tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN July 12, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
we have these typed in for the screen. the packet you have in front of you are the first 16 amendments. the deadline was nine. they're working on reproducing and copying some of those. we'll get a second pack of amendments after we get finished with these first 16 amendments. i would like to call on the chairman for this committee, mr. jim carnes. >> thank you so much for being here, being available and making everything run as smoothly as you have. we appreciate the team we had in our committee, our subcommittee meeting. we had great support, personnel. we have 16 amendments we're about to go through and another package. so, this has been a very good process for what we are attempting to do and the final product is going to be something
we will be happy to mark forward and present to the voters of this country. >> thank you so much for your leadership. we now turn to the delegate from idaho. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great privilege. i echo the sentiment of gratitude. what you have before you is an attempt to make clear that the republican party stands in unity, that the united states wants to have the strongest military in the world so there might be peace. that we honor our heroes, unlike some in politics, so we might have character, and we stand by our allies liin the middle east and taiwan in asia. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your leadershi
leadership. >> delegate from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chair. it was a diverse, well read, well organized team. the inputs, i think, are superb. we had a lot of lively debate, as was mentioned before. we try to focus on much as we could as to how do we get out of the hole dug for us by mr. obama and get into a national security defense system that the people of this nation deserve so they can get on with their lives in peace and prosperity. that's about the essence of it. i think every issue that we debated, we took great time in. and i thank everyone for their participation. thank you. >> thank you. first amendment for consideration comes from delegate from texas, mr. barton.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. we do a great job, quote by alexander hamilton, role of the government. add to that, george washington talks about the quantity of strength we need. the amendment would cause that first paragraph to read alexander hamilton wrote that the first to the federal government is to provide for the united states and president george washington wisely reminded us to be prepared for war is one of the means of preserving peace. >> discussion? hearing none? is there a second, i'm sorry. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. oppose, nay. it is adopted. cindy graves, same page. delegate from florida. >> thank you so much. why we are in this room and
traveled early to cleveland is actually to elect a republican. we need to remember what's going to happen to our national security as we move forward if we don't. restore law and order and safety to our citizens. >> is there a second? discussion? hearing none, please signify by saying aye. opposed? adopted. next delegate from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. over the last 3 1/2 years, i had the pleasure of helping one of the four americans -- family of one of the four americans killed overseas and attack in benghazi. working with a family to change
the u.s. policy that left his family without a death benefit when he was killed. i'm happy to say after 3 1/2 years of work the cia finally changed their policy and instituted a new policy providing that the death benefit not only to glenn's family but every other family of cia personnel and security contractors killed overseas since 1983. so that's been taken care of [ applause ] >> thank you very much. this paragraph talks about how our president and his cabinet have left our nation hollowed. i would emphasize the point through strategic decisions he has left our personnel without the resources needed to fight effectively overseas. so the sentence i would like to insert reminds the american
public about those decisions and i'll just read it quickly. the sentence says our u.s. ambassador and american personnel were left without adequate security or backup halfway across the world in benghazi. that's just a reminder that those decisions have effects of lives of americans not only in that one situation but other situations overseas. so, i would urge support for this amendment. >> additional discussion. is there a second? discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. next is the gentleman from texas. >> simply an explanation in the sense that i think a lot of americans who might read the platform will not know what the new start treaty is. it simply spells out the acronym. >> discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. it is adopted. david bartpage one, line 27. >> it is a similar type of
amendment again. most americans, i do not think, will know what the inf is. it describes what that agreement means. >> second, it has been seconded. discussion? hearing none, please all those in favor signify by saying aye. posed, nay. it is adopted. next delegate from maine. page one, line 32 to 35. >> thank you, mr. chair. my amendment would strike out the language to these ends. we support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions against russia, ukraine territory and sovereignty are fully restored and support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of ukraine in greater cooperation with nato planning. ronald reagan did a tremendous amount of work to try to keep us out of a hot war with russia. we should really keep in mind that russia is a nuclear
superpower and what we are spelling out here, sanctions and arming their enemies, those are acts of war. and unless we're prepared for -- to go to war with a nuclear superpower, i think we need to be a lot more cautious about declaring our intention to do acts of war against them. so, i think that these -- this statement is overly aggressive and i don't think it is in the best interest of our nation to be declaring this. so, i recommend that we strike this language from the platform. >> the. >> it was defeated and i would ask that we defeat it again today. thank you. >> delegate from new york. >> mr. chairman, i call to question. >> the question has been called.
all those -- >> aye. >> oppose, nay. motion is up for debate. all those in favor, please significantnyfy by saying aye oppose, nay. amendment is defeated. next amendment is from the delegate of massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an important sentence in our platform. and it's simply a technical change. i would change the word vet to screen. i think vet is a d.c. term. i think screen is more understandable to the american people. i would urge your support. >> page two, line 34. it is on the screen to be seen right now. back down. right there. perfect. discussion? is there a second? discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. it is adopted.
next is the delegate from kansas. page two, line 24. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we know for a fact that isis is attempting to send individual terrorists into the united states just as alcohol did in 2001. it worked very well then and of course the obama administration stopped the program as soon as they took office. this simply calls for high risk aliens attempting to enter the united states. >> discussion? yes, delegate from california. >> i just have a question. when you say this was done successfully after 9/11 under the national security entry/exit registration system and should be renewed, do you mean the system should be renewed now? >> the system was a series of things so that people coming from high-risk regions were subject to secondary screening at the port of entry and then
asked to check in with the federal government while they were in the united states, so that we could determine their whereabouts. >> you're saying it should be renewed? >> yes. >> could i suggest that we insert which instead of should? national security entry/exit registration system which i should be renewed now? >> sure. >> discussion on that proposed amendment? all those in favor of changing "and should" to "which." >> "which should." >> be renewed now, all those in favor of that change signify by saying aye. that is adopted. now we're back on the original amendment. any additional discussion on the amendment as amended? all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. next, delegate from the district of columbia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is on the issue of women in the military. i'll wait for it to come up on the screen.
our national security. we already have language opposing the draft for women. so it's clear that the issue that's before us today with this amendment is about optional service for women in combat. we already have language about keeping standards high that follows my proposed amendmt. so this is not an issue of qualification or capability. this is simply about women -- about giving women who want to serve, who are capable and qualified to serve the opportunity to do so. it's not a gender issue. it's a talent management issue. it's a national security issue. and i encourage you to support this amendment. thank you. >> it's now on the screen. it's a strike and replace. we reiterate our support for both the advancement of women in the military and -- then we strike the part that's crossed out and reject any efforts to exclude women from any form of service and that reject should be a small r. yes, delegate from iowa?
>> mr. chairman, i served on the subcommittee with my faithful members as well. we voted to keep the exemption in there for women on the basis of this. i'll read it to make sure i don't make any errors. in september 2015 united states marine corps smithed a formal request to the administration's plans to eliminate women's exemptions from combat arms. scientific research supported that request. gender-mixed units underperformed 96% of the time. physical differences that could not be mitigated would have serious negative effects and survivability and lethality. that would not just be for the women in the unit but as the whole unit. on december 3rd, 2015, secretary of defense ashton carter disregarded the marines professional advice and announced plans to impose controversial policyies while significantly increasing female injuries.
official army survey, 92.5% of women who are enlisted said they did not want to serve in direct combat units but secretary carter confirmed that such assignments would not be voluntary. this is for the safety for all the men and women who serve in our military. we're so proud of the women who have made great strides, put themselves in harm's way. we are so please but those who serve this country understand you do it for the safety and betterment of this country and you put your own individual agendas aside. thank you. >> texas. i do not support this amendment. i think it should be left up to the commanding generals of these forces to make these decisions. what is the most great and has
been the greatest military in the world is because we are as we are and we're combat ready. we must be combat ready on the ground and in the air and it is -- should not be left up to social issues. women are there. i'm one. and i'm proud of it. but i know when i can serve and when i can do the best job and i look to our commanders to tell me so. thank you. [ applause ] >> delegate from new york? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to stand up in support of rachel's amendment. women are capable and women that are qualified should be able to do this. we see this in the idea of women have been very ably and capably being able to be in defense of their country in israel and serving in the material levels. and our fabulous congresswoman from arizona showed us that she
could run an air force battalion very successfully. so excluding those women of the world and not recognizing the strong and abled women of the idf is a mistake. thanks. >> committeeman from new york? >> mr. chairman, i call to question. >> question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately, please signify by voting aye. oppose, nay. the vote will be immediately on the amendment by the delegate from the district of columbia. all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is defeated. next amendment is from the delegate from vermont. commitment member from vermont. >> there may be a duplicate. one was submitted by staff. it's five, which would be on line -- page five, line seven. >> yeah. there are two.
there are back-to-back amendments in your package. both from you, one referring page three, the next referring page five. for clarification, which -- >> correct. it should be page five, the second one is the one that we should use. >> so withdrawing the one on the table marked page three? is that amendment withdrawn? >> yes. >> we now move to the amendment on page five, line seven. delegate from vermont? >> so yesterday during committee, we did talk about some of the innovations and cost effectiveness, which did pass the committee. since that discussion and because it was a full day, i then had an opportunity to talk with some of the folks from the american legion, from the trump campaign as well as my experience with the association of the v.a. surgeons and combined with what the presumptive nominees comments were yesterday during his v.a. presentation and so we -- the language now is a little more
firm. i think it represents something that is appropriate. it now reads -- we simply added in the department of veterans affairs should strengthen and improve their efforts through partnerships with private enterprises. veterans service organizations, technology, innovation and competitive bidding. i would like to please make that slight adjustment, and competitive bidding, to enable the v.a. to better provide both quality and timely care along with all earned benefits to our nation's veterans and their families. this will allow the v.a. to reduce backlog and save immense resources all at the same time. i believe that's reflective. >> is there an addition after -- in line seven, after the word "commitments" with the language that's on the screen to which you have now additionally
offered an amendment, adding the words and competitive bidding? is that correct? >> correct. >> and that is after -- is that after the word innovation? >> yes. >> that is now on the screen, reflected as well as part of the amendment. discussion on the amendment? there is a second. all right. discussion on the amendment? the delegate from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would urge the adoption of this amendment as a business owner who deals directly with veterans administration and has been a competitive bidder caring for our veterans. i can tell you that this is essential and at this moment, the veterans administration is dialing back working with private enterprise and instead relying on less reliable methods. it's important we not go backwards in that effort. thank you, mr. chairman. >> delegate from north dakota? the microphone went off there.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. kelly smith. i would offer a friendly amendment, mr. chairman, and it replace the word "should" with the word "must." our veterans deserve nothing less. >> so this is the department of veterans affairs must strengthen and improve in that? >> yes, sir. >> call to question. >> the author? >> i'm fine with that. thank you. >> let us first vote on that secondary amendment changing the word "should" to "must qus. question has been called. i see no additional discussion. all those in favor of changing "should" to "must" signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. that's adopted. now, in favor of the amendment, please say aye. opposed, nay? the amendment is adopted. >> mr. chairman, i'm proposing a strike, the clause that says we will retain the veterans'
preference for federal employment. there may be something i don't understand here. the way i read that is veterans prefer to be federally employed after they leave the military. unless i'm misunderstanding that clause, i would recommend that we remove that. i don't think veterans want to be federal employees after they retire. >> page five, line 33 to 34 on the screen reflects this. the delegate from kansas? >> just wondering, in posing this question to my colleague from texas, i wonder if maybe the original language is incorrectly phrased. i'm guessing there is a preference given by federal agencies for veterans seeking employment. that's what it's talking about. >> if that's what it's talking about, i have no problem with that. >> delegate from north carolina? >> i think the impression is correct, preference word is the
correct word. it's the preference of the veteran to select going to work for, not the other way around. he has preferred treatment. >> thank you. would the delegate from oregon? >> i believe it is the preference -- it is the government agencies that prefer to hire veterans over nonveterans. it gives the veteran an advantage in the hiring process. >> would the delegate from texas like to withdraw the amendment based on that or should we go ahead and vote? >> i would like to withdraw it but clarify it in such a way. if i misread it that way, others can as well. can we change the wording somewhat to make that more clear? >> we'll work with you on that to make sure that the wording is clarified. >> then my amendment is withdrawn. >> thank you. back to you with the next amendment on page six, line five. >> with recent metrics that have come out in the military and particular areas that i have been involved with, programs that are showing the best success metrics right now, i
think that's worthy of note. i recommend inclusion of that particular new direction and really medical treatment for veterans. >> that is on the screen for your review. any discussion? it has been moved and seconded. seeing no discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. it is approved. delegate from maine, regarding page six, lines 14 to 16. delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. with your indulgence, i made an error on this. it's supposed to be page seven. next amendment in line, which is also on page seven, comes before it. could we take that up first? it's also my amendment. >> that's fine. people will be turning to page seven and that's the amendment you have in your hands, referring to page seven, line 6 to 19. we'll deal with that first, your amendment there and move down the page. >> this would strike and replace language in lines six through
nine. it would replace it with a statement that the reckless and unauthorized military actions of the obama administration and its secretary of state in libya, including bombing the nation and deposing its dictator, moammar gadha gadhafi, have created a political vacuum and opportunity for radical islam to rise. results of these actions can be seen in the murder of our diplomats in benghazi and in the rise to power of radical organizations like isis. the deposing of secular dictators in the middle east empowers our enemies, delivering more territory into the hands of radical islamic groups and making our nation less safe. we oppose the continuation of this failed practice. so this amendment is basically to clarify what some of the causes of the rise of isis are in the middle east. we see time and time again that every time we take out a secular dictator in this area with no exit strategy, this kind of
nation-building approach to foreign policy, we are not -- it's not something that has been successful and all we've done is played into the hands of radical groups like isis and al qaeda, giving them the power and opportunity to seize geography and seize land. and as there is -- as we are looking forward, this would discourage this policy so we can focus on the real enemy in the middle east, which is radical islam and isis. >> is there a second? it's been moved and seconded. it's to strike lines -- on page seven, lines 6 through 9 and replacement language, which you should all have at your table. it is on -- going on -- it's on to the screen. it's probably easier to read as you have in your hands. any discussion of the amendment from the delegate from maine? delegate from arizona? >> mr. chairman, i don't think
we want to put the republican party in the position of defending evil dictators like gadha gadhafi. i'm not sure the information in here replacing this is accurate. the failures, the failure of one, having a strategy, of what you do in a circumstance like that when a vacuum is created that is a failure of the obama administration and the solution is to have a better strategy and to make sure that we can move in the direction of democracy. it doesn't free up opportunities for isis to grow. this is not the right solution to the problem. thank you. >> delegate from north carolina? >> yes, as co-chair, i recall, we discussed this in great detail also in the committee meeting and decided on the language that's in there currently. i don't think we need to be given lessons on these other things. just because a situation was mishandled by a democrat regime
doesn't mean that future presidents and future leaders of our nation would make the same mistakes. we ought to stay with the current language. >> delegate from alabama? >> i agree with my co-chairman. we did vet this. this was discussed at great length and i would suggest that we defeat this amendment. >> delegate from new york? >> chairman i call to question. >> question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. all those in favor of the amendment to strike and replace please signify by saying aye. those opposed, n ay. the amendment is defeated. same author delegate from maine, still on page seven. >> mr. chair, can we have a show of hands on that one? it was in question to me. >> yes. ruling of the chair has been questioned. all those in favor of the amendment that was just voted on from the delegate from maine
striking on page seven, line 6 through 9 and replacing -- all those in favor of that amendment, please signify by raising your hand. please put your hands down. all those opposed please signify by raising your hand. the chair, i believe, said the nays have it. to the next amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. this amendment is again on page seven, lines 14 through 16. this would strike the language that says we will support the transition of a post assad syrian government representative of its people, protects the rights of all minorities and religions, protects the territorial of its neighbors. the reason for this amendment, it assumes we are going to depose the government of syria. you know, we really have seen, again and again, this strategy
of deposing secular dictators has just led to chaos in the area. we did this with moammar gadh i gadhafi, a terrible, evil person. what has he been replaced with? isis. we did this -- we did this in iraq as well with saddam hussein. what has that led to? isis. even our presumptive nominee acknowledges that. the decision to take out the secular dictator in iraq, saddam hussein, was a mistake. this is a continuation of the same failed policy. and how many millions of innocent civilians have died? and what has the result been? chaos and the rise of isis. we really need to decide, are we really the party that believes that war is the last resort? or are we the party that enters into it so carelessly and say collateral damage be damned? are we the pro life party that
values the sanctity of human life or the pro-war party that says we don't care how many innocent civilians die? we don't care -- we don't care what the results are. we see time and again. we have example after example the failure of this policy and we're preparing to do it all over again. i highly recommend that we adopt this amendment, strike out this language. it will be a disaster. it will empower isis if we continue on this path and we take out the syrian regime. >> delegate from north dakota? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call for the question. >> question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. we will vote immediately on striking lines 14 to 16 on page 7. all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay.
the ruling of the chair, nays have it. this is defeated. next amendment is coming from the delegate from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. bob mcgann from massachusetts. context to this in our area, and i worked on the subcommittee, is the shameful delay by the obama administration in recognizing the acts of isis, killing, torturing christians and other religious minorities, recognizing it as genocide. the house of representatives led by the republicans voted for that belatedly, obama came around to it. what this does is recognize, as we did, as republicans going back to 1991, when we established occurred stan and continue iiining kurdistan and
continuing there. those who have been tortured, killed, persecuted by isis. >> page seven, line 32. at the end of that paragraph it's the addition of the line on the screen in red. additional discussion? seeing none, all those in favor, please -- is there a second? all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. it is adopted. next is to co-chair of the committee, steven yates of idaho. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we have amendment on page seven, line 33 through page eight, line seven. this addresses saudi arabia and 9/11. to give a little bit of context, the first five years of the bush administration i served as security adviser to vice president cheney. i was in the white house before,
during and after 9/11, was evacuated out, took most of the day to be able to communicate with my family to let them know i was alive. many of us lost friends and loved ones in that tragedy. however, we should not release 28 pages of classified information from a congressional intelligence inquiry into 9/11 attacks. releasing raw intelligence data that raises the specter that our intelligence gathering may be compromised. dangerous -- impose a danger to our own national security. this information mainly consists of rumors from third parties, totally uncorroborated. it is unfair to the individuals involved to allow the speculation to be treated as fact simply because it's in a secret government report. if saudi officials were complicit in 9/11, that is a matter of both governments to resolve at the highest levels. i strongly urge the committee to withdraw this segment. >> a motion to -- >> second. >> and second to move to strike.
page seven line 33 to page eight line seven. delegate from new york? >> mr. chairman i'll second that. and i would wholeheartedly agree with what my colleague from idaho just stated. >> delegate from maine? >> thank you, mr. chair. i just want to read a list of the republican congressmen who have signed on, calling for the declassification of these 28 pages. justin amosh from michigan, mike cou kaufman from colorado, kevin kramer from north dakota, scott decharlise from tennessee. christopher gibson from new york. walter jones from north carolina, cynthia loomis from wyoming, thomas massey from kentucky. tom mcclintock from california. mcmulvaney from south carolina.
randy newgabauer from texas.
joe pitts from pennsylvania. tom reed from new york, dana robasher from california. elena ross lighten from florida. matt salmon from arizona. mark sanford from south carolina, scott austin from georgia. >> call the question. >> ted yokel from florida. >> microphone went off. go ahead. >> mike zeke from montana, a list of republican congressmen who called for the declassification of these 28 pages. the american people, victims of 9/11 have the right to know -- have the right to know about the funding that was involved in
this. >> delegate from vermont? can
we have your mike? >> thank you, mr. chairman i rise in support of this amendment. it's not our job to release classified information from this committee. >> delegate from west virginia? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would call the question. >> the question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately please signify by saying aye. all those opposed please signify by saying no. voting immediately all those in favor of the amendment as introduced by the co-chairman of the committee please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. next amendment from rachel hof, delegate from the district of columbia. >> my amendment is irrelevant due to the last amendment. so i withdraw my amendment.
>> just a gram maticcal correction from a sentence we added yesterday in the subcommittee. a verteb a verb needs to come at the end. i inserted "continued." >> page nine, line 15. it's on the screen right now. after the text "force sterilizations" enter the word "continuation." it is adopted. the next amendment is from the delegate from guam. >> thank you, mr. chairman. margaret metcalfe with guam. i would like to add something to the section u.s. leadership in the asian pacific community. and we're going down to line 17.
>> on page nine. >> page nine, line 17. and extension of the sentence to distract the populous from increasing economic problems and i would like to inser "and more importantly to expand its military might. the government asserts a p preposterous claim to the entire south china sea and continues to dredge ports and in contested waters where none has existed before ever nearer to u.s. territories and our allies while continuing to build a navy far out of proportion to defensive purposes." lastly, i would like to insert the comment "the complacency of the obama regime has emboldened the chinese government and military to extract threats of
intimidation throughout the south china sea, not to mention parading their new missile, the guam killer, down the main streets of beijing, a direct shot at guam as america's first line of defense begins." thank you. >> is there discussion? motion has been moved and seconded. discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. the next amendment is from the delegate from maine. >> mr. chairman, may i make one observation? they will be distribute bid the clerks at this time. you need another set. put them at the bottom of this set. thank you very much. >> delegate from maine? >> thank you, mr. chair. this is on page 10, lines -- i
have -- the lines there are inaccurate. >> line 17 to 24. >> i'm sorry. i must have -- anyway, i think maybe the lines there -- all right. >> let's see. they're on page 12. we want to get back to the amendment that is in front of us from you is on page 10. is that correct? >> no, i apologize. it looks like it's on page 12. my apologies. if you would like to hold that off until page 12, i understand. >> no, go right ahead with you. go ahead. page 12? >> this affects -- i made an error as i was preparing this hastily last night. i apologize -- in the wee hours of the evening. page 12, this affects lines six onward to line 13. this would strike this language,
which calls for -- essentially it calls for reimposing, eliminating our trade and relationship with cuba. and the reason for this, i want to tell a tale of two countries. cuba and vietnam. over the last half century, we have treated these two countries very differently. but we actually went to war against vietnam. since that time, we have had open trade relations, open diplomacy, open dialogue with them. they've become one of our best trading partners and also have become increasingly more westernized as our ideas have spread into that country through our trade and exchange. at the same time in cuba, we have had an isolationist policy of no communication, no trade, cut them off and nothing has changed. in a half century, nothing has changed there. we can see very clearly, when we look at vietnam that when we
have free exchange of goods and ideas, american ideas of capitalism and constitutional republic are popular. they spread when given the opportunity. but cutting people off does not do that. i think we should reject the failed policy we've had in place for 50 years. we should reject isolationism and we should seize this opportunity to trade with cuba and spread our western ideals to them. thank you. >> is there a second? >> discussion, delegate from californi california. >> noelo uhencho from california. i have been traveling legally to cuba since 1992. i know the best way to transform it is by opening it up.
and more and more americans and visitors from america are going there and bringing our ideals and also being able to do business with them will have the affect that the previous language actually had in it from my experience there. >> delegate from new jersey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. we heard this amendment before in committee. we rejected it. the premise that vietnam is like cuba is false. that being nice to cuba will not make them better. over the course of years, they have harbored hundreds of political prisoners, still repress their people and from new jersey it's particularly disconcerting. as we speak, murdered and convicted of murdering a new jersey trooper still is harbored safely in cuba. for all those reasons i ask the body to reject this amendment.
>> thank you very much. the delegate from minnesota? >> thank you. i'm not judging the merits of any of these motions that are before us today. i'm coming at this from the side of i'm just a regular guy that's here. i'm a husband. happy birthday, honey, if you're watching. we're trying to set foreign policy here, folks. this is not what this is for. this is not where this belongs. we're a representative of a republic. we have people who are supposed to do this. this is not the venue or forum for us to air these grievances. we can petition our government for different aspects. this is about why people should vote for us. this level of detail we're getting into and spending time on today is just not something that should be in the platform. [ applause ] >> delegate from new mexico? >> andrea moore. i call to question.
>> question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. vote immediately. all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is defeated. the next amendment is from the delegate from massachusetts. >> again, with the sub committee, we talked about adding a couple of headings, subheadings so that areas that had previously in prior platforms been individually identify w identified would not run together under one heading that was not completely accurate to the text. my two amendments are to add subheadings. one, international religious freedom shown here on the screen. that's the first one. and the content that follows it is about international religious freedom. >> is there a second?
discussion? seeing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. now to the same author, to the amendment on page 14. >> same point, just calling out what the section is about with the title that is consistent with what we said in past platforms. >> discussion? hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. that amendment has passed. the next amendment on your packet, i understand, this is not going to be offered. we'll just move on to the amendment following that. again, back to the delegate from massachusetts. >> yesterday in our subcommittee, as we were already late for lunch and hungry, the subcommittee decided that myself, working with our co-chairman, steven yates, from
idaho in front of me, that we would make an adedendum to wher we finished on protection of human rights and adding sections again that were consistent with our previous platforms in this area. so, the following additional text is that work that we completed last night. if co-chairman yates wants to add anything, i welcome him to do so. >> delegate from idaho. >> steve yates from idaho. the subcommittee wasn't able to take up discussion on this. however, there was sentiment that reinserting sections from previous platform in this area would be a welcomed move. the gentleman did work in good faith with other members and support from staff to make sure we had things fact checked. i urge the committee to support the amendment.
>> move to second and discussion on the amendment. hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. >> same story line, continuing again the section heading that we had and language that reflects our republican values is consistent and comes from members of congress on the foreign affairs committees that are working on this area. so, same story. this addition is part of our subcommittee work that we didn't finish and we finished it last night. >> just so folks know what they're voting on, since you have a number of amendments, let us just make reference before the vote to the specific line and page number. and i have that we're on -- you're on amendment, page 15, lines 20 and 26. is that correct? we're inserting the new headlines, line 20 in terms of
combating human trafficking and line 26, inserting the attached text, which people have at their seats? >> yes, mr. chairman. thank you for the clarification. you are you are correct. >> discussion. seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed nay. that amendment is adopted. back to the same author for the next amendment. this has to do with page 15, line 27. >> right. this will now appear after the section on combatting human trafficking, and again consistent with the same story, our country needs to continue to reach out to people who are behind internet firewalls. we face cyber terrorism from these countries and should be getting information to them. this calls on us to do it. this is something our republican members of congress are working to pass. >> is there a second?
discussion? >> yes. alaska. >> please identify universe. >> i believe we can simply say we do not support this because i do not believe we need to put all these words in there to make a statement that we do not support this. this is policy. irt going to be law. it is not platform so i'm not going to support it. >> additional discussion, delegate from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to know how many of the participating people, how many subcommittee members participated in this discussion last night to get a thorough idea how it was vetted. >> delegate from the district of columbia. >> yes. i participated in discussion about the addition of the section last night. >> the delegate from massachusetts, would you like to respond to the delegate from north dakota? >> yes. there were three of us that
worked on this last night together with a staff and a member of speaker ryan's staff. >> i also failed to mention i was the only member of the committee who expressed interest in helping on this section during our meeting yesterday. >> additional discussion. >> mr. chairman, i call for the question. >> the delegate from vermont's hand was up. >> i wanted to mention when we hear politically about the threats through the chinese efforts and fire walls on our computers, i know in our little company, 50% of the efforts to hit the firewall, 24/7 every day is coming from china. i'm sure people aren't even aware those kinds of threats are occurring. just so you're aware, this is very real. thanks. >> additional discussion?
all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. that finishes the first traunch of amendments. the second pack takes us back again to page one of this. is there anyone that does not have the newly distributed first pack that takes us back to page one "a dangerous world?" the top one is from the delegate from montana. we'll start with that in a second. we are turning back to page one of the plank "a dangerous world." that's the one that says "in the national arena." since everyone has these, we
will turn to the delegate from montana for an introduction offesof his amendment page one. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a simple amendment. after the words "in the international arena" we would strike weakness and insert a weak administration. the american people are not weak and while we have experienced a drawdown in our military and failed policies that have inhibited its effectiveness, the individual men and women in the military are also not weak. the weakness we are talking about here is the failure of an administration to lead effectively on the world scene. this amendment would clarify that focus. committee was in support of this amendment. we just didn't have the time with our workload to get it done. >> is there a second? discussion? s hearing none -- sorry, the delegate from the district of columbia. >> we did talk about this yesterday in subcommittee. i am going to oppose it because
i think weakness invites aggression is a strong statement. i'm concerned that a weak administration almost sounds like president obama is administering in a weak manner, but the idea is that he's projecting weakness to the world and that is inviting aggression. i plan to oppose this. >> additional discussion? hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed yeah. the amendment is adopted. next amendment from the delegate of minnesota. line one -- sorry, page 1, line 37. >> this is simple. scanning through this last night, my eyes were tired. i didn't see us call out and thank the members of our law enforcement and emergency responders begin the events that happened in the last few days and weeks if we are going to have a tumultuous that includes stock, we should thank the members our law enforcement for putting their lives on the line for us.
>> second? discussion? hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. it is adopted. the next amendment from the delegate of the district of columbia. it would be great if we could get going on the last set of amendments for this afternoon. i have been asked by the staff to make an announcement on behalf of the delegates. there seems to be some chatter going on in certain areas of the room, which is distracting to other delegates who are being surrounded by the chatter, so i would ask everybody to keep their conversations to a minimum in the room. and i'm going to ask people to be really good about getting to a microphone and speaking into it because folks in the back, i
see them having trouble hearing. so be kind to your fellow delegates by getting to a mike where everybody can hear what you have to say. i believe that the next amendment is an amendment offered by the delegate from louisiana, ms. mcdade. labeled number 9, page 6 line 28 to 29. are you prepared? >> is my mike on? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you, madame chairman, members of the committee. march 22, 1973, i was sitting in my living room rocking a little baby girl who had been left on those steps of parkland hospital three days after she was born.
that afternoon nbc broke in with roe versus wade. i remember crying all night long. so the issue i'm about to offer an amendment regarding is very near and dear to my heart. it's called the fetal pain amendment. simply put, i think it's up on the screen. we applaud the u.s. house of representatives for leading the effort to add an enforcement to the born alive infant protection act by passing the born alive survivors property beings act which enacts appropriate civil and criminal penalties on health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. we strongly oppose infanticide. we all were glued to our scenes when we saw the horror of dr. guznel's practices. the horrible things done to
children who were born alive, that was the only thing they ever did wrong they were intended to die. they suffer incredible pain. i ask we pass this so we can show the world that there is a clear difference between the republicans and the democrats. i move adoption on this particular amendment. thank you. >> is there a second? >> second. >> second. any discussion? the delegate from california. >> i strongly support this. in india they have this law and mother teresa's sisters that's what they do all day long is take care of these babies. if they can do it in india, we can do it in the united states of america. >> the other delegate from california. >> i call a question. >> the question's been called. second? all those in favor of an immediate vote on this motion to
adopt this amendment please say aye. any yeahs? the amendment is adopted. excuse me. we vote on the amendment. those in favor say aye. any opposed? the amendment is adopted. the delegate from kansas. ms. culp is recognized. >> i'm going to rip it out. don't hurt me. page 6 line 30, prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks point at which unborn babies can feel excrutiating pain after the point at which when the current medical research shows that, quote, unborn babies can feel excrutiating pain. the states are adopting these laws because the research clearly shows 20 weeks some
researchers say 13 weeks, some say 7, so it may go backwards over time. but for right now, currently, i want to put it in there so people know it isn't stuck at 20 weeks forever perhaps. current medical research shows unborn babies can feel excrutiating pain. >> that's the amendment. second? >> second. >> any discussion? the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, madame chair. i was going to clarify. on the screen it had crossed out the point which, but i want to confirm with the lady from kansas what's on the screen is correct. >> current medical research is what it should say. if the scribe can do it. is that accurate? yes, i'm sorry, yes.
the gentleman from new york. >> madame chairwoman i call a question. >> question's been called. all those in favor of voting on this immediately please say aye. any opposed? the question is on passing the amendment. all those in favor say aye. the amendment is adopted. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. >> i want to withdraw this because it is a double of what happened before. >> next is an amendment from the delegate of louisiana again.
>> sandra mcday from louisiana again. we say we are opposed to abortion and come back and say we strongly oppose federal funding for abortions. what i am doing here is simply adding to -- it looked like it was scratched out but we worked with it with staff. we are adding to the statement we oppose embryonic stem cell research to say we oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. >> the motion made and seconded. any discussion? all those in favor of adopting this amendment say aye. opposed? the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from kansas is recognized for an amendment page 8, line 12.
>> this is a pretty simple one. if we leave the word "judges" in it would suggest judges can make up rights as they see fit. the ninth amendment is an interesting amendment. bottom line is if we take out "judges" and make clear legislators can protect the ninth amendment. this would suggest judges can make up rights as they see fit. >> any further discussion? excuse me. the gentleman from missouri. minnesota, excuse me. >> i would defer to smarter people than me, but i think the way i read this is judges can't give government laws it doesn't
have. we talk about judicial overreach all the time. how government is taking powers and granting powers. on any number of issues. to me, we would want to continue to tell judges they can't overreach their bounds. if it's not in the constitution, the federal government can't do it and it's left to the states. we are providing a barrier and reminding judges they can't do that. they can't give powers to the federal government it does not have granted in the constitution. >> gentleman from maryland? >> madam chairwoman, i call a question. >> all those in favor of voting on this motion immediately please say aye. any opposed? all those in favor of adopting the amendment as presented by the gentleman from kansas, please say aye. any opposed? i believe the ayes have it.
the next amendment is the amendment from the gentleman from nebraska. page 9, lines 6 through 7. gentleman from nebraska's recognized. >> i am making an amendment under the protecting the electoral college section. it talks about opposing the national popular vote. the sentence i'm going to refer to is currently as stated in the platform now is constitutional effort to impose national constitutional vote would be a grave threat to our federal system and guarantee of corruption as every ballot box would offer a chance to steal the presidency. i don't take issue with the opposition of a national popular vote, and i do take issue with the last part of that statement. i think it's unnecessary. i don't think we need to have that in our platform.
i don't think every ballot box in every state would offer a chance to steal the presidency. in fact, i believe we are going to win the presidency through every ballot box in every state. and we don't need to just have that language in there. i think it's unnecessary. we can state our position clearly without it. let's not talk about stealing the presidency. we are going to win it. thank you. >> there is a motion and second. further discussion? the gentlewoman from minnesota. >> as a former statewide election day operations person, i can guarantee, almost unequivocally one ballot per precinct throws an election. norm coleman lost his senate race because of double voting,
of miscounting, of ballots, and we have 4,000 precincts in our state. one ballot per precinct throws every statewide election. one ballot per state senate district throws the state senate election. one ballot per state house history throws the house election. i say leave this in. i have seen so many, you guys would just die. so that's it. i'm done. >> the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i would call the question. >> call the question. all those in favor of voting immediately on this amendment please say aye. any opposed? all those in favor of adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska please say aye. any opposed? the ayes have it.
>> thank you, madam chairwoman. this simply adds a sentence, we strongly oppose the obama's litigation against states exercising their sovereign authority to enact such laws as secretary of state of kansas, i'm currently locked in a litigation battle with the obama justice department over our proof of citizenship law. the delegates from texas will know the obama administration has attacked their photo i.d. law. i could go on and on about the battles this administration has used a partisan justice department to punish or stop states that are trying to secure the integrity of our elections. i think it's important to say that we not only are for these things, photo i.d., proof of citizenship, et cetera, but we are also opposed to the obama administration's use of the justice department in a truly extraordinary way. i'll give you one anecdote you might find interesting. a couple of months ago the justice department declined to
defend a federal agency that was agreeing to put our proof of citizenship language on a federal form which by law is required to put on the federal form. the federal judge castigated the doj attorney and said can you tell me one other time in history when the department of justice refused to defend a federal agency and he could not. they are not only taking a partisan approach but punishing states and breaking the rules doing so. we need this sentence. >> there is a motion and second on the floor. jat from north carolina? >> yes. thank you. i agree with the concept but i think with the timing as it is, i would suggest targeting the obama administration rather than a more general statement that i would support, we strongly oppose any administration's litigation so that it holds into
the future and doesn't just say right now we don't like it, but we might like it later. i would not want it to happen under any circumstance. >> would the gentleman from kansas accept a friendly amendment from the gentleman from north carolina? >> you know, no other administration has ever done anything like this, so i think it's fair enough to lay this on the lap of the obama administration. i don't expect any administration will in the future. i would hope not. >> the gentlewoman from washington. >> thank you, madam chair. washington state. when we were in subcommittee for this, we agreed that we weren't going to start listing names and doing all of that. it's a constitutional committee,
and so i am opposed to having the obama administration listed in here, and this is a strong enough problem that we want to make sure it never happens again, that we should apply it not just to obama but to anyone else in the future. >> the gentleman from california. >> we're not running against obama. i think that's something we need to make clear in this document. we are running against hillary clinton. we oppose litigation against states exercising their sovereign authority to exercise such laws, not the fact the obama administration did it. i would support taking out the obama administration and say we strongly oppose litigation. it doesn't make it weaker. it just takes obama out of it. >> the gentleman from new york? >> i would call a kwi, madam chairperson. >> the question has been called on the original amendment. no change has been made in it. >> was an amendment offered on
that? phil wilson, washington state? the gentleman from new york offered an amendment to the amendment? >> it wasn't accepted. >> the gentleman from north carolina offered a friendly amendment. the gentleman from kansas did not accept that friendly amendment. so we are voting on the original amendment. we've had a call for the question. >> madam chairman? to have a call for the question, you have to have a second. >> you're correct. >> and we have not been doing that. but it needs to have a second before it can be done. thank you. >> there is now a second. call for the question and a
second. on the amendment as it was originally presented. all those in favor of voting immediately and cutting off debate, please say aye. those opposed. i believe the ayes have it. now, we'll vote on -- all right. then we will continue the debate. the gentleman from north carolina's recognized. >> yes, thank you. i would like to propose an amendment, please, that we strike out the obama administration and make it read so thought reads into that any litigation in the future, to strike out obama administration and whatever grammatical fixes need to be made. >> we strongly oppose any
administration's -- any litigation against states exercising -- second, the amendment? okay. debate. the gentleman from kansas. >> i want to say i'm fine with that amendment. it's not that important. let's get it over with and keep going. >> okay. any other debate? the question's been called. is there a second? there is a motion to call the question and a second. all those in favor of calling the question and voting immediately say aye. any opposed? those in favor of the amendment as modified by the gentleman from north carolina, which the gentleman from kansas has accepted, please say aye. any opposed? the amendment is adopted.
the amendment by the gentleman from south carolina, page 9, line 16. gentleman from south carolina's recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i was privileged to be the author of south carolina's voter i.d. law. every year since that law, we've had attempts by the left to roll it back by introducing insecure i.d.s to be used at the polls. my amendment is simply to include the word "secure" so it reads "secure photo identification when voting." so all photo i.d. must be secured. >> second. >> motion and a second. any other debate on this amendment? hearing no further debate, those in favor please say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. the next amendment is from the
gentleman from vermont, mr. cochran. we're going back to page 1, line 15. the gentleman from vermont is recognized. >> simply adding in accordance with federal guidelines the word consistent. thank you. inserting the word gender. >> is there a second to the motion? >> the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> isn't sex and gender the same? then why are we putting gender in if we already have sex in there? >> anyone else wish to be recognized? the gentleman from indiana?
>> i think there is yes an answer to that question. gender is not sex now. it is being redefined to mean transgender, to mean transgender. so that has now become the preferred term to prescribe lgbt. i don't know what the gentleman from vermont's purpose or intent on doing this here is, but that is the answer to the question. so i oppose the amendment. >> the gentlewoman from washington. >> i would like to go out on a limb here. there are a couple of people in this committee that for several days now, well a couple of days,
have been asking for some form of recognition to lgbt. we have an amendment here that suggests the word gender. gender is an appropriate word, it speaks to that in a way that i think i'm going 0 use this word, you'll excuse me, palatable expression, a proper expression, a legal expression, it comes up in state contracts and local contracts all the time, that there is not gender discrimination. so i support this amendment. >> the gentlewoman from michigan. >> the webster's dictionary for the word gender is the state of being male or female. so i know that they are trying to redefine it or hijack that
word or take it over, but it's male or female and we already have sex, re sex, religion, creed, disability, this is another sneak attack. i vote -- i wish i could call the question and somebody bring this call to question. >> the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized. >> call the question. >> is there a second? >> a motion and a second to call the question. those in favor of calling the question please say aye. any opposed? the ayes have it. the vote will be on the motion by the gentleman from vermont to add the word "gender." those in favor please say aye. those opposed nay. the nays have it. the amendment is not adopted.
the gentlewoman from ohio has an amendme amendment, page 1, line 16. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. >> good afternoon. as a party of lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to america's difficult challenges when it comes to race relations. i'd like to add diversity today. we are determined to encourage equality for all citizens across -- we are determined to encourage equality for all citizens and access to the american dream. because of the tenor of america right now, what's going on, we need to make sure that people understand that we may not always agree with them, we may not always like what they do, may not understand who they are, but we support them, love them and they are part of america. we need to make sure they
understand the american dream is theirs also. >> is there a second? >> there is a motion and a second. gentleman from texas. >> wonder if i might propose a friendly amendment. this says we will continue to encourage because we've encouraged that since the days of lincoln. there's never been a time when that was not part of our party. can we say we continue to encourage equality for all citizens? >> the gentle woman who introduced the amendment accepts your friendly amendment. if there is no further debate, all those in favor -- sorry. the gentleman from virginia. >> i would propose a friendly amendment saying as the party of abraham lincoln, the democratic party is not the party of
abraham lincoln. >> okay. would the gentlewoman accept that? all right. the amendment now is as the party of abraham lincoln, we must continue to foster, and then we continue. all those in favor, please say aye. any opposed? the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from maine is recognized for his amendment that modifies the document on page 2, line 31. >> thank you, madam chair. so this would insert a new section on page 2, line 31. right after the section on the judiciary, i'll read the language, "congressional war authority." "the decision to take our nation
to war is the most solemn decision our federal government can make. when the time for that decision arises, the framers of the constitution sought to balance the power of the president as commander in chief with that of congress, the representative of the people. when crafting the constitution, the founders weighed the individual will of the executive against the deliberative function of the legislature whose constituents would bear the full cost of any war. thus the framers deliberately separated the powers of declaring and waging war. they confined these powers in such a way so as to thwart the tyranny of kings. article 2 section 2 gives the executive branch command of the nation's armed forces article 1 section 8 gives to the legislative branch the power to decide when the united states goes to war. as such, we recognize that only congress has the constitutional authority to commit our nation to war, neither the president nor any extra constitutional body may send our nation's young men and women in harm's way
without an affirmative act of congress." that's the language there. when i refer to extra constitutional bodies, i'm specifically thinking of attempts where president obama has tried to go around congress and cite united nations resolutions to give himself authority. the united nations, we are a sovereign nation, united nations cannot give, does not supersede our constitution. i just want to read a quote from senator ted cruz who has spoken in support of this principle. he said the authority to declare war rests in congress, not in an out-of-control president. thank you. i'll rest my case. >> thank you. does anyone wish to speak on the amendment? is there a second to the amendment? is there a second. the gentlewoman from florida. >> yes, ma'am. i don't know why we are
continuing to spit back the constitution at ourselves. this is supposed to be, again, our principles that we're pushing forward. i believe that we all know we believe in the constitution as republicans. i appreciate everybody's opinions and all the rest, but i do believe we need to move on. >> in that spirit, i'm going to ask again in the future if we have long amendments like this to read, i think since everybody in here can read and has copies, we will dispense with the reading in the future. the gentleman from california. >> this really doesn't deal with the issue that the drafter is proposing. president reagan sent troops to grenada. president bush sent them. the president has to if there is an emergency or situation where you want to address something without telling the other side that you're coming. only the president can declare
war where are exceptions the president can use troops, use the power of the american military and prevent problems, save other countries, deal with other people and not have to declare war. this is not something we should adopt. i think it's contrary to republican principles and the principles to the constitutional separation of powers you're taking away from the executive a real tool he has for doing good in the world. that's been used for doing good. just because obama didn't use it correctly doesn't mean other presidents wouldn't. >> call the question. >> gentlewoman makes a motion to call the question. >> second. >> lots of seconds. we will vote on the motion to call the question. all those in favor of voting immediately on this please say aye. any opposed? the ayes have it. the motion before us is offered by the gentleman from maine.
the amendment before us and the motion from the gentleman, all those in favor say aye. those opposed say nay? the nays have it. the amendment is not adopted. the amendment by the gentlewoman from nevada. on page 3, line 7 to 11. the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized. >> i'm asking that we strike the lines 7 through 11. this is a restoration of constitutional government. it's redundant to the american values section of this document, and not only is it offensive to it, it appears to be contrary to the restoration of our
constitutional bill of rights. the supreme court, the full, the entire supreme court determined equal treatment within the united states, and they were concerned with the rights of all. today we, too, should show the world our big tent, the open door without exclusion. stand with me and the statue of liberty, close the door to prejudice and mean-spiritedness. >> the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. >> the supreme court also allowed a window of dissent when it said those of religious persuasion could disagree with the supreme court decision. i think we have that opportunity
now. >> further discussion. the gentlewoman from new mexico. >> i agree with the delegate from nevada that this is redundant because this was covered almost verbatim in the subcommittee for health care, education and crime, and it is stated in there. >> the gentlewoman from missouri? >> thank you, madam chairman. >> the heading is defending marriage against the activist judiciary. it's not redundant. >> the gentleman from maryland? >> i would call the question. >> the gentleman from maryland calls a question. is there a second? there is a second. all those in favor of calling the question please say aye. any opposed? the motion is on -- the vote now
is on the motion of the gentlewoman from nevada to strike line 7 through 11 page 3. all those in favor say aye. any opposed? i think the nays have it. the next amendment is from the gentleman from rhode island. he's recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, madam chair. this would delete simply the second sentence in that paragraph we just discussed. i won't restate it, but i will express my concern here. it is not a question of the cultural issue, it is more my concern that we are acknowledging somehow that the government is allowed to define marriage in the first place, which i reject as a conservative and person who believes that our rights come from god and not the government. 23 years ago i spent six months
in pre-cana process, went through hosts of sacraments to get married to my wife. 24 years later and four children i remain married not because the government tells me i'm married but the church does. i don't believe we should acknowledge in our platform the courts have the authority, moral or otherwise to define marriage. that is a private, civic institution, and the fact i had to go to boston city hall and get $15 for a marriage certificate does not change that fact. those who believe our rights do come from god, i hope would you support me in approving this amendment. >> gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. >> even though we disagree, because i believe in traditional marriage and i believe in the bible, marriage is a sacred right for those of us who believe in it. i think we do condemn because it should have been civil unions. when you say marriage, we
believe as those of us who are christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament of god. with one man and one woman as written in the judeo christian way. we condemn it even though we don't condemn the person. we have language that says we believe they should have equal rights, but we do not condone same-sex marriage. >> the gentleman from maryland. >> i believe the gentleman from indiana. >> sorry. >> i would move the question. >> there's been a call for the question. those in favor please say aye. any opposed? the motion before us is the
amendment by the gentleman from rhode island, those in favor of the motion by the gentleman from rhode island please say aye. those opposed say no. the nays have it. the amendment is not adopted. we have an amendment now from two people, the gentleman from virginia and the gentleman from kansas. who wishes to be recognized first to speak on the amendment? >> i'll toss the mike to tommy. this amendment actually concerns the paragraph we were just talking about. it adds emphasis to what is undoubtedly one of the central messages of the platform of 2016. a central concern of republicans across the country. that is the alarming and lawless way the five justices on the supreme court have taken away
from the states the power to define marriage as the traditional definition of one man and one woman. we intentionally quote justice scalia. if you don't have the text, it's the red text added in the longer amendment. in part as a tribute to justice scalia, he's the only justice quoted in our platform this year and i think that's appropriate. also because he makes a very good point. just how absurd the reasoning was of the supreme court when they twisted the 14th amendment which was drafted in 1868 as somehow congress in 1868 intended to allow gay marriage. it's absurd. justice scalia's words ring true. we quote those words and point out how absurd that opinion is, as well as the other opinion in united states versus windsor concerning the federal government definition of marriage. when roe versus wade came down,
the gop did not retreat and say i guess we lost that battle. gop fought on and we are in a better position today. in past instances where the supreme court has erred, it's important for us to say an error has been made. i would yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from virginia. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman from kansas for that very eloquent statement. and for his work on this amendment. i think he said it all. if any republican wants to argue with justice physical yashgs be my guest. >> the delegate from d.c. is recognized. >> thank you. i certainly would not have won in an argument against justice scalia. i wanted to address the reference that was made to the roe-v-wade decision. we kept a strong pro-life
platform which i as a pro-life republican am grateful for. there is a huge difference between the roe-v-wade decision and last year's supreme court marriage decision. in 1973 we were a 50/50 pro-life, pro-choice country on marriage. 2016 we are 50/50 pro-life, pro-choice on marriage. all polling indicates the country has clearly decided to support marriage equality, and within our own party which we are here to represent, polling is moving in that direction. among younger republicans it's already received majority support. i imagine i will be in the minority yet again, but there is a big difference between moving on the issue of marriage and remaining strong on the issue of pro-life. a majority of republicans who have been polled since the
supreme court decision in 2016 said even though they supported, even those who supported traditional marriage, in light of the supreme court decision, think it's the right thing to do for our party to move on from this issue. thank you. >> gentlewoman from maryland recognized. >> i call the question, madam chair. >> is there a second? >> second. the vote will be on the call for the question. >> point of order. >> gentlewoman from nevada. what is your point of order? >> you did not call on the person that moved to go on. could you please call on that person, recognize that person
first? thank you. >> i'm sorry. i don't know what you mean, call on the person who wanted to go on? >> that called the question. >> yes i did. >> i didn't hear that. >> i did. >> the delegate from maryland made that motion. the vote will be on the call for the question. those of you in favor of voting immediately on the amendment motion, please say aye. those opposed? the call for the question passes. the vote now is on the amendment proposed by the gentleman from virginia and kansas. all those in favor of the motion say aye. those opposed say no.
the ayes have it. the motion is passed. the next amendment is the amendment by a gentleman from new mexico, mr. gardner. >> madam chair this next amendment is included in the amendment we just adopted so i withdraw the amendment with the chair's permission. >> without objection, the amendment's withdrawn. i have two from you. are all three of yours being withdrawn? >> no, ma'am. just the first one. >> okay. what i have before me is page 3, line number 11. after tax to respect traditional family values, that is correct? >> madam chair, members of the committee, that is correct. this is language to add on to the end of the language that we just adopted.
this is language that calls for a constitutional amendment to return control over marriage to the states. with due respect to my colleagues from nevada and from new mexico, this language we are talking about here is not duplicative. it says for that reason as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the supreme court's redefinition of marriage. this section we are talking about here today is that section where we elsewhere explain why we don't accept that particular supreme court decision. to make sure there is consistency between the section we passed yesterday that calls for constitutional amendment, i move we add this additional language into this section here so in both places we are calling for the same action. >> is there a second to the gentleman's motion? there is a second. the gentlewoman from new york.
>> thank you, madam chairman. has a dead horse been beaten enough yet? it's a question. >> what is the question? >> the language being repeated again, similar amendments again and again and again? we know we are not gay happy or gay supportive here but again and again and again, the dead horse has been successfully beaten. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i would note the amendment we just passed has replaced the sentence that the gentleman from new mexico is speak seeking to add to. it currently reads the last amendment says we therefore support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions. i would just ask the gentleman from new mexico to reconsider the placement, maybe this should be a new sentence.
>> madam chair, i would be happy to make that a new sentence. the point of this amendment is in the previous plank platform we already adopted, we called for two forms of action related to the marriage decision. judges with a different view point and then also a constitutional amendment. in the language we have here, we are addressing judges. this amendment addresses the constitutional amendment prong of our approach. >> what you have here is not a complete sentence. will you allow the staff to make that a complete sentence or do you wish to make it a complete sentence? >> i would request unanimous consent to say in lieu thereof we support. we support a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. >> that makes it a sentence. is there unanimous consent to
accept that language? any further discussion? there is a second to the amendment. gentlewoman from washington. >> thank you, madam chair. i actually don't think we need this amendment. i think that the defending marriage against an activist judiciary with what was presented in the amendment before speaks in total to what we would want to accomplish by any other language. >> the gentleman from nebraska? >> new hampshire. >> new hampshire, i'm so sorry. >> that's quite all right. just from a practical point of view, i don't think we need this amendment because a constitutional amendment, as you know, requires 2/3 of the house and senate and 2/3 of the states to vote for it. and 32 states have already
passed a marriage amendment. the practicality of this ever happening is not there. we should try to sell something that we can actually sell. this is a document that we're putting out there to sell to the american people, and we're trying to advertise something that can never happen. >> amen. >> earlier the gentlewoman from north dakota had her hand up. >> thank you, madam chair. i call for the question. >> is there a second? the vote will be on calling the question on the amendment by mr. gardner. all those in favor of calling the question, please say aye. any opposed? now the vote will be on the motion by mr. gardner and the
wording is on the screen for you to see. all those in favor of passing the amendment by mr. gardner that's on the screen, please say aye. those opposed? >> i think we better have a show of hands on that. those in favor of passing the amendment, please hold up your hand and keep it up for a while so folks can count. you all put them up late, they may not be counted, so you better put them up early.
this amendment is a technical correction. it addresses page 3, line 32 where marriage is described as a union of husband and wife. in the platform that we, the plank we passed yesterday on values, we used the language one man and one woman. so this amendment changes this language here to use the same verbiage in both places. with that i urge adoption. >> there is a motion and a second. anyone else wish to debate the amendment? the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i just have a point of clarification. what's written on here is a man and a woman, but you're saying one man and one woman, which i approve of that language over a man and a woman.
>> will the gentleman of new mexico like to clarify that? >> thank you, madam chairman. in the american values plank of the page 1, line 18, it does use the phrase the union of one man and one woman, so i would like to keep the phrase one man and one woman in this plank that's under discussion now. thank you, madam chairman. >> so the motion has been modified to say one man and one woman. that is the motion before us. there's a second. no further discussion. all those in favor of adopting this amendment please say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed. the motion is approved. the next motion is the -- from the gentlewoman from louisiana, and it is page 6, lines 11
through 12. the gentlewoman from louisiana. >> sandy mcdaid from louisiana. it's not that long. it basically says that after coverage and will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage. we urge all states and congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer or sell fetal tissue from elective abortions for research and we call on congress to enact a ban on any sell of fetal body parts. in addition taxpayers should not be forced to fund organizations like planned parenthood so long as they provide or refer for elective abortion or sell fetal body parts, rather than provide health care. in this -- in this amendment, i think that's just like we need to name radical islamic trip. we need to name planned parenthood. that is the organization that we have seen. we know that they either discuss
and probably sell livers and hearts and brains from aborted children, and we're recommending that congress has nothing -- outlaws that quite frankly. >> the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> thank you. i agree with all -- i agree with the sentiment certainly in this amendment. however, i think we -- it's not necessary to be redundant. for instance, if you look at the second to the last line of her amendment, planned parenthood, as long as they provide or refer to elective abortion or sell fetal body parts, if you look at the text on page 6, line 11, we almost say that identical statement, just two lines above. so in addition we also state in the amendment that we oppose, you know, using fetal tissue for
elective abortion. i mean, i think -- i think -- i would recommend to the gentle laid frelouisiana that she withdraw this from the moment and carefully consider what that -- to amend this, to narrow it down that those things that are not already addressed in the platform. >> i will be happy to do that, but you may note that we strike from line 11 all the way through coverage and striking that language and inserting a different language but i'll be happy to work to make this an easier, more readable amendment if that's what you would like to do. >> thank you. >> would you be clarifying with the delegate from louisiana on that language, because i just want to make sure it doesn't sit out in space because this is our last section? >> okay. i'll consult with her. >> thank you, sir. >> okay. so we'll put this amendment aside temporarily while you all
work together on it. >> point of order? point of order? >> point of order. >> hello. >> yes, sir, the gentleman from new mexico. >> no, new jersey. >> close. >> madam chair, while they are confirming one thing that this amendment does not mention, first of all, it was my belief that the sale of body parts was already illegal, but what was happening is that these clinics under the guise of processing and transportation fee were actually getting money so if you can incorporate that language which prohibits getting either a processing or a transportation fee for these body parts, that may cut out that loophole where they were found to be getting paid, where the legislation quite frankly already exists so please keep that in mind while you're developing language for this amendment. >> the gentlewoman from louisiana has heard the gentleman from new jersey's comments. >> yes, i have, thank you.
>> the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized to offer her language. page 6, line 37. >> and it is related. in the meantime, until that would be illegal, the fetal harvesting. in the meantime we call on congress to ban the barbaric practice of dismembership abortion a process which tears the unborn from him to limb and outlaw fetal harvesting and to end the practice of misleading women on the -- i don't -- on the so-called fetal harvesting consent form, a fact revealed by the 2015 investigation of the -- by the center for medical progress. i want to the add do theorg on there. >> when the gentle woman read her amendment she read some words that i don't have on my copy or on my screen. >> after the word of
dismembership abortion, a method which tears unborn children limb from limb and facilitates fetal harvesting, and then you can start up again as the states are starting to do, and to end the practice of misleading women on the, and i want to move so-called in front of the word fetal. on the so-called fetal harvesting consent form, a fact revealed by the 2015 investigation by the center for medical progress. >> i think you've got -- >> dotorg. >> i think you filled in. some of the words are not spelled correctly and the scribes will get that. >> i editorialized that for a minute and that form that is on their website under their documents says on there that if you sign this form you're agreeing to give away pregnancy tissue and maternal blood. it also says that women are --
and this is going to be used to treat and has been used to treat and cure diseases like diabetes, parkinson's, alzheimer's, cancer and aids, all of which is false. thank you. >> the gentlewoman has made a motion. is there a second? >> there is a second. all right. oh, excuse me. the gentlewoman from alaska. >> judy el inning from alaska. even though i agree with this, i'm going to vote against it. it seems that we are voting on the same things over and over and over again, and i would just ask that if we have a -- have something we really believe in, like this, that we have one statement that is consistent throughout the platform, but it seems like that we're just saying -- saying the same thing in 100 different ways so that is
just a comment. it's just -- it's just, folks, gotten ridiculous. >> you know, from the very beginning we've talked about the fact that the platform is too long. i don't know if there may come a discussion about doing that and allowing the staff to do that at some point, but it seems like people really want to keep their comments in particular sections. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i'll call the question. >> the gentleman from california calls the question. is there a second? second. the vote will be on the motion from the gentleman from calgary to call the question. all those in favor say aye. any opposed? the motion now is on the language that's been presented by the gentlewoman from kansas. all those in favor of inserting -- of accepting her amendment, please say aye?
>> 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