselves could not borrow money from foreign entities. so i woulding your it's opposition for that is reason. >> delegate from minnesota. >> i don't think we should be putting something where we broadly pledge anything into the platform whatsoever. >> delegate from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
6:14 pm
america's a safe haven for money gravitates us because they know their money is safe with us. there's no way that this bill would allow segregation of what you can't and can use. if china gives money, where is it going to, to a foreign country. >> if you would stop a country like china from feeding our debt by buying our bonds, you would send the stock market and our economy into turmoil. >> delegate from california. >> number one, we don't want to restrict foreign countries from buying our bonds. we like is when they put money in our country. i wouldn't want to restrict the president's ability to make peace or run our nation's foreign policy. i think on both scores this is just not a well advised. >> delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. had i support the amendment. if as drafted. if it needs to be cleaned up, it can be cleaned up.
6:15 pm
i do think it is worth noting that so we borrow a lot of money from china and also guess who one of the recipients of our foreign aid is, china. so we will provide $28.3 million in foreign assistance and funding programs to china. we are essentially borrowing money from china at interest in order to give it back to them as a gift. >> delegate from maryland. >> i would move the question. >> question has been called. people ready to vote immediately, please signify by saying aye. opposed no. we're ready to vote immediately. all those in favor of the motion on the table from the delegate from florida, all those in favor of that motion, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the motion is defeated. next amendment is also from the delegate from florida. page 1, line 9. >> in regard to bringing people into the party, my hero is
6:16 pm
ronald reagan. in the spirit of president ronald reagan and his famous quote regarding the person who agrees with you 80% of the time is indeed your friend, we vow to embrace every american voter who vote with us and stand for our principles of constitutional government, a strong national defense, dignity of human life and the freedoms we enjoy. i felt as though from listening to the discussion over the last two days that it was important for any in particular group who felt as though they were being left out being embraced by this party that this type of language was forthcoming. i urge that we vote it in, but leave it up to you. thank you. >> is there a second? it's been moved and seconded. the language is on the screen for addition. discussion? seeing none, the gentleman from the new jerseying. > mr. chairman, i suggest we
6:17 pm
strike out republican and just put every citizen. >> strike out voter and just put down every american. i'm sorry. >> every american be. >> we embrace every american, period. strike out voter. >> every american who vote with us. you want to delete the word voter. >> i stand corrected. you can strike out vote with us. we are americans first. we're not partisan on that issue. >> so you want to delete the words voter who vote, just american. >> voters who will vote with us. we embrace every american, period. and stand for our principles of constitutional government. >> i want to make sure we have this clarified. read the sentence as it would read. >> we vow to embrace every american, period. >> okay. >> and strike out voter who will
6:18 pm
vote with us and we vow to embrace every american and stand for our principles of constitutional government. >> but we don't have a period then after american. >> could somebody find a period and put it there please. >> you want a period. you start the second sentence that says end stand? it's kind of a hanging it participle out there. if that's the will of the body, we can clean up the language. the delegate from maine. >> might i suggest as a friendly anticipate it may be just we vow to embrace every american who will stand for our principles? >> is that what the gentleman from new jersey wants to put in. >> no, during times of war and stress, we don't ask people what party they belong to. we don't ask them if they stand with us. we put a gun in their hand and show them where the enemy is.
6:19 pm
>> we're look for clarification of the language right now. the del from maine had a suggestion to clean up the language. if this is the will of the body, we can work on the language. we have a second degree amendment to change what's in front of us from the delegate from florida. discussion on the second degree amendment which we're trying to put on the screen? >> i'm comfortable without changing it, chair. >> you're comfortable. >> without changing it. i consider it a hostile amendment. >> you want to withdraw -- you're in disagreement with the gentleman from maine. >> i do. >> we want to make sure we have what you want this en. >> correct. >> on the screen accurately so the other delegates know what you're proposing. >> you say in -- can you read what you want it to say? >>. >> correct. >> that's when's the discussion
6:20 pm
on what is on the screen as a second degree amendment. hear nothing discussion, all those in favor of the second degree amendment by the gentleman from new jersey, please say eye. opposed nay. we're back on the original amendment by the del from florida. discussion on the delegate from florida's amendment. seeing none, all those in favor, i apologize. we do have a discussion from louisian louisiana. >> i question the need for this amendment. i think it's pretty well understood. i'm sandy mcdade from louisiana. it's pretty well understood you can vote for the candidate of your choice. i'm going to vote no on the amendment. >> delegate from minnesota. >> if you read this very literally, it says we will only embrace the voters who will vote for us. it's not a very inciting statement as written. >> delegate from nevada. >> jonathan gardner, new mexico. >> okay.
6:21 pm
sorry. >> he kindly agreed to switch seats with me so i can be closer to the microphone which i think puts me in a lawless seat. i'm concerned about the language of this amendment that it says we vow to embrace every voter. embrace could be capable of many different definitions. we've already had a lively debate in this committee marijuana. if we're going to embrace people who support full legalization and people who do the not support legalization, we're setting ourselves up for conflicts all over the place. for that reason, i stand against this particular amendment. >> delegate from texas. >> just a related comment but we are reaching in this election and for our dem graphs, 41% of voters in this election will have no personal knowledge of ronald reagan. he has been so badly taught, they have a very negative view of him. i love him. he's a hero. but in messaging to the people
6:22 pm
we're talking to, we're looking at nearly half the vote ares will have no knowledge of him personally and have a negative view. i throw that out there for our thinking. > committee co-chairman, delegate from wisconsin. >> i would consider to vote this one down and consider mr. barton's addition on the next paging. > delegate from california. >> an end posner from california. i call the question. >> all those in favor of voting immediately, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. we vote immediately. all those in favor of the motion ahead of us from the delegate from florida signify by saying aye opposed nay. the motion is defeated. mr. barton. >> next motion on page 1, line nine. the addition of a summation of a historical statement that probably says it stronger than we do. we're talking about cutting government. insert who work, pay taxes and wonder what happened to the country they love. we agree with thomas jefferson
6:23 pm
the multiplication of public offices increases expense beyond income growth and entailment of public debt are indications of the employment of a pruning knife. >> the motion has been moved and seconds. discussion? seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the motion is adopted. the next motion from the delegate from nebraska. >> this is brian bishop from nebraska. i am offering an amendment on page 1, line number 16. i am suggesting that after this sentence that we include an additional sentence when congressional republicans tried to reverse course the administration manufactured phony government shutdowns to demand excessive spend package i'm suggesting in adding in the administration's spending as focused on significantly increased government spending paid for through loans that our children and andrew children will have to pay. that is what's happened. this administration expanded
6:24 pm
benefits for those hose it prefers to spend money on, those who it hopes to get votes from and caused our debt to go to $19 trillion. there's one thing that unifies the country. the vast majority of americans are very concerned about our national debt. it compromises our ability in the future to help america to handle our foreign policy issues in the future. and i add this because the truth is, i believe this is a unifier where we are right on the issue nationally. particularly as far as the view of the american people. and i ask adoption of this amendment. >> discussion on the amendment from the delegate? is there a second? there's a second been heard. is there discussion on amendment? the delegate from phlebneb. all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. next the delegate from massachusetts. >> >> thank, mr. chairman. amy carnivale from massachusetts. this is a clean-up amendment. i served on the subcommittee.
6:25 pm
we had an amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas as it was debated, it was amended several times during debate to achieve consensus. what the issue we were trying to get at was both the cost of obamacare jeopardizing the rest of our health care system, medicare, medicaid, as well as the limitation the rationing of health care through medicare or medicaid providers as a result of obamacare. as a result, the sentence got a little clunky and then further reading, the page itself later in the evening we raeled that we are actually duplicative of a sentence online number 3 which talks about the overall cost of obamacare on the medicare system. so we would simply take out that section below since it's repetitive. it's said up above. the gentleman from arkansas is supportive of this amendment as
6:26 pm
is i believe the subcommittee chairman. i would urge its support. >> is there a second? there is. call for discussion. >> call for the question. >> the delegate from oregon, were you bathe to speak to this? ing. > no. the question has been called all those in favor of voting immediately, signify by saying aye. all those in favor of the amendment by the delegate from massachusetts, signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. the next amendment is from the delegate from virginia. >> thank you, tommy valentine from virginia. this amendment addresses two glaring deficiencies in the current platform. mental health only gets a passing reference consisting of five words and block grants in medicaid gets one sentence. this amendment would deal with both. it calls for block granting of medicaid to the states especially in the area of mental health. mental health doesn't discriminate. it affects people of all
6:27 pm
classes, all races. our mental health system is broken. the federal government has no interest in fixing it. the states should be allowed to do it. this amendment calls for the states to be able to be use block grants for mablgd to experiment and work with and try different systems and different ways of addressing mental health win their own states to come up with something that can be used as a model in other states. currently, there's no real good system in any state that you can point to where mental health is effectively addressed. and just and neck dote from virginia about some of the things we're dealing with, there's a state senator who ran for governor several years ago. his son had been struggling with bipolar disorder. the senate senator knew his son was going into an episode. he requested to have him placed into a hospital because he knew he was a danger to himself and others but because of the bureaucratic inefficiencies whoever was in charge of the
6:28 pm
state, the government employee who was in charge of finding a psychiatric bed only called seven of the 30 facilities in virginia who would be able to take him. will so there were beds available but he didn't get one. so the statute in the virginia at the time said a manor needs to be admitted to a psychiatric ward must be released after six hours if you want find a bed for them. well the senate senator's son was released. he came back to his house, stabbed his father in the head and went outside and shot himself. that really rallied people to action in virginia. there's a long way to go. but this is an example of some of the things we're dealing with in the states. i think the republican party needs to rally around you know, the tenth amendment and using the tenth amendment and using the states to address this glaring mental health crisis. thank you. >> delegate from washington. the microphone is on. are you seeking recognitioning? delegate from california.
6:29 pm
>>. >> thank you. thank you. noel irwin hinch. i support our party taking on mental health as a major issue. it is actually the issue that needs to be addressed more than guns when all of the violence that we see happening, it is related to mental health. mental illness. but it also means that this has to address the law s need to be changed because what you just described of the son, it's because the law is the pet teams, they can't take care of the young people and the family can't take care of them because the laws were changed, the aclu changed the laws. they say that they're protecting the person that is sick but actually, they're not. they're preventing families from helping them. i would add that this should also include some language that would relate to our laws being reviewed to be able to ensure that families have a say in the
6:30 pm
health of their loved ones. >> additional discussion on the amendment on the floor? seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment, from the delegate from virginia, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. call that once again. because i wasn't sure. all those in favor of the motion on the floor by the delegate from virginia, please signify by saying aye. all those opposed. the chair is no longer in doubt. the whys have it. the motion is approved. the next anticipate from the delegate from new mexico. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the proposed amendment on page 2, line 28 where it says or sell the body parts of aborted fetuses at the end would change fetuses to children. so the sentence would read sell the body parts of aborted children. we are the party of life for years in our platform and we have language we'll be considering later this afternoon that treats unborn children as people instead of things. and our platform should reflect that ought way around. we should talk like unborn
6:31 pm
children as if they are people. as dr. suess a person is a person no matter how small. >> motion moved and seconded. discussion? seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed nay in the motion is adopted. next to the delegate from utah. mr. mathis son. let me come back to you in a second and get back to the delegate from new mexico. on page 3, line 13. delegate from new mexico. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, jonathan gardner from new mexico. the proposed amendment on page 3, line 13 would change we should consistently support internet policies that allow people and private enterprise to thrive, too. we will consistently support internet policies that allow people and private enterprise to thrive. this is the platform we should be saying what we are going to do, not what we ought to do. with that i urge adoption of the amendment. >> discussion from the amendment? hearing none, all those in favor
6:32 pm
please signify by saying aye. foosed nay? let's go to your next amendment that has to do with page 3 from the delegate from new mexico, line 21 to 22 and we're getting that up on the screen so everyone can be caught up. i think at the same time, while we're catching up with that, staff is distributing to everyone at your seats the second tranche of amendments relating specifically to this plank of the platform. if you could just put those at the bottom of the pile, we will get to those after we work through this first tranche. with that, back to the delegate from new mexico. >> thank you. members of the committee, the proposed amendment strikes with words actually three words from the last sentence in that paragraph where it says the internet's free market needs to be free and open to all ideas and competition without the government or service providers picking winners and losers. my concern is over including service providers in that sentence. i looked at that sentence and
6:33 pm
two words came 0 my mind. net neutrality. net neutrality is an idea that promotes the regulation of private enterprise by requiring public service or by requiring internet service providers to offer service at the same speed to everyone. the only way you can do that effectively is through government regulation. net neutrality is a threat to the openness of the internet republican member of the federal communication opposes net neutrality. i believe it's inconsistent that we would call for no regulation early on in that paragraph and then later on effectively, at least it could be read we're endorsing net neutrality which calls for regulation by the government. with that, i urge striking or service providers and request adoption of the amendment. >> the delegate every arkansas. >> john from the great state of arkansas. i have 25 years of experience in the i.t. industry. this is a subject i'm familiar
6:34 pm
with. the internet should be preserved as a free and open marketplace for idea. we don't need the government nor do we need to service providers picking what traffic should go through and what should not go through. if i was a church and i had a church video, we don't need internet provider that is getting kickbacks from a important industry to prioritize important traffic over my church video traffic. it's as simple as that. we don't anybody picking winners and losers on the internet. the marketplace is the internet and that must be preserved. it is the marketplace that is driving an enormous amount of commerce. we don't need service providers picking winners and losers deciding snapchat is good or bad, deciding whether different services are good or bad. it's the consumers in a free market that can should decide what traffic is important to the consumer. not the service provider. i would urge all the members of this group to vote against this and to be leave it as it is
6:35 pm
stated in the text that was proofed by the government reform committee. thank you. >> delegate from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. kris kobaching from kansas. i served on government reform committee. keep the language as it was proposed by the committee and reject the amendment. service providers are in some circumstances creating a quasi public forum and we want a public forum to be himmed to only one side or only one set of groups. so again, i think in this context, keeping a free and open and fair discussion is important. >> delegate from new mexico i'm sorry, minnesota. >> based on these last two discussion points, should we consider adding or content providers? whereas facebook and other forms of social media are selectively editing the streams and algorithm to prevent some content from being seen by some people, if the intent is to have
6:36 pm
a free market ideas on the internet, we are saying what we support as republicans shouldn't we consider making an amendment to this amendment? >> your proposed amendment is to -- what's your where they strike service providers and you want to insert or content providers? >> if we're going on the notion that we don't want someone anyone to pick winners and losers on the content that's available online, we should also include content providers. >> does the original author consider that something that he would want to accept? we still have to vote on. is that something that. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee. i would consider that to be a hostile amendment to the provision if we're talking about regulating either the content providers or service providers. i actually have a greater concern about content providers because of the first amendment interests in their ability to control the con enon tear equipment through their private
6:37 pm
enterprise. >> if the delegate from minnesota is introducing that as an amendment. >> no, i'm withdrawing. > great. delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have to agree with the delegate from new mexico. so we need to to understand what free markets are. the corner stoechb free markets are private property rights. so if we're going to have the government come in and start telling service providers or as was mentioned you know, social networking companies you know, what they must do, what they must do with their private property, then that's not supportive of the free market. that's abolishing the free market. we see more and more as the obama administration, while they may say that service providers are having a monopoly, we see more and more options available to people than ever before. i mean, geez, i can get internet on my cell phone these days. i can get it beamed down to me from satellites on high. we all have options.
6:38 pm
this idea we need to to strictly control and tell service providers what to do with their property, i think that's just in standing with the principles of our party. >> delegate from illinois. >> stephanie holderfield from ellis. call the question. >> the question has been called on the motion from the delegate from new mexico. the question is should we vote immediately. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. we'll vote immediately. all those in favor of the delegate from new mexico amendment, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay? the amendment fails. delegate from new mexico, the next amendment and i'm not sure if this is one you're going to offer or not. >> there amendment is withdrawn. >> the next amendment comes from the delegate from florida regarding amendment to page 4, line 25 to 26. and i would ask the delegating
6:39 pm
from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. joe glueders from florida. i would like to add language dressing individuals who have been deported and yet continue to ignore our constitution and the rule of law by continuing to cross into our country illegally without fear of penalty. so on page 4, lines 25 and 26, i would like to insert the following language after the words deplorable offense. any previously deported illegal immigrant who continues to show a lack of respect for our boarders in rule of law must be penalized. this is why we support stiffer penalties such as mandatory minimum sentences of five years for any illegal immigrant who illegally re-enters our nation after having been depored. we must protect people like kate stein lee from foreign criminal who have shown lack of respect for our constitution and the rule of law in america. i urge everybody to support this
6:40 pm
amendment. thank you. >> is there a second? >> second. in delegate from vermont. >> okay. del from new jersey. >> thank you, chairman. as i understand it, kate's law applies to a five-year prison term if a felony is committed not just due to the dpakt of re-entering this country. do we want to thaepd to reflect kate's law or is the author comfortable with the language the way it is? >> i'm fine with the change. >> could you please signify what exactly that change is and what line and what the verbiage would be. >> the author talk about what language he's comfortable with accepting the changing. > adding -- >> exactly where you want to add the language on kate's law as
6:41 pm
opposed to just generally adding something. the specific point in the documentation. >> i don't know the specs of kate's law but generally speaking i think if we added any illegal immigrant who illegally enters our nation and commits a felony. >> that's correct. >> that i think is the general flavor. there are different degrees of felonious assault. i don't know what they are. but i just offered that as a generalized amendment. if somebody would like to clarify that or have staff work with us, i'm fine with that. >> they're inserting the language in the exact location you refer. the delegate from minnesota. >> isn't crossing the border illegally a felony. >> chairman, we don't put them in jail. we don't put nem in jail for five years for crossing the boarder. >> additional dissent delegate from ohio. >> i have a problem. it costs can the citizens a lot of money to enincarcerate
6:42 pm
felonies inside of our penal system. for us to incur that, if a person comes here and they continue to come, we need to to continuously accepted them back home to where they come from. i don't think we ought to make it mandatory they go inside of our penal system which sometimes is better than their homes. >> delegate from vermont. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment and urge staff to work out the technical language. >> all right. good. the a lot of people that want to speak. d delegate from missouri. >> they come back and do more crime. so to me, i support the amendment than we need to to put him in jail for five years. that way they can't come back. >> delegate from kansas. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would just -- i will say i support this. i was on the committee. it is as a practical matter
6:43 pm
already a felony to re-enter the country after being previously deported but certainly offering our support for stiffer mandatory sentences is fine. i would ask that the maker of the amendment accept a friendly amendment to change the incorrect term illegal imgrant which is actually a contradiction in terms and immigrant is a green card holder by definition is not illegal. so the correct legal term is illegal alien or let's just go with that term. that's the simplest. >> we have another amendment on the floor which was offered by the gentleman from new jersey which is the inclusion of the felony. let's finish with that part. >> the author of the amendment. yes, i was told that it is already a felony if they recross. so i think the language is unneeded. >> the language offered by the gentleman from new jersey? >> that's correcting. > okay. will the gentleman from new jersey want to withdraw that languaging? ing. > respectfully, i don't,
6:44 pm
chairman. i don't think it's an american way to put somebody that's looking for opportunities in a legal way to cross the border and be given a five-year jail sentence. if they've come in and hurt american citizens, absolutely. >> it's a second degree amendment. if there's no further discussion on that, we will vote on the amendment as indicated by the screen from the delegate from new jersey. hearing no additional discussion, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed no. okay. that language is stricken where it says and commits a felony. now back the 0 delegate from kansas. >> this is just a minor correction change illegal immigrant to the correct legal term illegal alien found in law in multiple places. >> second degree amendment from the standpoint of the author. >> i'm fine with that. >> any auctions to any of that? hearing none, okay, the hearing none that's accepted. now the delegate from maryland.
6:45 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. fwren maryland. in answer to the issue of it costing more, this is already something we pay for. illegal immigration is costing us unimaginable amounts of money. i don't think that this is something that adds to that. >> delegate from oregon. >> mr. chairman, i will oppose this amendment. i'm concerned about the cost involved in imprisoning immigrants illegal immigrants for five years. i'm also concerned about the number of juveniles that come across the border and what it would mean to put them in prison in our prison system for five years. i think there's probably very strong language if you look at the language in the immigration section, it is very strong language. i would entertain some language isn't quite this strong. i do believe in penalties but i just think this is -- it's a little too much.
6:46 pm
>> committee man everyone west virginia. >> mr. chairman, i strongly support the amendment. it's important to us. it does target that -- it does target the criminal aspect of and exactly and addresses case law which was you know, obviously just an unbelievable tragedy. and so this goes after it. it also goes after the criminal aspect of it and i think it's an important amendment to pass into committee woman from illinois. >> stephanie holderfield from illinois. i will be supporting this. we have in our home area very good friends that their son was driving a tractor actually riding on the side of it while his father was driving a tractor. an illegal alien who had re-entered into the area was drunk driving, hit him and killed his son. we have to have these types you have laws on the books.
6:47 pm
we have to have them in enforced in order that as well as be on our platform and define what our position is. there are too many deaths that are occurring. and no one is being punished. i also am an aware of on the border hat border patrol is having a very difficult time enforcing and imprisoning the people that are crossing the aliens that are crossing illegally. this at least gives them a tool, gives us a tool in order to imprison the people that are continuingly breaking our law by re-entering our country. i 100% support this. thank you. >> delegate from vermont. >> call the question, mr. dharm. >> the delegate from vermont is calling the question on the amendment on the floor. >> second. >> all those in favor of voting immediately, signify by saying aye. opposed nay. motion is on the floor as amended. all knows in favor of the amendment as amended signify by
6:48 pm
saying aye. opposed nay. the motion is adopted. now we're going to go back to mr. mathis soon's amendment from the tranche. this is back to page 2, line 38. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so just a simple insertion here, mr. chairman we want to make sure that in our drive to preserve social security that we're not opening that simply raising taxes is the solution. fiscal conservatives that's important. so the insertion is simply as republicans we oppose tax increases and believe in the power of markets to create wealth and help secure the future of our social security
6:49 pm
system. >> been moved and seconded. is there discussion? seeing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. it is adopted. >> the next amendment on our pile is from the delegate from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this would go on page 4, line 32. this concerns the obama administration's unprecedented lawsuits against states that try to do what they were legally entitled to do to deter illegal immigration within their boarders specifically the obama administration sued arizona, alabama, south carolina, indiana, and utah. i was involved personally in defending arizona and alabama. by the way, never before had the justice department in its history ever sued a state that was attempting to help the federal government and help reinforce the enforcement of federal laws. the department of justice had in the past sued states trying to
6:50 pm
violate federal law but here you had states trying to assist in the enforcement of federal law. this is a couple of sentences recognizing the constitutional authority of the states to act. and it also administration's lawsuits. i also believe that my colleague from virginia might have a sentence she would like to add to the end of this which i support. i think this goes without saying we should condemn what the obama administration did. >> moved and seconded. >> delegate from virginia? >> i drafted a similar motion. my colleague, we discussed this. the only addition i would like to have added because it does reaffirm the authority of the constitution in terms of establishing rules pertaining to naturalization versus the distinction of the states having the authority to be able to govern what happens to illegal aliens within the president dents. the chilling effects from the suits caused some states to not actually act within the per view that they have. so the language that i would
6:51 pm
like to add as a friendly amendment is simply that we support the right of the states to enact laws addressing illegal aliens residing within their borders. >> is there typing this in? this is in addition to what we're looking at from the delegate from kansas and typing in now we support the rights of states to enact laws addressing illegal aliens residing within their states. is that correct reflection of what you suggesting? >> okay. so that is a second degree amendment to the amendment on the floor s there discussion of that component of it? delegate from new jersey? >> that sentence could actually be construed as codifying the rights of states to implement sanctuary cities. >> additional discussion? >> yes, the delegate from rhode island. >> should it be to enact laws or enforce laws? >> delegate from virginia? >> basically, it would have to
6:52 pm
be enact because the enforcement would be only enforcing federal laws. and the problem that exists is that the right of the constitutional right of congress to be passing legislation pertaining to naturalization is within the per view and see premcy of the constitution within the federal government. but the states have been found to still have authority pertaining to those residual areas dealing with issues that they encounter dealing with the illegal aliens residing within their jurisdiction. so it would only be pertaining their ability, like the attacks that happened in arizona and that when they were trying to enact legislation state legislation dealing with those issues. >> continued discussion with the original author from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize the point made by the delegate two previously about sank wary. i would note that sanctuary cities are prevent bid federal
6:53 pm
law. maybe a way to address this twob change addressing to deterring and add from before the word residing, deterring illegal aliens from residing. >> let's deal with the amendment on the floor from the delegate from virginia first. if this is adopted, then we can go to your approach to amend that. is there any discussion on the second degree amendment on the floor? seeing none, all those in favor of incorporating the amendment from the gentle lady from virginia, signify by saying aye. oppo oppose, ney. all in favor of the secondary amendment from va va va, please say aye. >> aye. >> oppose, ney. >> it is adopted. now back to the original author. you want to change what has been approved. >> just change addressing to did he did he tearing and add from between aliens and residing. >> reflect it on the screen. >> then add the word from.
6:54 pm
>> deterring illegal aliens from residen ri ening in the states? >> yes. >> additional discussion? all those in favor of the amendment say aye. >> oppose ney? it's approved. now on the oerng legislation. now to the amendment on the floor. discussion? seeing none. all those in favor signify by saying aye. aye. opposed, no? it is adopted. next amendment, mr. barton from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in this section we're talking about treaties and the attempt of the administration to circumvent that to enact them if they're executive orders. and so we say that needs to be trans mitted to the senate for advice and consent. this makes clear it's not only republicans that want that, it's the constitution that requires that. >> it's been moved and seconded. page five line 11.
6:55 pm
the next senator from maine. committee man from maine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this would add language at the end of the section stating that we also support making the federal tax codes so simple and easy to understand that the irs becomes on see leet and can be abolished. >> decision? hearing none, those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> oppose, ney. it is adopted. the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on page 5, line 24, this provides definition where it says that johnson amendment, it
6:56 pm
just explains which restricts first amendment freedoms of all nonprofit organizations by prohibiting political speech. >> it's been moved and seconded. since we just had a previous amendment on the exact same location of page 5 line 24, we just approve regarding the irs. the plan would be since this amendment explains what the johnson amendment, is it would go immediately after the period of the johnson amendment and then the amendment just adopted from the delegate from maine would go beyond -- after that. >> actually, after johnson amendment is a comma and then this statement then the period then -- >> as reflected on the screen. >> correct. >> perfect. >> additional discussion? hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. oppose, ney? it is approved. the delegate from maine?
6:57 pm
page five, line 25. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so this is the creation of a new section directly after the irs calling for an audit of the pentagon. it would read that no major part of the department of defense ever passed an audit. republican leaders in congress have called for a full financial audit to ensure that every dollar spent is truly benefiting our national security. every taxpayer must be prepared to pass an audit and we urge congress to demand the same level of accountability from the pentagon and the department of defense. and i will just add in the argument on this this is something that several republican leaders in congress have been advocating for including senator rand paul and ted cruz. i hope that we will endorse putting this in our platform. >> moved and seconded? discussion? seeing none. all those in favor signify by saying aye. oppose, ney. it's approved. next delegate from new mexico.
6:58 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, proposed amendment has to do with page five lines 33 to 35 and suggests removing that last sentence in the paragraph. i concern about the term existing protections as related to discrimination for federal employees. i'm not sure what existing means and what that covers. and we already had today a vote declaring the effort ofs the administration interfearing with the military and federal government employees. so i don't want to have a sentence in this plank of the platform that could be read to contradict other language that we've already passed to day. >> is there a second? >> discussion? >> hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> i'm sorry. excuse me. i missed the light on over here. delegate from the district of colombia. >> thank you. we had a good discussion of this on the subcommittee on gun reform. there is a simple statement that people who want to work for the
6:59 pm
federal government, local park service employees, federal highway administration employees, border protection, et cetera, we have disproportionate high number where we live not have to worry if they want to pursue the religious beliefs, for example that, they're going to be discriminated against. or any other basic discrimination. it's no mystery what is currently prohibited in law. i don't think our party wants to go on record not protecting federal employees from practicing their faith or anything else that's normally covered in the general rubric of discrimination protections. >> thank you. additional discussion? the author of the amendment. >> yes, mr. chairman w that understanding, i request to withdraw the amendment. >> the amendment has been withdrawn. the next amendment on the agenda is from the delegate from texas. >> this section we're talking about the cost of regulatory burdens, what it does, the intense burden that it s this is
7:00 pm
merely an example to drive it home. pragmatic manner. save billions of dollars in the economy and complying with agency regulations cost businesses more than $7,640 per employee and families more than $14,600 per year or one fourth of the annual income. >> is there a second? discussion? dl gatt from california? >> there are a lot of studies out there. where did this come from? maybe just have the staff verify the numbers. because there's a lot of back and forth on. this i've seen a lot of studies. some of them have been very, very poorly done and understate the impact. some have been very poorly done and grossly overstated. i don't recall the numbers. but somebody from the staff should verify that we're putting accurate information in here. >> delegate from texas. >> i can say this was a published book that george barn and i did last year. i went through all the publication houses.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on