tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 22, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
announcer: friday, a discussion and that military strategy in the middle east. announcer: washington journal, life every day with news and policy issues. coming up on friday, jeff will join us by phone to discuss the debate over the removal of confederate monument in new orleans. mitch landrieu has backed the efforts to remove a number of monuments on public land.
the city remains divided. smithiana smith -- hannah will be on to discuss the burwell case, dealing with religious liberties and affordable care act contraceptive mandate. nirvanamber of the band will join us to discuss the role -- edification for a variety of electoral reform. the sure to watch washington journal on friday morning. american history tv on c-span3 this weekend. saturday evening, on the civil war, historians discuss why the south fought the civil war in why the north one. he examines arguments made by former confederates justifying their split from the union and their defeat.
among the common myths about the war. >> they felt compelled to explain why it was that this devastation had occurred in, for example, 25% of white men between the ages of 20-45 were dead. not just casualties, dead. announcer: sunday morning on road to the white house, the whichampaign of gary hart began with it for our colorado senator and as he gives candidacy. then a news conference where he faced questions about an alleged affair. finally, his investment to withdraw from the race. on artifacts, a curator on the life of dolores where to get her involvement in the farmworkers movement. >> and she paid the union to but herone out, anyone
to negotiate the contract that she was at the forefront of that effort for a reason. [indiscernible] announcer: at 8:00, -- >> he said, those son of a those partners, did any of them invite me to play golf at their fancy country clubs? did any of them invite me to their clubs? it just goes on and on -- >> his lip was quivering. that is one of the few times that i was so close that he was a very well-contained, disciplined man -- the very disciplined. he even did then when he was -- he erected.
[ was just saying -- expletive]. announcer alexander butterfield roof announcer: -- alexander butterfield. announcer:for the complete american history tv we can schedule, go to c-span.org. the republican national committee is holding its anyone spring meeting in hollywood, florida. the rnc standing rules committee met to make recommendations on the rules for the republican convention to be held in july. this is one hour. .hour >> let's come to order, please. my name is bruce ash.
we are calling the meeting to order at this time. i'd like to call to the dais cindy costa from south carolina to give the invocation. cindy. ms. costa: please pray with me. o lord, how excellent is your name in all the earth. father as we come together to deliberate the rules of our party, i ask that you give us a unity of spirit that goes beyond our understanding. i ask that in all we do, lord, we consider the needs of others as more important than our own and we trust that in all of this, lord, you are leading and guiding us. we thank you and praise you for this day in the name of my lord and savior jesus christ that i pray, amen. mr. ash: thank you, cindy.
i now call on ross little, national committee member from louisiana, to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. mr. little: join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. ash: thank you, ross. vicki drummond is the assistant secretary for the rules committee appointed, i'll ask vicki to call the roll. ms. drummond: those i do not see present. ellen baras.
damon watkins, idaho. louisiana, ross little. maine, ashley ryan. mississippi, henry barber. north dakota, carlie hogland. northern marianas, bill. pennsylvania, robert gleason. tennessee, john ryer. tom meckler, texas. west virginia, conrad lucas. wisconsin, brad courtney. proxy. mr. chairman, we have a quorum. mr. ash: thank you, vicki. vicki took a silent roll prior to clarifying these last names.
with me at the front of the room are lewis pope, vice chairman of the standing committee on rules and national committee member from maryland. next to him, vicki drummond, our assistant secretary. and to my far left, sharon day, the co-chairman of the r.n.c. to my right is al gauge, a professional registered parliamentarian and lastly, jim bopp, special counsel to the standing committee on rules. before we get started today, as a reminder, and for the purpose of the court reporter, when you speak in committee this afternoon, please identify yourself by stating your name and the state you represent into the microphone so the record can properly reflect the business we conduct. also in accordance with our usual practice, without
objection, we'll limit debate by members this is afternoon to five minutes per member. for each main motion. under robert's rules, each member will be allowed to speak two times on any particular issue. in front of you is the agenda for the rule committees meeting. without objection, we'll conduct this meeting according to that agenda. hearing no objection, let's proceed. the first order of business is approval of minutes from the 2016 winter meeting. is there a motion to approve? >> so moved. mr. ash: is there a second? any debate? all those agree, say aye. opposed, say nay. great, the ayes have it. we're off to a good start today. a couple of introductory remarks before we get started.
there's been a little bit written in the press and amongst -- talk amongst ourselves over the past few days about the work of this committee. let's be clear about one thing. this committee has done one great job since it first came together in april, 2013. [applause] mr. ash: the package we present to the r.n.c. will be as strong as any we have had in recent history, the work that this committee has performed under the rule 12 changes have changed the shape of the party and have guided us through this selection cycle. so i thank you for all your hard work. and now to the hard work of today's meeting.
we'll first go into unfinished business. first postponed amendment proposal is on rule 5. this is the chairman-co-chair ticket. the first postponement amendment proposed concerns rule 5. this amendment proposal would require that candidates for chairman and co-chairman run together on a ticket. the pending question is on the motion to adopt the amendment proposal to rule 5. to require the chairman and co-chairman to run together as a ticket. i'll recognize suzy hudson, would you like speak on the motion? ms. hudson: thank you. suzy hudson, national committee woman from vermont. i do not believe the rules should be changed at this point in time. i would like to withdraw my amendment. mr. ash: without objection, so ordered. our second postponed amendment proposal is on carve out states.
it concerns rule 16 this amendment proposal would strike the second sentence of rule 16-c-1 in its entirety, eliminating the carve outs for iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, and nevada from delegate -- from the delegate selection criteria. the pending question is the motion to adopt the amendment proposal to rule 16 to strike the second sentence of rule 16-c-1 in its entirety. i recognize enid mickelson from utah. ms. mickelson: enid mickelson, national committee member from utah. this is a discussion we need to have again someday but i would submit that this is not that day. i would submit, mr. chairman, that in the supercharged political environment in which
we find ourselves, that this is not the time to be debating rule changes to our rules and accordingly, as much as i think this deserves future attention, i withdraw it at this time. mr. ash: there is a motion a second to withdraw. without objection, we withdraw the motion. >> you have somebody that wants to speak to it. mr. ash: dr. fisher, please approach. ms. fisher: i agree about taking it off the table but when i read it, i didn't know what they were trying to achieve. it would be nice when these motions come up for people to clarify what it is that the intent is so when we go back and reconsider that, i have no idea in reading this motion what was attempted to be achieved. that would be nice to put when it's brought back.
just a statement. mr. ash: thank you, dr. fisher. any other comments? mr. dupree. mr. dupree: i'm in support of enid's motion to withdraw it as it's an inappropriate time. i would point out that all three of our candidates for president have supported and indicated their support for rule 16-c. i think we should wait until we have further rules meetings at the convention before this is reconsidered. mr. ash: thank you. any other comments? any other objection? hearing none, we'll withdraw the proposal as discussed earlier. the next order of business will be presubmitted amendment proposals and i'll call upon solomon yue for an amendment proposal to rule 30. if you'll state your motion.
mr. yue: solomon yue, republican national committee man for oregon. before i state my motion i would like to say thank you, mr. chairman ash, for standing up for the dissenting voice, i'm very, very grateful and i am also grateful right now i will be heard. my motion is very, very simple and for transparency, i would like to move to amend rule 30 and to read as follows. should i read it? mr. ash: sure. mr. yue: the rules of the house of representatives of the united states shall be the rules of the convention except that the current authorized addition of robert's rules of order, newly revised robert's rules of order shall be the rules for the convention and for the
committees and subcommittees of the convention. insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the rules set forth provided, however, that convention may adopt its own rules concerning the reading of the committee reports and resolutions. mr. ash: for clarification's sake, actually, i think, if i'm understanding your motion, it is to strike the first sentence that's all underlined, the rules of the house of representatives of the united states shall be the rules of the convention except that. what you're wanting to do is delete that in its entirety and then move on to your motion to make roberts rule, is that correct? mr. yue: correct. mr. ash: is there a second? a second from dr. fisher. mr. yue, if you'll proceed with the presentation.
mr. yue: thank you, mr. chairman. the reason i introduce this motion, it was very, very simple and i was running for re-election for my fifth term, my committee members didn't want to talk about anything else but convention rules. actually, one created the controversy, he said that all rules -- i mean members not elected from their state committees and delegates to national convention should be unbound on the first ballot and that created controversy on top of that, the issue was whether or not we are going to change other rules. members are very, very concerned and want me to deal with this and one issue that came out was in 2012, then speaker boehner was reading teleprompter,
announced convention rules passed, and yay has it, and meanwhile, people in the visitors' gallery screaming yay and nay and also tried to vote. one of the reasons he did not recognize our parliamentary inquiry point of order and division of the house was that we were operating under house rules. let me show you what happened to house rules, about 1,500 pages long, compared to roberts. and so in order to address this issue and i decided to propose an amendment and bring transparency to the body. at a convention. and of course when i introduced that and i didn't realize
instantly lots of issue happened and were raised and since then, i have been studying this and one of the issues that came up was under roberts, if they -- the motion to reopen nomination. and majority had to vote on it. majority of delegates. and the house rule, presiding officer and convention chairman has the authority to decide. and that concerns me. like everybody said, this is a political supercharged year. and we can't afford to have another incident like we had in 2012. that will blow up the convention and this party as well as cause us to lose in november the white house fight.
now, if we lose the white house fight in november, we give obama a third term to complete his radical transformation of america. i don't think i want to see that, especially as an immigrant and found freedom in this country and found this party as a home. to me, another term of obama, we lose everything. let me direct you to one of the stories in 1975, my communist teacher show us a propaganda film "saigon evacuation." remember all those u.s. helicopters lifted vietnamese refugees from u.s. embassy rooftop to u.s. aircraft carrier. her point was, it was u.s. empiricism.
all i could think about was how lucky those vietnamese refugees were when they lost their country, our marine choppers lifted them to freedom. i found freedom. ladies and gentlemen, do you realize if we don't do it right for this party, and we lose this election, there wouldn't be a chopper for you and me. so for that reason and i want to introduce this resolution to make sure minority rights, dissenting voices will be heard at a convention. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ash: is there additional debate, additional comments? i recognize dr. fisher. ms. fisher: dr. ada fisher, north carolina. i never read the congressional rules. so when we say we're going to
play by those rule, i don't know what we're playing by. it's not a matter of obama or anything else. it's a matter of the constitution and trying to be fair. and in our state, everybody abides by robert's rules of order. i think everybody knows robert's rules of order. unfortunately, what may end up happening is everybody thinks they're an expert on robert's rules of order and have as much discord as you had when you didn't have it. but i vote in favor of transparency so everybody is operating on the same playing field and we know the rules that we are operating under and so i supported this because i thought it was the right thing to do and it has nothing to do with the politics, etc. i'd like to see democrats and everybody else play by the same rules, thank you. mr. ash: before we move any further, if we could, i'd like to call for a moment upon special counsel james bopp to discuss briefly some of the differences between house and u.s.
mr. coffman. >> a point of parliamentary inquiry. isn't it a rule of ours that only members of the committee speak? mr. ash: that's correct. it would take a rule to suspend the rules to allow mr. bopp. mr. coffman: i object to anyone else but a member to speak today. i object to anyone speaking who is not a member, mr. chairman. mr. ash: the acoustics, i could probably hear you better if you were talking to me without a microphone. hold on just one moment.
mr. ash: the chair rules on your motion and finds you are in order. mr. bopp can't give a special presentation. there may be sometime in the debate where a question comes up where he may answer something for the benefit of the body but to give a presentation, that won't happen at this time. thank you very much. mr. evans. mr. evans: randy evans from the state of georgia. first of all, i want to say thank you to my colleague, solomon yue. i appreciate the good work he has done for this committee. i rise in opposition, however, to his motion for a number of reasons. first and foremost, we're basically in the seventh inning of the ballgame and i don't
think it's right that you would change the rules of the game in the middle of the game so you had rules in first seven innings and then got to the eighth and ninth inning, got to the end of the game and said, hey, we're going to have a whole new set of rules. we're going to convert from several notebooks to this book which is, i might add, rather fine print even for a lawyer. and so i would say that i don't think we should be changing the rules in the middle of the game because it's extremely dangerous. i think second and equally important is, as everybody acknowledges, this is a very hotly contested election. and any change that we make would be viewed with a large degree of cynicism. one of my colleagues pointed out to me that if we change the semicolon to a comma, there would probably be a debate about why that was so important and one candidate would think it was to favor a different candidate. so in that level of cynicism where you can't even change punctuation, the idea that you'd replace the entire operating
manual for the floor of the house could only be viewed by any one candidate as an attempt to favor another candidate and that's extremely dangerous. i think it also leads to what i refer to as the unintended consequences. one of the challenges we face is that we have to complete all our business within four days. robert's rules is a necessarily arduous process. if we were to end the convention at the end of the four days without an a nominee, the net effect would be to have to have another convention where all the delegates would come back unbound and we would literally wipe out the votes of millions of americans who cast their votes in their respective primaries. also, i thought it was interesting that there's -- that somehow the suggestion that, which i don't know where it came from, which is that house rules empower the speaker or the
chairman to a larger extent than robert's rules. the fact of the matter is, having served as the counsel to two republican speakers, newt gingrich and denny hastert, having lived under the house rules, the fact of the matter is that the house rules vest the power in the majority. the speaker is merely the manifestation of the majority. and i think that we are well served by letting a majority of the delegates on the floor of the convention have the ultimate say and the house rules are designed to do that, which is to empower the majority of the delegates so no convention gets hijacked by a minority at any given point in time. in terms of just a comparison of the volumes here, that's an interesting thing, i've done that in front of juries before but i always opened up the books because if you look at the fine print in these, it's just regular typeset. it's what you see here on the screen. now to my fellow colleagues here
on the committee, i want you to take your book and i want you to open it up and tell me what the size font is on those pages. that gives you a flavor of how we lawyers win. it's called fine print. you can't get finer print than this. and that's another reason why i think that that's a little bit on the misleading side. mr. yue raised the possibility that somehow that the house rules would increase the chances of reopening nominations. over the robert's rules. well, candidly, as these rules, even his rule, points out, either the house rules or the convention rules only come into play if there is not an r.n.c. rule. there is an r.n.c. rule, rule 40-e that says once the voting starts you continue to vote until someone wins 1,237 delegates, period, point, end of question. that doesn't change, regardless of which one of these two sets
of rules that we would operate under. but my biggest single point is this. delegates have run, they are being elected to serve on the floor of the national convention. they have the right to choose their own rules. i see no reason why we, who have yet to be elected to that rules committee, some of whom have not been elected to serve as a delegate in that convention, should try to tell them anything about what they should or shouldn't do. these are all very sophisticated delegates coming to cleveland to do their jobs and i candidly think we should let them do that. we shouldn't weigh in and tip the scales in advance. we shouldn't change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. we shouldn't risk cynicism by our candidates and most of all we should try to avoid the unintended consequences when you make such a dramatic change on the eve of a convention. thank you. mr. ash: thank you, sir. ms. mickelson. ms. mickelson: enid mickelson of
utah. i rise in opposition for the following reason. many of you know, but some of you do not, that i have the great privilege to serve in the 104th congress. when the republican party took over in january of 1997 for the first time in 40 years. i had the further great privilege to be appointed to the rules committee by speaker of the house newt gingrich. i dealt with these rules, i explained them to others, i presided over the house under these rules. we conducted all of our rules meetings in accordance with these rules. and i would venture to say that perhaps except for my friend randy evans, i know these rules better than anybody else in the room. mr. chairman, when i was put on that committee, the chairman, jerry solomon, gave me a
beautiful, leather bound book that contained the rules of the house, commentary on rules of the house, and the united states constitution. that book is only about three inches thick and so i'm a little baffled by the number of binders that we have here representing the rules of the house, because the rules of the house, signed by jerry solomon, still sit on my bookshelf in a place of great honor. because they meant the world to me and it is only about this thick. now, if we were going to get into a point by point discussion on what the house rules do versus what robert's rules of order do, i probably would start with one example but i'll only give you one. the one i'd start with is the fact that under robert's rules of order, if you want to suspend a rule, let's say, rule 40-b,
you only require a majority under robert's rules of order. under the house rules, you need 2/3 affirmative vote to suspend the house rules. now, figure out under which set of rules a chairman has greater power. it is not this book. excuse me, it is this book. i got myself wound up. i apologize. robert's rules of order gives a chairman far more power and discretion than the rules of the house of representatives. now, we could go on all day, taking it point by point. i'm not going to do that for this reason. because i agree with randy evans, this is not the time for
us to suggest major changes or even minor changes. to the rules. in three months, the rules committee of the convention will come together, they can, if they choose, adopt all of the recommendations we have made over the last four years. but they can, if they choose, completely disregard that and start from scratch. so i would suggest that our making a change of this magnitude at this point is the worst possible thing that we can do to inspire the confidence of the delegates in our home states that we are not putting our i think if thorne scale for any candidate. robert's rules of order did not come down from mount sinai as holy writ.
it is a tool. it is a tool to be used to help a minority be protected but allow a majority to do their will. the house rules are a different tool that achieve the same thing but have been attuned and used since the day we nominated abraham lincoln to allow the business of this convention to go forward. let's not change horses in the middle of the stream, as the old western adage goes. i urge you to vote against this resolution. mr. ash: thank you. john ryder. mr. ryder: mr. chairman, john ryder of tennessee. i want to make a couple of points here and first remind everybody that first, the power of this committee to change the rules ceased to exist on october 1, 2014.
rule 12 which enabled us to reform the debate process and reform the primary calendar gave us authority to make effective changes to the r.n.c. rules. but that authority ended on september 30, 2014. since that date, we have only the power in this committee to make recommendations that are submitted to the convention rules committee and where the delegates can then, the delegates select convention members of the rules committee will make the final decision. so we are being asked today through this proposed amendment to make a suggestion to the convention rules committee, which they will consider in due course, that subjects this committee to enormous political criticism for attempting to alter the balance in the convention.
that reason alone is sufficient to reject this amendment. but let me make a couple of other points, which are, first, both the democrats and the republicans have used the rules of the house of representatives continuously since the mid 19th century to nominate their candidates for president. the only exception in the republican party, since 1856, since our first convention, was in 1884 when the rules applied were cushing's manual. with that one exception it's been the rules of the house of representatives. our rules, you know this book, supersede the rules of the house of representatives. and the two sets of rules have evolved in tandem, in a symbiotic relationship. so in the experience we have gained over the past 160 years, we have adapted our rules to
accommodate those problems that exist under the rules of the house of representatives. we have a system that we actually know works. we're being offered a system that might work. might even be a superior system. but we don't know that. and it's never been tested in a national political convention in this country. and ladies and gentlemen, given the dynamics of this convention, is this the convention where you want to try out for the first time a new set of operating rules for the conduct of the convention and the nomination of the next president of the united states? i think not. i think i'm a small c conservative as well as a big c conservative and i think this is a point where our conservative instincts as well as our principles should come into play and we should preserve that which has served us well for 160 years.
now there are three small points i want to make in response to what mr. yue said. first, he raised the issue about the vote at the 2012 convention on the report of the rules committee and the conduct of that vote by a voice vote. if you attended the meeting of the committee on arrangements yesterday, you saw the demonstration of an electronic voting technique which rule 37-d of our rules permits to be used for everything except the nominating process itself. and with that electronic voting system, which would post the tallies on the board, we would avoid the problem of having people in the convention hall, in the galleries, who are casting voice votes on a measure to which they are not entitled to vote. and it would make it clear, the chairman could clearly announce the results of the vote and it would be transparent and i think it would avoid some of the problems we experienced. second, as ms. mickelson pointed
out, under the rules of the house of representatives, as applied with our rules, the chair of the convention cannot unilaterally open the floor to nominations. this is a myth that seems to be circulating in the blogosphere, and it's wrong. our rule 40 has a nominating process which must be followed. nominations are not permitted outside of our rule 40 which takes precedence over the house rules or over robert's for that matter. the only way that could be changed would be to suspend the rules, rule 32 of our rules provides that the rules can be suspended on a motion of any delegation at any time, provided that it receives a second from seven states. then you go to the rules of the house of representatives and rule 15-1-a provides that it
takes 2/3 vote to suspend the rules of the house. so there is not a possibility of opening up nominations without a suspension of the rules. and mr. chairman, i've laid out the process for suspending the rules. for all of those reasons and a myriad of others that we could go into, i would urge you to reject the proposed amendment. thank you very much. mr. ash: thank you, mr. ryder. helen van etten. ms. van etten: in light of listening to those compelling explanation of the rules, house rules versus robert's rules, i feel like that everybody has -- i would like to move to refer mr. yue's motion to a committee appointed by the chairman of the rules to examine the proposal, the pros and cons at a later day, maybe the next rule
committee meeting. mr. ash: there's a motion on the floor to send this to a committee appointed by the chairman that would be put off until the next rules committee meeting. dr. van etten, could you give us the size -- suggest the size of the committee that you recommend and who makes the appointment? ms. van etten: i would leave that to the experts, i'm not sure what size the committee. mr. ash: it has to be in your motion. ms. van etten: 56. [laughter] no, i just feel like this is something we probably, this is not a good time to discuss it, i would like to refer it back out to the committee. two from each region.
i'm sorry. mr. ash: is your motion, dr. van etten, to have two members from each of the four regions appointed to this committee and who would make the appointment? ms. van etten: the chairman of the rules committee. mr. ash: there's a motion on the floor, i believe it's been properly seconded by solomon yue, to refer this matter to a committee which would be chaired by myself and the chairman would appoint two members of this committee from each region to discuss mr. yue's amendment to rule 30. this committee would come back with their report after meeting in between now and our july meeting and make a report which this committee would then vote on. for approval or disapproval.
there is debate that is acceptable on a motion of this type. is there any debate on the motion? mr. kent. mr. kent: mr. chairman, jeff kent, national committee member from washington state. we've come quite a ways down this pathway, there's been a lot of debate today and a lot of thought over the last week, and a lot of discussion over the last week. i think we're capable of continuing on and fulfilling our responsibilities and duties here today. i heard the joke about 56 members on this particular committee but the truth is, we have 56 members on this committee and we should be dealing with this issue today. the main reason i could give for not sending this to committee is, as we all know, we've been accused of plotting to change the rules at the last minute and we've been accused of trying to do that behind closed doors and so forth. as everybody know the doors are wide open today. you can see the cameras at the back of the room. everybody is watching, everybody can see what we do.
i would hate for us to take action right now to send this to what would be described as a smaller committee, meeting in a back room, without the cameras around for the purpose of coming up with a rules change and not only that, they would come back and make a referral to this committee much closer to the convention than today. it's already a supercharged environment and too close to the convention to be taking up a rule change anyways, and we're only going to make that worse by punting the can down the road. we see congress do this all the time, let's not do it ourselves. let's defeat the motion to commit to committee and continue on with our business. mr. ash: thank you. one moment, please. just a clarification from the parliamentarian, i think i said
it before but just in case i didn't this committee would meet between tomorrow and when we meet again in july, before the convention starts and our r.n.c. super committee and make a report to this committee. just so the record is complete and we have no questions about that. mr. yue, before i take your comments, is there anybody else who wishes to speak who hasn't yet spoke on the referral to committee. just on that point. >> since dr. yue raised the question in the first place. mr. ash: if you could identify yourself. >> i'm chris from nevada, representing diana aurach by proxy. since dr. yue made the motion to amend and is now willing to refer it to more detailed examination, i would support the motion to refer. mr. ash: thank you. any other comments on the
referral? mr. little first. mr. little: i'm in favor of this motion. it's generated so much controversy and so much interest and we have not been able to hear from the report of mr. bopp that could be incorporated into this motion and i believe we all know it's going to ultimately be determined by the convention and it would be helpful for them to have the benefit of whatever analysis this committee happens to come up with. mr. ash: i think we had janet up at the podium before. i'll take you in just a second. >> based on what i'm getting from our grass roots, i would support the motion to look at this. i think as a p.r. move it would be wise to be able to come out with something, this is not going to be a bibliography of the house rules versus robert's
rules, but a way to address what's coming up, and i think if we do that, whether it's addressed at the convention is secondary but the ability to at least take a look at these and see what we're doing, i don't think we need to do the whole documents but i'm in favor of it. mr. ash: i think mr. dickey was up before. mr. dickey of ohio. mr. dickey: thank you. jim dickey of ohio. i rise, mr. chairman, to admit that i'm a bit confused. i went to barnes and noble to try to get a copy of robert's rules of order and found out that there are eight current versions of robert's rules of order that are newly revised versions by various people. the one we've actually circulated here today, the 11th edition is not the latest edition even of that particular
version of robert's rules of order. there's a 12th edition. and i would just ask that at the appropriate time that the committee clarify which version we're talking about. mr. ash: great point. we do have a registered parliamentarian, he may want to speak on the particular question that you raise, briefly. mr. gauge, i think you have a microphone. mr. gauge: the 11th edition is the current edition. mr. ash: mr. dickey, to answer your question, if there is a referral to committee, there will be appropriate reference to the version that would be used, of course. mr. romano, i think you're up now mr. romano: j.r. romano, chairman. i rise in opposition of the committee. i think we're here to do work.
it's time for us to move on past this. i would like to stop receiving the press calls and conversations about the rules of the convention when ultimately we are making recommendations to a convention rules committee and quite frankly i'd much rather get the phone calls to talk about just how terrible hillary clinton is, how there's a lack of enthusiasm amongst democrats and how well we are doing versus what's going on with our rules. so i rise in opposition. let's get done with it today. i think it would be in the best interest of all of us. mr. ash: thank you. [applause] mr. king. mr. king: steve king, national committee member from wisconsin. i, too, rise to oppose this motion. i am convinced by the statements of mr. evans and mr. ryder that this would only further what is to me an obvious conclusion that we must remain with the house rules. we've been studying this for a long time, operated on these rules for 160 years. granted, we all operate under robert's rules at state and local level but the house rules
grant the chairman of our convention the right to rule by majority at the convention, that's what needs to happen. we don't need to study it any further. i oppose the motion. mr. ash: thank you, sir. any further comments before or against? henry barber. mr. barber: henry barber of mr. speaker. i oppose ms. van etten's proposal. i do believe that this committee can handle it, all 56 of us. we should defer to the convention rules committee. it's their job, not our job to change things, whether it's the seventh in, eighth in, i don't know. but let them deal with it. they're the ones who will be empowered by voters to make a decision on 2016. thank you, sir. question has been called for.
>> i think the 2/3 vote and it's nondebatable so we'll go ahead and call the question all those in favor of moving to a vote, signify by saying aye. those opposed say nay. the ayes have it. ok. the vote is on the referral matter and all those in favor of making a referral of mr. yue's amendment request for rule 30, please signify by saying aye. all those not in favor of making the referral of this amendment to a special committee, please signify by saying nee. the nays have it. is there any other business to come before us today? >> we haven't voted on the other
one. mr. ash: one moment. i thought we had disposed of the motion with the decision on the referral. we need to go back now and have either further debate on the main motion, which i'd like to limit to any of you that are currently standing here and then go to a vote. so dr. fisher, mr. blackwell, mr. kent -- one second. if we're going to talk about the amendment for rule 30, we'll go ahead and take that discussion. yes, ma'am. dr. fisher. ms. fisher: dr. fisher of north carolina. point of information, it would be nice since you gave people a copy of robert's rules of order, we could get a copy of the
congressional rules since we've been operating. >> that's available on the u.s. house of representatives. dr. fisher, the current version of the house rules is available on the u.s. house of representatives website. it's a pdf, it's 1,500 pages long. there's also a second version that doesn't have all the commentary and press events of the house that are used to interpret those rules that is also available that's about 50 pages long. you can go to the u.s. house of representatives website. mr. ash: for all the members, i'll talk with our legal staff and in the next couple of days, as they're winding up their affairs here at the spring meet, we'll go ahead and make that link available to everybody on the committee. mr. blackwell. mr. blackwell: morton blackwell from virginia. fellow members of the committee, this is a very complex matter.
there are few, if any, people in this room who are completely conversant with both robert's rules of order and the rule os they have u.s. house of representatives. i worked on the senate staff and i can tell you the number of people in the senate, senators and staff included, who fully understood the rules of the united states senate were about 10 or 12 people. very complex. and i think we should not make a change without considerable discussion. there are questions that need to be asked, for example, if we adopted robert's rules of order, robert's rules provides that any delegate can stand up and make a point of order. and it also provides that that point of order must be dealt with by the chair before further business can be conducted.
do we want to have a convention where 2,500 people are all empowered to raise a point of order, one after another? exceptions, i think, would have to be made to the applications of robert's rules of order to our national convention. it might be, as earlier speakers said, that it -- there would be some improvement but i think it needs to be fully discussed and -- to the point where those on this committee or those on the rules committee of the convention have a good understanding of all of the aspects of it. and so it would be premature for us to make a recommendation right now. we might even decide at the convention at the convention rules committee, to adopt robert's rules of order but not to have that go into effect until the convention four years
from now. there are a lot of options that we have but it's too complex a matter for us to discuss it here, particularly in an environment where no matter how expert someone is, we are limited to speak for five minutes total. so i suggest that it should not be approved. thank you. mr. ash: we'll take mr. kent and then just give mr. yue one last comment. mr. kent: jeff kent, national committee member from washington state. i rise to speak against the motion to change this rule. mostly for the same reason i expressed earlier and that is, we're going to get accused, no matter what we do here, of trying to rig the game and we're going to have to deal with that over and over and over again all the way to the convention. if we take any action whatsoever to change any rule, especially this rule. in the process of explaining my reason here, i have some big thank yous i want to give first. first, to solomon yue for bringing this issue up at open meeting.
i think it's good for the cameras to be focused on us now and see how respectful we are to each other, how thoughtful we are in our arguments and how respectful we are when people stand up to speak. i think it's marvelous, because sometimes we're accused of the opposite of that so i think it's good he brought this up. i know we all respect each other and i appreciate every time someone steps up to the microphone because i learn something every time. so, again, solomon, thank you for bringing this up so we could deal with it in a polite manner in front of the cameras. second, to the member chairman of the committee, you have done a great job of leading us for the last few years of helping us come up with a recommendation to pass on to the committee. it hasn't been easy, we haven't
been easy and i want to thank you. the third group i'd like to thank is the committee itself. we are showing our better sides the third group i'd like to thank is the committee itself. we are showing our better sides today and we've done that over and over and over again, even when the cameras weren't watching. i just really want to extend my appreciation to each and every member of this committee for the hard work that they've done and bruce mentioned it earlier what a great job this committee has done. let's not forget the things that we did accomplish. right out of the gate, we got a package of rules from tampa that everybody agreed was flawed. and our first task was to go about fixing those. and we did a tremendous job of doing that we fixed the mistakes that were made in tampa. then the next thing we were charged to do was to come up with a primary calendar that everybody would obey this time instead of trying to jump ahead of the line as they have in the past. and we developed a primary calendar that worked. a tremendous job done. and then we created a debates committee to do something that
our r.n.c. has never done, and that is participate in the actual organization of our primary debates and that worked. and then we came up with a recommended package of changes we are going to pass on to the next convention and i think we've done marvelous work at that as well. but now i think that work is done and it's time for us to step aside and let the convention rules committee do its job and undertake the changes it wants for its convention. there's 2,472 delegates being elected from every corner of every state by the grass roots of our party. we should trust them. we should yield to them. we should defer to them. and we should defeat this motion. i appreciate your time very much, thank you. mr. ash: thank you, mr. kent. mr. yue, last comment on this topic. mr. yue: mr. chairman, i have an inquiry. at one point, counsel, parliamentarian said i could bring back a side-by-side
comparison between robert's and house rules. can i still bring back before the vote? mr. ash: could you repeat that again? we're having a problem with the acoustics. mr. yue: bring back mr. bopp's report with the side-by-side comparison between the house rules and robert's rules of orders. i think it's important for people to hear before the vote. and two, i think many of the members talking about, let's kick the can down the road. i remember that can being kicked down the road in 2012. did you guys remember? 2012, several members are here, also helped ben ginsberg trying to propose a rules benefit. what happened? we brought the rules committee.
so if we're going to go down that road, i think the side-by-side comparison would be very helpful. mr. ash: thank you, mr. yue. if this matter does come up again in the future, i guess there's a possibility it could at our spring meeting, summer meeting, perhaps that's something that yourself or mr. bopp in an individual capacity might want to do but for the purposes of our time here today, it's time to vote. all those in favor of the motion, which is on the board, and that is to substitute the robert's rules of order for the u.s. house of representatives rules, please signify by saying aye. all those opposed, who wish the keep the u.s. house rules, please signify by saying nay.
the nays have it. the motion is defeated. is there any other business to come before the committee today? mr. rogers. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, pat rogers, national committee man from new mexico. i would move to adjourn. mr. ash: the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. do we have a second? second by mr. coffman. those in favor of the motion to adjourn the meeting, those in favor say aye. those opposed, please say nay. the ayes have it. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> kyle cheney of politico has been following today's rnc rules committee meeting in hollywood, florida. he is joining us on the phone. thank you for joining us. >> great to be here. thank you for having me. nothing changed today. why? >> there has been a lot of pressure and scrutiny on this part of the process that has
been ignored by the companion. -- by the campaign. this year, the rules could end up playing a big role in how the nomination is decided. there is a lot of concern that if the rnc makes too many changes unilaterally, people would complain that they are rigging the process in favor of one candidate or another. they decided to let it all go. >> you and your colleagues have been reporting that there is an all out internal struggle and all of this is being tamped down by the chairman. he succeeded today. what was happening? >> there is a push by some members to change the actual rulebook that the convention uses. the convention as it recently has been operating, is run by the house of representatives rules. the speaker of the house has chaired the convention.
there was a push to change this to arcane, roberts rules which would make it a more driven by the delegates themselves. people supported the change. it would reorient the way the convention is run and lead to complaints. that has been where the struggle has risen from. people accusing each other of not entertaining the new proposal and the chairman being to run a goal and that he is squashing the rule changes that members are proposing. >> how much pressure were they under? from donald trump who has repeatedly said recently that the system is rigged and it has been corrupt within the republican party. >> i don't think he's going up to the rnc saying if you change this is going to be a problem though he did have
representatives at the meeting in florida. they are made aware of the scrutiny on them. the perception that there could be rigging of the system. the bottom line is the delegates themselves will change any rules they want to. the rnc is making recommendations so why stir the pot that the delegates could ignore? >> the next gathering will include delegates from the republican national committee and rnc officials as they meet in cleveland. prior to the start of the republican convention. what potentially could we expect? >> a lot is going to depend on who the delegates are. it's a process we are still in the middle of. ted cruz has had a lot of success. you can expect the rules may reflect changes they want to see enacted as opposed to anything the rnc may choose including
ensuring only ted cruz and donald trump are able to seek the nomination, figuring out ways to limit outside contenders or pressure. >> how much pressure is the rnc chairman under? >> and an norma's amount of pressure. he is threading a difficult needle. a lot of his colleagues are trying to give him credit for dealing with an environment where the front runner is accusing him of the leading of the system against him while having to build up a massive data operation and ground game for the eventual nominee in spite of the hostility between them. it's a difficult position. may be the >> a lot of buildup most difficult in politics today. >> a lot of buildup in hollywood, florida. not much happened today. all eyes on cleveland. kyle cheney of politico, following all of this.
his work is available online at politico.com. thank you for being with us. >> glad to be here. >> we have more coverage of the spring meeting tomorrow with remarks by reince previous and others. life coverage begins on c-span 2. at 10:30 a.m. now more from the rnc spring meeting being held in hollywood, florida. governor rick scott was the featured speaker. governor scott argued for party unity in the presidential campaign. he is introduced by reince previous. this is 15 minutes.
>> welcome back everyone. good afternoon. welcome back. can i get your attention up here? we are obviously in a great place. it's awesome we have a fantastic governor of the state of florida with us today. he is one of the great republican leaders of our country that has not only does what he says, but follows through as a man of his word and a person committed to the promises he keeps. he is also committed to our party. he was helped from the moment i became chairman. making phone calls with me, for me. it is something you never forget. people have their own pressures and their own things to do. he was someone who was always
there and continues to be. his life was characterized by the pursuit of the american dream before becoming governor. he rose from a humble background and went on to serve in the united states navy. he went to college on the g.i. bill. he had an extremely successful career in the health care industry. as governor, he led one of the nation's largest states in economic turnaround that has reduced millions of job and is historic in its own right. he has cut taxes over 50 times and revenue is growing again in florida.
he showed leadership in equipping students across the state by emphasizing stem education, reforms, competition, all the things people .2 now in florida as examples for the rest of the country. i'm proud he is a friend of ours. i'm also proud he is an example of what great leadership can do around this country. he has been our dedicated supporter and a friend. give him a great rnc welcome. the governor of florida. rick scott. [applause] gov. scott: thank you. first off. i want to thank sharon and peter for all they do. i want to thank the turnaround in the republican national committee. when i ran in 2010 as you know, the r.n.c. was not in the same position as it is today. i thank you for everything you have done. [applause]
most important, spend your money. [laughter] gov. scott: that's the deal, you come to you come to florida. you pay 12 5% of sales tax. we love everybody to come to our state. if you don't want to spend all your money, by some. by a second or third or fifth home. the other part of that, your property taxes. this is the best business model you can imagine. i got some good news. you always say the things you try. do they actually work? if you look at our state for the last five years and three month, there is no if and's or about it. conservative principles were. lower taxes, personal freedom.
limited government. all of it works. if you followed my race in 2010, charlie crist did these things. he wrecked our economy. 832,000 people lost their jobs in four years. raise taxes to billion dollars. debt when not by $9 billion. home prices dropped 50%. nearly half of homes are underwater on mortgages. when i got elected, we ran on campaign 7, 7, 7. everybody laughed. there is no way you get 700,000 jobs in seven years.
but to the shock of everybody. we did that. we followed what we believe in, conservative principles. we have cut taxes 55 times. $5.5 billion in tax cuts. cut 4,200 regulations and streamlined the permitting process. we stopped growing our tuition and state colleges and universities. and passed tenure reform. we have accountability in that system and started watching how all the money is spent. and it works. in five years and three months, we have added 1,061,000. [applause]
>> our job rate is 40% faster. labor force growth, 50%. right after i got elected i sat down with governor perry in texas. i said my job is to kick your rear. i'm going to do that every day. he laughed. he said, you lost 800 thousand while we added jobs. i called him 11 straight months when announced employment numbers and let him know every month for 11 months, we beat texas. [applause] >> he is no longer the governor. [laughter] >> and never happened while he was governor. i told him his timing is just good. we've cut debt by $7.5 billion. we cut debt by $7.5 billion.
jobs are coming back to florida. our k-12 system, and beat the nation in reading and math. hispanic students, top of the nation. we cut the cost of a pre-paid plan in half. our university system, highest graduation rates in the united states in the 10 largest states. stem degrees are up. so all the things that we believe in work, because if you think what we believe in, we believe in everybody getting a job, every child having an education and safe community. 44.5% crime low in our state. i have pictures of my mom and dad in my office. i have an adopted father. my mother had tough times. she was married and two children and married and three more lived in public housing but my mother
told me, she said you are lucky because you live in the united states of america. she said thank god we live here because it doesn't matter. you can get out of poverty if you are willing to work hard and study hard. my adopted father had a sixth grade education. the most important thing in his whole life was could he find a steady job. he never did. he was a bus driver and truck driver. he was laid off every holiday season. never had a steady job. today in florida, he could have a steady job. there are 300,000 job openings in this state right now. if you stop and think about it, in five years, we've proven that conservative principles work. now, just imagine what happened if we did the exact same thing at the federal level. if we did the exact same thing we have done in states like florida. follow the conservative principles.
let's look at the presidential race for a second. it's been interesting. which is an understatement, right? we know so many important things about our candidates. we know how tall their bootsr right? [laughter] >> we know the size of their hands. we know who's got the best hair. mine's easier. [laughter] >> we know who has the most beautiful wife. i have been married 19. we know somebody is going to build a wall. ben carson is either the angriest person in the world or the calmest. our candidates have been called all sorts of names. and we know we are going to start winning so much that we are going to be tired of winning. that would be nice. we also know that we all love
ronald reagan. we don't care too much about hillary clinton. we are pro-life and anti-isis. what are we missing? what are not talking about? jobs. if you talked to anybody, in our state where we are headed in the right direction, the job market, growing this economy is still the most important thing on the average person's mind. if we want to win in november, we've got to start talking about how we grow this economy. barack obama's policies, what hillary clinton will do, bernie sanders will do, barack obama has ruined this economy. there is no wage growth. we are not growing -- everything has slowed down.
we have to be rebuild our military and destroy isis, how do you do that with a bad economy? we want to secure our borders, how do you do that without a good economy? the democrats don't have the answers. i mean, they are clueless. what's the newest, best idea? socialism. we all grew up knowing that centralized planning has never worked. it has never worked. but there are new ideas socially. capitalism, growing the economy, jobs, but capitalism has done more to get people like mine out of poverty than any government program that has ever been created. there isn't a program that has done much more than capitalism. [applause]
>> how can we even think we would lose, if we talk about how we are going to make sure everybody, doesn't matter what zip code you come from, has the opportunity for a great job and defend capital imple and let them go defend socialism, we can't lose. now i'm looking forward to the convention this summer. i think we all are. it will be very interesting. i probably have shaken hands with 400,000-plus people in this state. and i listened to voters all the time. and i can give you the things that i think they care about. one, we work for them. when i ran in 2010, i was not the establishment candidate.
the voters made a choice. the voters believed they should choose. number two, we have got to be transparent. we can't take a chance that we are accused of any monkey businesses, tricks, stunts, anything. the third thing is, let's remember the biggest issue, it's jobs, growing the economy. it's capitalism. that's what will do more for people in this country than anything else we can do. we need to talk about jobs and we need to talk about jobs and we need to talk about jobs. i have never met one person that's a high school senior and said, my goal is to live in public housing. i want to be on those food stamps. they all want to work. we have to talk about our -- how
capitalism and growing this economy will be good for everybody. the last thing is, we can't start thinking about 2020. we cannot lose this year. think about your own family, children and in our case, we have four grandsons. this is an important election. whoever the nominee is, we have to support them. and we have to win. i just want to tell you, it's a real honor to be here. i know it's not easy to do what you are doing and a lot of people want to criticize what you are doing. i want to thank you people what you are doing. by the way, move to florida. it's a great place. spend all your money here, buy a few homes here. our budget is growing rapidly. it's a lot easier.
senator elizabeth warren talks about racial disparities in household wealth. later, today's meeting of the rnc permanent rules committee. on theowed by a hearing regulatory process for nuclear power plant designs. tomorrow, more road to the white house coverage of the republican presidential race and donald trump visits harrington, delaware. live coverage begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. >> this sunday night on q&a, his story and run turnout talks
about the hit broadway musical, "hamilton." >> he said to meet ron, i was reading your book while on vacation in mexico. and hip-hop songs were rising off the pages. i was thinking, what on earth is this guy talking about. i think he quickly picked up the fact that he had a world-class ignoramus about hip-hop on his hands. my first question was -- can hip-hop be the vehicle forward telling this kind of large and complex story. youaid ron, i will educate about hip-hop. and he did on the spot. can pack moreu information into the lyrics than any other form because it is very dense. and hip-hop not only has rhymed
endings but it has internal rhyme and he started to educate me in these different devices that are very important to the success of the show. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on q&a. >> senator elizabeth warren talks about the wealth gap in the economic effects of racial discrimination. she calls for tougher -- predatory practices that target the poor. her remarks at the center for global policy solutions are 20 minutes. >> our keynote speaker is a fearless consumer advocate who has made her life work of fight
to get ahead. she is recognized as one of the nation's top experts on bankruptcy and the financial pressures facing amylase. widely credited for the original thinking, political kurds, and relentless persistence that led to the creation of the consumer protection bureau, time magazine called her a new sheriff on wall -- on wall street and named her one of the most influential people in the world multiple times. a law professor for more than 30 years, including 20 years as a leo gottlieb professor of law at harvard law school and a national best-selling author, superhero that may be found in female force. elizabeth warren, a comic book series about empowering women. i must tell you that she is definitely a harder when -- a
heroine of mine. last year, she had two speeches and talked about racism welfare gap -- and economic gap. she talked about racialized violence and denial of the right economicnd denial of opportunity. one quote in particular stood out from that speech for me. she said -- it is time to come down hard on predatory practices that allow financial institutions to systematically strip wealth out of communities of color. one of the ugly consequences of tank deregulation was that there wheno cop on this beat many financial institutions realized they could make great money out of -- by defrauding
targeted release. and we need to make sure that that organization stay strong and independent so it can do its job and make credit markets work for black families, latino families, white families, all families. without further reduce, please welcome u.s. senator elizabeth warren. [applause] senator warren: thank you. that was such a terrific introduction. i am still waiting. want a a superhero, i lasso of truth. you so much. thank you for the wonderful introduction. i am so delighted to have a
chance to be able to talk with you today. i want to talk to you about something that i talk about a lot. i talk about what has happened to america's middle class. built about how america great middle class. and the very compressed version of the story is that coming out of the great depression, america invested in our people. we put more money into education so that more kids would have opportunities. we put more money into infrastructure like roads and bridges and power so that if someone wanted to start a small business or expand a business, all of the basics were early in place. we put more money into research so we could build the great jobs out of these new inventions. and it worked. earlyhe 1930's to the 1980's, gdp keeps going up and
the key is that wages went up right along with it for most americans and that is kind of the fundamental story about the building of america's it'll class. but there is a dark underbelly to this story. median family income was growing for both white families and african-american families, but african-american incomes were only a fraction of white incomes. in the mid 1950's, the median income for african-american families was just a little more than half the median income for white families. and the problem went far beyond income alone. just take a look at housing. for most of america, i mean most of america -- everybody not quite at the top or exactly at the bottom -- for most of america, buying a home is the number one way to buy wealth. it is the retirement plan. pay off the home and live on social security.
it is the college plan. if you need to borrow against the house. it is emergency savings. it's the inheritance to give the kids and the grandkids so the next generation gets a boost. it is the economic foundation of a secure foot hold in the middle class. and for much of the 20th century, that's how it worked for generation after generation of white americans. but not for black americans. entire legal structures were built to prevent african-americans from building economic security through homeownership. legally enforced segregation, land contracts so that coming out of the great depression america built a middle class but systematic discrimination kept most african-american families from being part of it.
the civil rights movement of the 1960's was also an economic movement. during the 1960's and the 1970's, there was some progress in closing the racial wealth gap, but then during the reagan years of the 1980's, that gap exploded. from 1984 to 2009, the wealth gap between black families and white families tripled. think about what that means. if things weren't already bad enough by then, the crash of 2008 made them worse. the housing collapse destroyed trillions of dollars in family wealth across this country, but the crash hit african-american families like a punch in the gut. because middle-class black families' wealth was disproportionately concentrated
in homeownership, these families were hit harder by the housing collapse, but they also got hit harder because of discriminatory lending practices. and i just want to say that again and underline it. discriminatory lending practices in the 21st century. we're not talking about a long time ago. we're talking about now in this country. recently several big banks and other mortgage lenders paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines admitting that they illegally steered black and latino borrowers into more expensive mortgages and white -- than white borrowers who had essentially the same credit. tom perez, who at the time was the assistant attorney general for civil rights, called it the racial surtax and it hurt because during the crash white households lost on average 11%
of their wealth. now, make no mistake, losing 11% of your wealth in one crash, it hurts. it hurts bad. but black households lost over 30% of their wealth, and that is catastrophic. in 2013, the median wealth of white households was 13 times that of black households. and it's still happening. last year the national fair housing alliance filed a discrimination complaint against real estate agents in mississippi after an investigation showed that those agents consistently steered white buyers away from interracial neighborhoods and black buyers away from affluent ones. another investigation showed similar results in multiple cities across our nation.
and in massachusetts, a recent study found that african-americans and latinos were much more likely to be rejected for a mortgage than whites even when they had similar income levels. these discriminatory practices have their intended effect. middle-class african-americans and latinos are much more likely than whites to live in lower income neighborhoods. this means that the children of middle-class african-american and latino parents are more likely to be stuck in underresourced schools and in areas with higher crime rates. another way that wealth is stripped out of our communities of color is through predatory practices that target those who already live on the margins of the mainstream financial system. i want you to think about one part of this. many americans use traditional banks and credit unions to cash their checks, to pay their bills, to borrow money.
but for millions more, traditional banking is essentially closed off. for some the problem is $100 minimum balance to open a checking account and that's not easy to get and easy to maintain. for others, access gets harder because there's simply fewer banks nearby. data show that big banks are closing branches in communities with median incomes below $50,000 at the same time that they are opening branches in communities with median incomes above $100,000. without access to mainstream banks, millions of families turn to check cashers, payday lenders, title loan outfits, and the costs can be crushing. the average family that relies on alternative financial services spends an average of
$2,412 a year, about 10% of their income, just on fees and interest in the financial services system. think about that. just to put that in context, the typical family spends about 10% of its income on food. so these are families who are spending as much on just access to pay your bills and cash your checks and get a small dollar loan from time to time as they spend on food. why? because they can't find a way to use the traditional banking services. now, for those that end up with payday loans, the costs can spiral out of control. a single loan can quickly become a cycle of debt after debt after debt, fee after fee after fee. title loans can be just as bad
but they add the extra pain of losing the car and losing the way to be able to get to work. the business model for many of these lenders are simply to trap people, ensnare families that cannot build enough of a financial cushion to weather the ups and downs. and that trap makes it sure that they will never be able to build that cushion. so how does this happen? well, it happens in part because of deliberate policy choices that are made right here in washington, d.c. deliberate policy choices that favor those with money and power. the choice to leash up the financial cops, right? so the financial institutions are turned loose. the choice to bail out the big
banks while families suffered. the choice to spend our tax dollars on subsidies for big oil and tax breaks for the wealthiest americans instead of investing in economic development in our communities and building more opportunities for hardworking families. one consequence of these choices is that 90% of america sees virtually no wage growth. for african-americans who were so far behind in the early part of the 20th century who got knocked down again in the 1980's, who got hit so hard by the 2008 crash, that means that african-american families have been hit hard once again. and now we need to build an economic future for themselves and for their families. it is up to us to take the
actions necessary, to reduce unemployment, to end wage stagnation, to close the income gap between white and black families. and i know that at this conference there will be a lot of innovative suggestions, a lot of good ideas that people are going to talk about but i am not going to leave this stage without putting three on the table. three things we can do right
now. places where abuses are rampant and too few regulators are paying attention. our first step should be to come down hard on predatory practices that allow financial institutions to systematically strip wealth out of communities of color. can i have an amen on that? \[applause] senator warren: there we go. one of the ugly consequences of bank deregulation was that there was no cop on the beat when too many financial institutions figured out that they could make great money by tricking families, by trapping families and by defrauding families. now we have a consumer financial protection bureau. whooo! we do. and they have already forced the biggest banks in this country to return -- they've been only up and running, think about this, four years -- to return more than $11 billion directly to people who were cheated. they enforce the fair credit laws. they will soon have rules out on payday lending, and they are already working hard to try to clean up some of the worst credit markets. this should matter big time for black families, for latino families, for any families that are repeatedly and systematically cheated.
and it certainly should matter for businesses. a study just released here at the center for global policy solutions found that right now america is losing out on 1.1 million minority owned businesses because of past and present discrimination. this includes discrimination against entrepreneurs of color by obtaining the need they -- they need to launch new businesses. the cfpb is a cop that watches payday lenders. that kind of cop is make a huge difference to families and to communities, but i know you're going to be surprised by this. the banks don't like the cop. and they are lobbying washington hard to try to get rid of that cop, to try to rein in that cop, to try to make that cop not get out there and do the job that
needs to be done. we need to fight to keep the c.f.b. cops strong and independent. that's my first ask. we got to be able there to fight for the agency that's out there to fight for our families. \[applause] financial services, this is the area that i spend a lot of time in. we must reaffirm our commitment to the community reinvestment act. we must reaffirm our commitment to hold banks accountable when they don't meet those obligations. look at it this way. we give banks all sorts of special privileges and what we ask for in return is that they will serve communities. the american people are holding up our end of the bargain, but for too long many banks have not been holding up their end and that has got to stop and force the community reinvestment act.
yep. that's the second one. [applause] and just one more before i get out of here and that is, it is time for the federal government to make real investments in communities of color. dedicate more federal money to affordable housing programs and public transit, invest in education so that every child, every child has a real shot at graduating with the skills they need to get a decent job or go on to college. k-12 education should mean that funding in all public schools is fair and equitable and that our teachers and school leaders are supported and well-trained and motivated to help our kids prepare to succeed. no student should get a second-class education because she lives in a low-income
neighborhood. so that's it for me on this. \[applause] this government works great for the rich and the powerful. it works really well for anyone who can hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers. but it is not working so well for the rest of america. it is time to make the big changes that will build an economy that works for working families. not one that is just rigged for the wealthy. we need to make choices that put working people and families first. we need to make choices that aim toward a better future for our children. we need to make choices that reflect our deepest values as americans, and we need to make sure that every step along the
way communities of color are at the table when decisions are made. not as tokens so someone can check the diversity box but as equal partners in the decisions that affect the direction of this country. \[applause] i'm glad that you are here today. i wish i could stay and be part of every part of this and be in every one of these arguments, but i just want to say, it is good that you come together. it is good that we magnify each other's voices because these are hard fights. but it has become clear to me in the time i have been in washington, you don't get what you don't fight for. so it is good to be your partners. we're going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in this fight until we win. we're going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder until all of our children have an equal
opportunity to succeed. thank you. thank you very much. good to see you all. thank you. \[applause] thank you. thank you. thank you. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues. abelson,rning, jeff politics reporter for the new orleans advocate will join us to discuss the debate over the removal of monuments. the city remains divided on the issue. counsel for, senior religious liberty will be on to discuss the recently argued
burwell case. it involves the affordable care act contraceptive issue. book "grunge the and government," will join us to discuss the role of a fair vote which advocates for a variety of electoral reform. be sure to watch washington journal, beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on friday morning. >> saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, we will look at some of the speeches of president obama during the white house dinners. this year will mark his final appearance. obama: i understand. an innocent mistake. it reminds me of when i identified myself as american in 1961. >> join us saturday night at
10:00 p.m. eastern. be sure to tune in for our live coverage of the correspondence dinner beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> showcase our student winners. this year's theme is "road to the white house." and students were asked what issues do you want presidential candidates to discuss? one of our winners is from oklahoma. ethan dennis, an 11th grader wants presidential candidates to discuss mental illness. >> last year, i spent six months making a short film about michael stick, whose son stabbed his mother. i followed michael, which would
mean he would go to a mental health care facility and prison. -- and not prison. as i worked on this project, i learned there were other many cases like the stick's family. >> this has been the bloody summer of 2015 and these are the incidents that get the headlines, it is a tiny fraction of the tragedy that occurs in the area of mental illness. >> mental illness is much more common than many people realize. >> it affects one out of four people. some are unrecognizable because they look like just anybody else. >> one in four people suffer from some sort of mental illness. it's you, sir. you. yeah, with the weird teeth and you next to him. actually that whole row isn't right. that's not good.
>> since mental illness affects so many people, shouldn't there be an place to treat it? toan effective treatment treat it. it various a lot from state to state because individual state governments are the ones that decide things such as funding for mental health care in their states. i visited the state capital in oklahoma city to attend a budget hearing for the oklahoma department of mental health and substance abuse services to see what was going on in my state. >> there is no money. >> they receive treatment. between 60% of the people of oklahoma aren't getting the help they need. mental health is the leading reason. -- leading reason for lost work. it accounts for 30% of the disability costs that our businesses have to come up with. these are the biggest public
health issues facing our state. >> most of the states just don't give much toward taking care of the mentally ill. >> so what are the issues from keeping us having an effective treatment in place? what do you feel like are the main issues the way mental illness is treated right now? >> you have a couple of hours? >> i could go a list of them. >> i wish i had the answer to that question and then we could fix it. >> at the state budget hearing that i sat in on, commissioner white spoke on what some of these issues actually are. >> the problem that we have is that the door to get into the system is so narrow that 2/3 of people standing on the outside of the door and only a third inside who need help. >> people contact us and not sure where to turn. >> insurance in the past has not paid well for mental health services.
more out of pocket expenses. and it is not cheap. >> we don't let enough people. through the front door. >> my 18th birthday is in the summer of 2016 which means i get to vote in the 2016 general election and looking for a candidate who is going to address this issue. so i did some research and prepared a presentation of all the different candidates' plans to address mental health. the only time it has been mentioned by any candidate was as a way to avoid discussion of gun control. >> this is mental illness. >> many of these shootings, we have people who have mental disturbances. >> do we need to do a better job? >> nothing like a mass shooting to spark interest in mental health. governor huckabee's state got a d minus on health care and you can't lecture people on
something you got a d minus in. it's like saying, we need to think and we need to get it did. >> if it is such a big issue, why is it not being addressed effectively? >> it is stigma advertised. -- it is still stigmatized. >> if i walked up to you like this, you would likely understand i had a physical impairment and wouldn't think there is anything wrong with me as a person. but if i walked up to you like this and suffering from a mental illness, you might not understand that i'm suffering from something that is outside of my control and you could easily misinterpret it as being in a bad mood or a character flaw. >> stigma is a word that is lacking. prejudice and discrimination, those are words getting at the truth. >> the other reason it goes unaddressed, it would lead to more cost to the taxpayers.
many people don't realize mental illness will cost us money no matter what. if you are receiving treatment for mental illness, the odds are you are probably dressed like this or jails and prisons. >> the population of people don't care about. as a result of that, there are not the resources out there to care for them. 2,800 people with mental illness in my jail. they have been in here 50, 60, 100 times. >> you are saying the prisons and the jails are the new asylums? >> absolutely. >> in my home state, the average cost of preventive treatment annually per person is $2,000. that's the cost of one c-span prize award and the fan favored second around.
the average annual cost of incarcerating someone is about $19,000. you would have to win the c-span grand prize four times in a row to make that much money. >> it is a shame. the outcomes are terrible. we have to change. we don't seem to be allocating any resources to keep them from falling into the river. that affects issue lots of americans. it is not an issue that we can keep ignoring. we need to be allocating more money to montel health illnesses. let us do something about this. >> to watch all of the prize-winning documentaries, visit student cam.org. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> at a confirmation hearing for two nominations, members of the senate armed services committee asked about aggressive moves from russia. they are considering the nomination of general kurtis scott roddy to head the northern command. senator john mccain chairs this two-hour hearing. hour meeting. [background chatter] senator mccain: good morning. the senate armed services committee meets this morning to consider the nominations of general curtis scaparrotti to be supreme allied commander europe.