tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 20, 2016 3:00am-4:04am EDT
in the old days, when i used to collect rent in brooklyn, the word is "delinquent." they all was a lot of rent. they owe us money. they are delinquent. we are defending them, and they are paying a fraction of what they are supposed to be paying. do you know the kind of money we are talking about? now, we defend japan. most people don't even know it. we defend japan. we defend germany. we defend saudi arabia. saudi arabia, before the oil ---- [booing] do not worry about it. they are making a lot. they were making $1 billion a day. would you like that for new jersey, chris? $1 billion a day? [applause] we get practically nothing, folks. and they would not be there. and i have so many friends that are saudis that buy my apartments, you would not believe it. they are all great. we cannot be fooled any longer, we cannot be taken advantage of any longer. we are going to make our country
rich again and strong again. we will be able to afford social security and medicare again. i am the only one that says that. we will not be led down the tubes by an incompetent person like hillary clinton. because you look at what she has done, her deal with libya. [booing] just take a look at libya. it is a catastrophe. by the way, you have benghazi. think of what -- think of libya. they have some of the finest oil in the world. you know who has the oil? isis has the oil. isis. this was her deal. [booing] so many other mistakes, so many and other mistakes. i have a whole list, but i am not going to do that, because we are having too much fun. let me just tell you folks, i have gone all over the country. i have seen millions of people. we have the biggest crowds by far, far bigger than bernie. he is second. i think what happens, i believe that his people, a large
percentage of his people, vote for trump. you watch, you watch what is going to happen. the one thing he is right on is trade. he has got that right, except he cannot do anything about it. the difference is, i am going to make a great deal as opposed to saying, we are just getting ripped off. that is all he can do. here is what we are going to do, folks. we are going to make our country absolutely great again. we are going to start winning. we do not win anymore. we do not win anymore. we are going to win on military, vets, health care, common core, we are terminating. we are going to win with education. we are going to win at every single level. we are going to win with trade, we are going to win with the border. we are going to win so much -- you guys are all friends, right? you are going to call me, and you will have chris christie call me, maybe even mary pat. i think she would be better. and you say, donald, the people of new jersey cannot stand you winning so much for our country.
[applause] they cannot stand it. could you stop winning so much? it is driving them crazy. and i will say, mary pat, i will not do that. we are going to win, win, win. we are going to make america great again. greater than ever before. and we are going to have a lot of fun, and we are going to be respected as a country again. so i want to thank everybody. i love you all. i love new jersey. june 7, june 7. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. ♪ thank you. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
ambassador tos. nato and a former polish foreign affairs minister will take part in a discussion on european security and the role of diplomacy. we will have live coverage in the atlantic council this morning at 11:30 am eastern, here on c-span. >> at nytimes.com, this is the headlines read sanity -- and senator bernie sanders is eyeing to harm hillary clinton in the home stretch. yamiche alcindor is with us. you describe senator sanders as defiant and determined. how so? yamiche alcindor: he is defiant while he is condoning the violence that happened at this state convention in nevada, he is not at all coming out and saying his supporters are wrong,
and kind of continuing to really challenge democratic party and called them wrong. say they are not treating mr. sanders unfairly. he is taking on the democratic party. and one of the most recent rallies, he talked about the idea that the democratic party has a choice to either change its ways and in some ways acquiesce to what supporters are asking for, or keep this party of low energy. he is really taking on the party. host: what changed between his loss to hillary clinton in new york versus a series of wins in oregon? how did he change? yamiche alcindor: at one point he was talking about the fact that after new york, his path to the nomination was more narrow. a lot of his advisers were talking about the idea they would have to reassess. they were cutting staff members and laying people off. but when he's out of winning
places, he's added turning -- like yesterday, oregon and all of these kinds of states. he started talking about the fact he will take on the party, take it all the way to the nomination. he is kind of getting back at hillary clinton. he has shifted to this idea we are going to talk about the platform at the convention. we need this party to shift, be a different party. but he wasn't going straight after hillary clinton. but after that, he went back to kind of hitting hillary clinton and hitting the party. host: talk about something else that was percolating the last few months that we heard from jeff weaver, the campaign manager. he was very critical of debbie wasserman schultz. he said that on cnn. how has this transpired? yamiche alcindor: it is remarkable to watch, jeff weaver saying debbie wasserman schultz is throwing shade on the sanders
campaign from the beginning. he is painting a picture of the dnc putting its stomp on the skill for hillary clinton. and debbie wasserman schultz, you can see the party coming out saying the sanders campaign and support for the violence under this idea they are using nevada and saying what you did, we will not have that can. we will not have mass arrests. that is what the republican party does. host: so what does senator sanders want? you look at this that. senator clinton has one more states. -- secretary clinton has won one more states and numbers. yamiche alcindor: he wants to amass as many delegates as possible. he wants to leverage he has this new fundraising model which millions of people on it e-mail list, he was to use that to
advance his agenda at the convention. he also has this idea he can capture the nomination from her. advisers told me and my colleagues he was holding out hope that maybe if she has a late minutes stumble or the fbi takes her down, he can swoop in and become the nominee. he really wants to be the nominee. he has a taste of what it would be like to win the nomination with all the states he has one. at least the idea that he had a taste of what it would be like to be the standard bearer for the democratic party. he does not want to give it up. host: what is his overall demeanor, and what is your strategy moving ahead to june 14, which is the final primary in washington dc, a democratic primary? yamiche alcindor: the strategy is to hold huge rallies across the country, especially focusing
on the california. he is going to new mexico and california this weekend. he will have as much energy in these places. he will try to talk up his supporters. he does not condone violence, but he is saying i appreciate the fact you are coming out, that you are challenging the party on my behalf. he is looking forward to doing that. the demeanor for senator sanders is defiant. it is a little combative, not combative that he is taking on the party and saying, don't tell me to drop out, don't tell me about how many votes hillary clinton has. i want to talk about what i have accomplished. host: can the party unite in philadelphia this summer? yamiche alcindor: i think so. as someone that has been on so many different events, i have watched people. they really want to ask him about whether or not they were
support hillary clinton if they are bernie sanders fans, the first thing they will say is i will not. but when you start saying, what if it is hillary clinton versus donald trump? 90%, they say of course i would support hillary clinton. the party is facing donald trump, they can unite. they see him as a union at enemy. people will do whatever they can to not get trump in the white house. host: we saw that in 2008 with #pma, saying they would not support barack obama, but they did come together. yamiche alcindor: we are talking about, they are all democrats, even people who are independent. they likely voted for the democratic party in the past. and all of these people i interviewed about what they want for the country, it looks like the country is more like what hillary clinton is pitching than donald trump is pitching. so they see him as the ultimate villain when it comes to the democratic party.
so they can come together. host: yamiche alcindor covering politics for the new york times. thank you for being with us. yamiche alcindor: thank you for having me. ♪ journal,"gton live every day with stories that affect you. tomorrow, the new labor department overtime rules on wednesday. then, the policy director for the sunlight foundation will be on to talk about the deal between the rnc and the trump campaign. he will also discuss sources who say mr. trump is aiming to raise more than $2 billion. and the congressional report of the military times will be with us. we will break down the national defense authorization act on wednesday. be sure to watch "washington
journal," coming up at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. this weekend on c-span's cities tour, along with our comcast partners we will explore the history and literary life of mississippi. on book tv, "don't hurry me down to hades." the book draws on rare letters and diary entries to tell the story of the civil war through the eyes of the soldiers and their families, and how important keeping in touch was for those on the battlefield, and their family members back home. >> so many women were writing to the men, saying, i don't know what you are fighting for, but you need to come home, we have 1/5 of the crop we normally do, i just buried our youngest, we aren't going to have anything left. you need to come home. examine thell vietnam war in the 1967 experiences of charlie company with the author discussing the
battlefield of vietnam and what soldiers had to fight upon their return to the united states. >> the and of veterans were used as political footballs. they were used as part of a morality play. but hardly anybody had gotten to tell their story, who they were as young men before they went, the trauma of war they went through, both the great victories, its funny times, its horrible times, and what happened to them as a generation since i have been home. >> and in 1966 slaying of florida dahmer at the hands of the ku klux klan, told by his widow and oldest son. >> for what reason did anyone want to come and kill him? it came as a result of the head of the clan, who said go annihilate him. they came to kill the whole family. and learned about the freedom
summer school program during the summer of 1964, when volunteers from around the country taught african-americans in mississippi methods of nonviolent resistance and encouraged voter registration. >> there were meetings held throughout the area churches, preparing the residents of their political rights and getting ready to register to vote. >> this weekend, watch the cities tour to hattiesburg, mississippi saturday at 5:30 eastern on c-span two's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span3. >> the u.s. house got rowdy and the floor got chaotic in the v.a. spending bill. covering it for the hill, christina marcus. tell us about the provisions, first of all, the provisions in the defense authorization bill which passed late wednesday. what is that all about? cristina marcos: two years ago, president obama issued an executive order prohibiting
federal contractors from discriminating against members of the lgbt community. but house republicans inserted an amendment into this year's defense bill that states religious organizations and other contractors for the federal government cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion, and the lgbt community and democrats interpreted that as a potential opportunity that would open up discrimination against the lgbt community. host: that came up in the motion to recommit again late wednesday in this defense authorization bill that was shot down, the authorization bill passed and then again, it came up as an amendment this time once again it was sean patrick maloney, the, congressman, democratic congressman, bringing forth an amendment. what was he trying to do? cristina marcos: that is right. last night was the defense authorization, democrats used a procedural maneuver that would have amended the defense authorization to eliminate that
republican provision that was intended, that was framed as promoting religious freedom. however maloney, who is openly gay, was warning that this was personal for him and that, you know, this could open up discrimination against people like him. so with the military construction veterans affairs funding bill, he was trying to prohibit any funds from being used to go against the executive order president obama issued. host: and the new york congressman's amendment came up for a vote. you saw it on c-span, your headline captures some of the affair at thehill.com. chaos in the house after g.o.p. votes down lgbt measure, linking to our video. what happened in that vote? why was that vote unusual? cristina marcos: so, house republicans, upon taking the majority in 2011, brought back this procedure for considering spending bills that allows
lawmakers to offer unlimited numbers of amendments. and so, while republican house says return to regular order and having this open process, it also opens the opportunity for democrats and members of the minority party to hijack the process and force votes on things leadership would otherwise deny them having. while maloney was denied a vote on the defense authorization, which the leadership controlled the amendment process there, he was able to force it on this spending bill that came up today. host: right. it seemed to rub certainly democrats fairly raw in terms of that vote procedure. your tweet about the followup on that, you say that whip hoyer is calling out specific republicans who change their votes on the lgbt measure. talking about jeff denham, greg walden, mimi walters, david young switching their vote. did you get a chance to talk to any of the members who switched votes or hear why people were switching votes? obviously a strong whip
operation on the republican side. cristina marcos: that is right. originally the measure was passing. however, because the house had already passed the provision, you know, stating otherwise the night before, republican leadership felt that they had to beat back this amendment that maloney offered today. and so, you know, it had originally been passing republican leadership, including majority leader kevin mccarthy, could be seen on the floor, pressing members to change their votes. some of the members included some of the lawmakers you mentioned like walden and jeff denham and so -- democrats were complaining that these members were changing their votes without specifically coming to the well of the house so that everyone could see who exactly was changing their votes. instead, they were somehow able to change their votes electronically without having everyone see them do it. host: all of this happening on the last day, legislatively, for the week. but what does this say about relations going forward, but in
particular, next week? the house has a lot to get done before the memorial day recess. do you think an incident like this or what's happened over the last day or more, does it have an impact on relations between the two parties? cristina marcos: well, it's clear democrats will use the open amendment process to their advantage, especially while we're in the middle of an election year. and last night, house minority leader nancy pelosi was clearly linking or trying to link the -- both the lgbt measure as well as a separate provision related to the confederate flag as what she described as, you know, discrimination that donald trump has been promoting in his campaign, turning into legislative proposals in the house from house republicans. host: our guest is cristina marcos, and you can follow her reporting at thehill.com and on twitter, @cimarcos. thank you for joining us. cristina marcos: thank you for having me. host: we thought we would give you a flavor of how this all got started on the house floor late wednesday.
here is a look. rep. maloney: my dad was a veteran and was nearly killed serving this country. he taught me to respect those who served. he was nearly killed in the service of his country. saying it is once again legal for members to be fired because of who they are. this is wrong. [applause] this is not, this is not about supporting our troops. it is not about fighting isis, it is not about religious protections. we can do all of that, and we should. this is about bigotry, plain and simple. but we can fix it by embracing the bipartisan effort denied by the rules committee to remove
this hateful language and keep everything else. when my husband and i got married after waiting 22 years, so many of you express your support. will you now look me in the eye and say it would be ok for me to lose my job over it? just today, a member of this as refusing to help strike this anti-gay language said to me, but you know where i am on your issues. i said, no. this is where you are on my issues. your vote is where you are on my issues, and this is where your children and your history. your understanding on our issues.
>> gentleman's time has expired. rep. maloney: and in doing so strike a blow to equality. mr. speaker -- >> gentleman's time is expired. rep. maloney: if we are to make america great, you need americans to make america great. >> gentleman is no longer recognized. host: a look at what happened on the house floor today as members cast their vote. it looks ready to pass, and that it failed leading to sustained voice disapproval. we start with a look at the amendment as it was introduced. ced.ght this house adopted a provision as part of the defense bill that rolls back anti-discrimination provisions contained in executive orders issued by the president in recent years. this is one of the ugliest episodes that i experienced in my three-plus years as member of this house.
the inclusion of such hate-based language in a defense bill designed to support our military sends exactly the wrong message at a time when we should all be unified in supporting the efforts of our service members around the world. my father was a veteran. he was nearly killed in the service of his country. i've never voted begins the defense bill before. i never thought i would. almost a quarter of the constituents i represent in the hudson valley of new york come from families where a member is serving in the military or has served in the military. i represent the united states military academy at west point. we helped 800 veterans one at a time out of my district office in my three years in congress, and we passed legislation directly aimed at making their lives better. so it is not with an easy heart that i come to the house floor and oppose the defense bill, but this legislation snuck in the bill and kept in the bill despite a bipartisan effort to remove it sends exactly the
wrong signal and it says that we are so concerned about discriminating against a group of lgbt americans that we are willing to destroy the bipartisan cooperation we should have on a defense bill. so my amendment today gives us another chance. it gives us a chance to correct some of the damage done last night by the misguided efforts of some members of this body. and what it would say is quite simple is that we shall not do anything in this bill that controw convenients the executive orders of the president. it's pretty simple. we should not be spending taxpayer dollars to promote hate and we should not be justifying that by some religious exemption when in fact the language in the defense bill simply rolls back the anti-discrimination provisions that the president put in executive order to those contained in the original civil rights act and the a.d.a. it is specifically designed to exclude lgbt americans, and in doing that, it aligns itself
with the parallel efforts we see happening in states like north carolina. it's wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with our military. it doesn't have anything to do with fighting isis. it doesn't have anything to do with religious protections. it's about bigotry, plain and simple, and today we have another chance to do the right thing and to send the right message and to stick up for our military. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. maloney: yes, i will. mr. dent: i just want to state i support the amendment and oppose discrimination in any shape or form in this case as it relates to federal contracting. i yield back. mr. maloney: reclaiming my time. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania and i want to acknowledge that it was the gentleman from pennsylvania, together with mr. hannah from new york, who craig -- mr. hanna from new york, who courageously supported it. i'm honored by the support and i'm honored by the position
you've taken in this house over the past couple days. i yield back. the chair: any member claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer in an open rule in a different bill his objections to what occurred last night. last night, the house of representatives passed the bill and today the gentleman's offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that amendment that we made. mr. chairman, several days ago the house armed services committee handled this issue. it was not sneaking something in. it was a straight up vote. it was a vote that was held in the armed services committee, and then the -- and it passed nd then the final vote was
60-2. mr. chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. that is a vote from people who viewed who are on the committee that they were not going to let one issue or another get in the way of supporting the men and women of our united states military. they very clearly, all of them on the committee understood during this long markup exactly the implications and they lived with the decision. i am here today to say that the gentleman is fully entitled to do as he's doing. but the vote was held last night. the overwhelming viewpoint was, let's support the united states -- mr. maloney? mr. sessions: i will in just a second. let's support the united states military and let's get this done, not the next day come on the floor with spilled milk on your face and say i want to go
back and i want to relit gait a decision we -- re litigate a decision we made here on the floor. i will yield to the gentleman. i admire the gentleman. mr. maloney: i appreciate the admiration. is it necessary to discriminate gays and lesbians to support our military? mr. sessions: let me say this, the issue was handled -- and the gentleman knows this -- in committee. mr. maloney: it was resolved last night in -- it was resolved last night in the affirmative. in other words, this house said that it will include in a defense bill a provision that will roll back basic employment protection for gays and lesbians. my question to my colleague, mr. speaker, if that's necessary for the promotion of national defense? is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians and transgendered americans? mr. sessions: i will reclaim my time, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman. i am not without an understanding that there are ople who do have ideas which
override other bigger ideas. i am simply saying to you, mr. chairman, i stand in opposition to what the gentleman is attempting to do here the next day in a separate bill to limit what we did last night when this body did understand that many people have a strong viewpoint that supports the gentleman and many people have a viewpoint that's against that. that's not my point. my point is we need to transcend that as a body and we did last night and we spoke very clearly, we need to support the men and women of the united states military, and we do not believe this is a stumbling block because we don't view what the gentleman's saying is the critical and key issue. that is why -- mr. maloney: if the gentleman will yield? mr. sessions: i appreciate him and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. mr. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time?
the chair: is there objection? mr. sessions: objection. the chair: objection is noted. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- mr. bishop: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike the last word. cheese 5. mr. bishop: i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman. mr. maloney: i thank the gentleman. i'd like to again express my thanks for my colleague's admiration. it's nice to have admiration. it's better to have rights and it's better to be treated equaly and without conned sention and i would just -- and without condescension and i would just say, is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians in federal contracting to support our troops? is it necessary to remove employment protections in employers covering 28 million americans so that we can fight the war on isis? is it necessary to protect ourselves in our houses of worship by discriminating in federal contracting in businesss that are in the business of commerce and in
private contracting? it is a tired and old and false choice to suggest that we need to discriminate to keep ourselves self, to -- safe, to keep ourselves free, and people in earlier times made that argument, sir. the notion they did it last night, this house got a lot of things wrong for a lot of people for a lot of years and then finally slowly almost to spite ourselves we figured out that we can be safe and free and equal and in fact becoming more equal in some ways makes us safer because it is the promotion of our values, through our actions and our ideas and our words, not just our weapons that promote our values around t >> that debate led to a 15-minute vote and members continued passing their votes as
the speaker pro tempore: on this volt, the yeas are 212, the nays are 213, the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. erk: page 7 this act may be cited as the military construction, veterans' affairs, and related gency appropriation act, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with a recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that this bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 497 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments and recommendation that the amendments agreed to nti-bill be amended do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the cheat of the the clerk of the house: has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4974 and pursuant to house resolution 736 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adew pointed in the whole committee ---in the committee of the whole. the previous question is -- under the rule, the previous question is ordered. he house will be in order.
he house will be in order. the house will be in order. > mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the minority whip seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i want to raise a parliamentary inquiry initially with reference to the fact that mr. ryan, our speaker, has told us if people were in the well that the vote would be held open. i was standing in the well, no
one came or no one had the courage to come into the well to change their vote, but notwithstanding that, the vote kept changing. mr. speaker, from a parliamentary perspective, how s that possible? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for changes. mr. hoyer: i saw no one come to the desk to change their vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry. mr. hoyer: the inquiry is how can the vote change when no one comes to the well to change heir vote? the speaker pro tempore: the chair had not yet announced request for changes. mr. hoyer: i didn't hear the chair request change, but i do
know that from my personal observation not one of those members who apparently changed their vote because it kept changing on the board came to this well and had the courage to change from green to red or red to green. how is that possible, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, let me raise another parliamentary inquirery. mr. speaker, let me raise a parliamentary inquirery. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will put them engross. the question on - - mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote on the committee rising. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: those in favor will vote aye, those opposed, no. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have it. hoyer: -- mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i did not hear and therefore was not able to ask for a recorded vote
on the motion to rise. the speaker did not articulate that, so the house could hear it. and i suggest the -- i request a vote on the motion to rise. now, the speaker may tell me we are past that point, but the fact of the matter is, nobody on this house floor heard the speaker articulate the issue of whether the committee ought to ise. the speaker pro tempore: the house is definitely -- past that point. is the gentleman seeking a recorded volt on the -- mr. hoyer: on the motion to rise. the speaker pro tempore: on the adoption of the amendment? mr. hoyer: recorded vote on the adoption of the amendment. which amendment is the speaker talking about? -- 's talking about the
the speaker pro tempore: the chair is putting the vote on the separate amendments. mr. hoyer: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: ecorded vote is requested. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. i withdraw, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for recorded vote. magically without anybody coming to the well to change their vote. but giving to the majority the right to have you do it without coming to the well and telling america that you were voting changes your vofmente i
withdraw. -- changes your vote. i withdraw. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have t third reading. -- have it. third reading. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those in favor of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperatio
>> the final vote tally on the amendment was 212-213, as you saw. after that there was a rare procedural vote followed by final passage of the military construction v.a. bill, the vote on that was 25-129. when legislative business was done for the day, house minority whip steny hoyer continued his quest to understand how the vote could have changed as it did as he had a colloquy with house rules committee chair pete sessions. come, let me observe as someone who has served in this house for some extended period of time, some 36 years. i was here in the era not too long ago but long ago when if we had done to the republicans what was done to us, what was that switch votes so
discrimination could prevail, there would be outrage expressed long into the night from our republican colleagues who would accuse us of undermining democracy, undermining this house and making the house less than it should be. 217 people stood up and said we ought not to discriminate, and then very frankly, madam speaker, the leadership on the republican side started its activity. i've been the majority leader, i've been the whip, i understand that process. and they reached out to people and said, no, let us be able to discriminate. let contractors be able to discriminate. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: not right now, thank
you. and mr. speaker, seven people who had voted not to allow discrimination decided perhaps that principle was not as important as they thought just a minute or so before. i have a list of those names here. a lamentable list of people who did the right thing, who stood up for nondiscrimination and then were opportuned to change their vote and the record reflects, mr. speaker, sadly, that they changed their vote. i won't characterize those votes because that would not be in order on this floor, and
they will have themselves to ook at tonight in the mirror and explain to themselves whether their first vote was a principled vote or whether they had a damascus road experience in the few minutes that transpired between their voting not to allow discrimination until they later, just a few minutes later, at the opportunity of some of their leaders voted to allow discrimination. . a sad day, mr. speaker, in the history of the house. i still see no leader unless mr. department, who i have great respect for, wants to tell us what the dead is -- schedule is for next week. i'd be glad to yield to him for that purpose. i want to say, mr. speaker,
that the majority leader is not here. the majority leader has a very happy day today. and congratulate him. his son is graduating from georgiatown -- georgetown. and he obviously needs to be there. i was hoping someone else could tell us the schedule. at this point in time i'd be glad to yield to my friend, mr. sessions. the chairman of the rules committee. mr. sessions: appreciate it. i would like to politely offer viewpoint that i believe that we do not view that the issue was discrimination. that we view -- have the viewpoint that earlier in the week, we brought forth a bill in the sed 40-2 committee of armed services. and that bill was brought forth to the rules committee and we held hours and hours and hours and hours of hearing that
republicans and democrats were not only welcome to attend but did attend. and that the debate on the issue that we had was very full and brought forth not only at the rules committee but also on this floor, and that a decision therein was made, and that the opportunity for our members to vote is exactly what they did. and i'm sure the gentleman would want every single member to vote and have time to think about that vote until the time that the vote closed. and that is exactly what happened. so the characterization that discrimination would not be fair or correct. i appreciate the gentleman allowing me a chance to amplify that every member of this body is entitled to their vote.
and every member of this body, without questioning, in my opinion, that vote, should be afforded that opportunity. and so i stand on behalf of republicans to say that we followed processes, we're following procedures, and we're following the opportunity for a member of congress to vote as they choose and try not to impugn or detest that with a word -- of applying a word of discrimination which i feel like is not accurate under our intent. and so i thank the gentleman for allowing me time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. and the gentleman will observe i have neither mentioned the names nor do i -- carefully did not impugn their integrity. or their motivation. what i said was, and what i will repeat, is initially they voted for an amendment that
said there shall not be discrimination by contractors who get government money. that's what the amendment said. and they voted against discrimination and for that amendment. but in a short period of time, they changed that vote, resulting in not, not becoming law yet, but this house saying to the administration, you cannot require contractors not to discriminate. that was the effect of it. and characterizing the effect of a vote is what our debate is about. what our country's values are about. what our country's future is about. and the respect we have for every citizen in this country. endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. and we ought not preclude those
through discrimination. that i can characterize without impugning motives. but the effect of the vote -- we had 217 people for nondiscrimination. right up until the last moment. and by the way, the last moment was far beyond what speaker ryan has said ought to be the end of votes. as a matter of fact, i talked to -- if i can just finish my sentence, i will certainly do that. i talked to the parliamentarians. interestingly, the presiding officer did not ask, does any member want to change his vote, because once that, as i understand it, is into ened, then the ability to change -- intoned, then the ability to change's one vote, except to come forward and be seen in changing your vote, was not stated. which i suggest to the gentleman, the chairman of the rules committee, who knows the rules very well, is unusual.
perhaps not against the rules. but unusual. and the vote was an extended vote. speaker ryan has talked to us from the ross trum saying that we want to keep votes to a limited period of time. particularly, i would suggest, we all want to keep votes to a limited period of time when it is a so-called getaway day. but in this instance, that did not occur. n this instance, to change rom 217 to a lesser number that was a losing number, 215 to -- 215-214, i believe, was the final vote. excuse me, 212-215. so five votes were switched net. however one person voted late. again, seven people changed their vote. you're correct. they had a right to do that. but the consequences of that
vote are subject to debate. and i raise for you, for this house, and for the american people that the changing of hose seven votes resulted in this house saying to the president of the united states, you cannot tell contractors that they cannot discriminate. that i think was unfortunate. i will yield to my friend. mr. sessions: thank you very much. first of all, let me state this, i am a republican, we do not discriminate. we attempt to follow the law and the gentleman knows that. we make laws and those laws can be subject to interpretations of what is and what is not. but we follow the law. and the gentleman knows that. and we follow the law and my party follows the law. secondly, the decision had previously been made the night
before. we were not trying to do that today. it was once again allowed under the rules because the gentleman accurately -- whether it's appropriate or not, that's up to him -- brought forth under an open rule a limited amendment. but we had decided in the night before. and when people -- decided in the night before. and when people -- decided this the night before. and when people recognized this, that this was a vote that happened the night before, out of the armed services committee, that was 40-2, there were people who then recognized what they were doing. it is not unusual to have people who vote and do change their vote. i have done that also. but the rules were followed, -- different than procedural ways than the person in the chair. i will tell you -- i respect
the gentleman, and you know me well. mr. hoyer: i do. mr. sessions: i would not stand up here if i were for fear of one second of not being able to understand you and you understand me. i understand you. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. let me make an observation on which the gentleman would stay in the well because he might want to respond. i did not accuse the republican party of discriminating. i will not at this point in time hazard an opinion on that fact. however, i want to recall to the gentleman that in the armed services committee, after due consideration, the armed services committee voted not to discriminate. not to discriminate against women. not to say to women, yes, you can serve, but you don't have to sign up for the draft. many of us felt that if you're going to ask young men to sign up for the draft, young men,
women ought to be treated equally. we felt not to do so was discrimination. that amendment passed in the committee. and came to the rules committee , and my understanding, mr. chairman, is, without a vote, without discussion, the rule that was issued from the rules committee said that upon option of that rule, the adopted amendment in the armed services committee, without a singular vote on this floor of he house, would be defeated. that, i say to the gentleman, was neither regular orders, nor was it giving this ability to make a decision on that issue. and i believe -- i personally believe that it results in continuing discrimination against young men and young women. one of which has to sign up,
the other whom does not. but they both have to serve or can serve voluntarily in the armed forces of the united states. so, we may have a difference of opinion on whether or not that was in fact discrimination. but i will tell the gentleman that i was not happy and i'm still not happy that we did not have a vote on the floor about what we perceive to be discrimination. and regret that the rules committee chose to hide in its rule the repeal of what the armed services committee adopted. if the gentleman wants to respond, i will yield to him. mr. sessions: i will concur hat i in fact did offer in the bill a self-executed portion. i would not try to take advantage of the gentleman, it had nothing to do with the
draft. i will agree that i did take a this body, ve because a number of people who did vote for it in committee, , did ecame a voice vote wish to change their opinion. but it had nothing to do with the draft, sir. mr. hoyer: it seems what the gentleman's saying, reclaiming my time, that people vote not to discriminate and then sometime a little later on they have a new epiphany that perhaps discrimination is ok. perhaps that's what the gentleman was saying. mr. sessions: i would ask an indulgence. it had nothing to do with discrimination. it had to do with a new policy. and it is true that i did rule and put a self-executing rule in that did answer the question desire of the
committee to handle this issue, and i did it accordingly. i thank the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, it appears that no one is going to be able to tell me what the schedule is for the week to come. i will tell you that's unfortunate. i hope there is a schedule for the week to come. because there's a lot to be done. we haven't done -- we haven't finalized zika. we passed a bill here which we think was inadequate. we haven't dealt with flint. we need to pass puerto rico restructuring. i think they've made some progress on that. i congratulate the speaker. and the leader for facilitating that progress. we don't have a voting rights bill scheduled. we need to do that. there are a number of other serious pieces of legislation this house needs to consider. we're going to go out next week and we will have no colloquy next week, mr. speaker. there will be no opportunity to discuss the schedule for obviously b