tv Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton CSPAN July 13, 2016 4:27am-5:31am EDT
stability in the region." the reason is this assumes we going to depose the government of syria and, you know, we really have seen again and again this strategy of it deposing secular dictators has just lead to chaos in the area. we did this with muammar gaddafi who was a terrible, even a person but what has he been replaced with benchmark isis. in iraq as well with saddam hussein and what has that led to? isis. even our presumptive nominee acknowledges that the decision secular dictator in iraq, saddam hussein, was a mistake. this is a continuation of the same bill policy. of they millions innocent civilians have died? what has the result been? chaos and the rise of isis.
we really need to decide, are we really the policy that believes war is the last resort? or are we the party that anders into it so carelessly and we say, collateral damage be done. i we the pro-life party that values the sanctity of human life or are we the pro-war party that says we do not care how many innocent civilians die. , we do not care what the results are. we see time and began we have a example after example, the failure of this policy and we are preparing to do it all over again. i highly recommend that we did up this amendment, strike out this language. it will be a disaster. it will empower isis if we continue on this path and we syrian regime. greg still get from north dakota. >> thank you. i cover the question. ask question called. in favor of voting immediately
signify. opposed. woodruff road immediately on striking lines 14-16 on page seven. all those in favor of the amendment, pleasing the five by saying. opposed. the naysf the chair, have it. defeated. >> the context for this addition theur area, and i worked on subcommittee, is the shameful delay by the obama administration in recognizing killing,of isis torturing christians in the religious minorities. recognizing genocide. seven led by the republicans voted for that
belatedly. obama came around to it. this recognizes as established kurdistan and continuing as recently as 2014 establish a safe haven there. this calls on us to do the same for those who have been tortured, killed, persecuted by isis. seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed nay. it is adopted. next to stephen gates from idaho. yeatst is stephen from idaho.
is language that addresses saudi arabia. i served in the first five years of the bush of illustrator as deputy -- the bush administration as deputy advisor to cheney. many of us lost friends and loved ones in that tragedy, however, we should not released 28 pages of classified information from a congressional intelligence inquiry into 9/11 attacks during releasing intelligence data that raises the specter that our intelligence gathering may be compromised. it poses a danger to our own national security. consistsrmation mainly of rumors from third parties that is totally uncorroborated. it is unfair to the individuals involves to be treated as facts simply because it is in a report.overnment of the
the committee to withdrawal this. to strikend seconded page 7, line 33, the delegate from new york. >> mr. chairman, i would second thought, and i would wholeheartedly agree with what my colleague from idaho just stated. >> delegate from maine. chair.k you, mr. i just want to raid it was from the republican congressman who have signed on calling for the declassification of these 28 pages. just in a month from michigan, mike coffman from colorado, david brett from michigan, kevin north dakota, john duncan from tennessee,
christopher gibson from new york am a louie gohmert from texas, walter jones from north carolina, cynthia lummis from wyoming,
thomas massie from kentucky, todd mcclintock from randy -- from texas, scott perry from pennsylvania, from florida, tom reeves from new york, dana matts are from california, salmon from arizona, mark sanford from south carolina, scott austin from georgia, glenn thompson from pennsylvania, david trott from michigan, ted yoho from florida. the microphone went off. go right ahead. from california. these are these who called for
these pages.f the victims, american families from 9/11 have a right to know about the funding that was
involved in that. >> delegate from vermont. thank you, mr. chairman. thisse in support of amendment. it is not our job to release this information. >> delegate from west virginia. mr. chairman. thi call the question. >> the question has been called. for, say aye. opposed, say no. aye.se signify by saying the opinion of the chair that the ayes have it.
is a relevantt due to the last amendment, thank you. : that meanto amendment is withdrawn. -- next is from the delegate from texas. to, the end of the word, i have inserted "continued." barrasso: this is page 9, continued discussion. seeing nine, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. oppose nay. the next amendment is from the delegate from warm.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. margaret metcalf with guam. i would like to add something to the u.s. leadership in the asian-pacific community, and we are going down to line 17. chair barrasso: page nine? metcalf: page 9, 917. , line 17. i would like to expand its military might the government asserts a preposterous claim that the entire south china sea and continues to dredge for and create landing fields and contested waters where none have existed before, ever nearer to u.s. territories and our allies while continuing to build a navy
far out of proportion to defensive assist. insert i would like to the comments "the complacency of the obama regime has emboldened the chinese government and military to exacts threats of intimidation throughout the south china sea, not to mention parading their new muscle, the guam killer, down the main streets of beijing, a direct shot at guam, one of america's direct lines of offense." thank you. chair barrasso: is there discussion? emotion has been moved and seconded. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. >> just be aware that you need another set at the bottom of this set, thank you very much.
chair barrasso: the delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. -- ilinen page think the lines are inaccurate. chair barrasso: lines 17 to 24. >> oh, i am sorry. chair barrasso: they are on page 12. we want to get back to the amendments that is in front of us from you on page 10, is that correct? >> it looks like it is on page 12, my apologies. if i can hold it off until page 12 -- chair barrasso: we can go right ahead. so page 12? >> i made an error as i was preparing this very hastily last night, so i apologize. 6 page 12, this effects line
line 13.to this would strike this language which calls for -- essentially a eliminatingimposing our trade and relationship with cuba. the reason for this -- i want to tale of two countries -- cuba and vietnam. over the last half-century, we have seen these two countries very differently, but we actually went to war with the adopter and since that time, we have had open trade relations, opened a promisee, open dialogue with them, and they have become one of our best trading partners, they have also become more increasingly westernized as our ideas have spread into that country through spread and exchange.
in cuba, we have an isolationist policy, no communication, no trade, cut them off, and nothing has changed in a half-century. nothing has changed there. we can see very clearly when we look at vietnam that when we have free exchange of goods and ideas, american ideas of capitalism, constitutional republic are popular. they spread when given the opportunity, but cutting people off does not do that. i think we should reject the third policy we have had in place for 50 years. isolationism,ct and we should seize this opportunity to trade with cuba and spread our western ideals to them. thank you. chair barrasso: is there a second? >> second. chair barrasso: discussion, delegate from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i would agree with this amendment. since 1992, i have been traveling legally to cuba. i know that the best way to transform it is by opening it up, and more and more americans and visitors from america going idealsnd bringing our and also being able to do business with them well have the effect that previous language actually had a net from my experience. chair barrasso: the delegate from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard this amendment before at the committee. we rejected it. to say that vietnam is like cuba is false. being nice to cuba will not make them better. over the course of the years, they still have hundreds of political prisoners, they still
oppress their people, which is disconcerting. a man who murdered and was a newted of murdering jersey trooper is harbored in cuba, for all those reasons, i ask the body to reject this amendment. chair barrasso: thank you very much. the delegate from minnesota. >> thank you. i'm not judging the merits of any of these motions letter before us today. i am just a regular guy, i am i am aoffice holder, husband -- happy birthday, honey, if you are watching rated foreignrying to set policy here, folks. this is not what this is for. we are a representative republic. this is not the venue or the thesefor us to air grievances. we can position our government for different aspects. this is about why people should
vote for us. the level that we are getting into and spending time on today is just not summon that should be in the platform. [applause] chair barrasso: delegate from new mexico. ms. moore: andrea moore, i called to question. chair barrasso: all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is defeated. the nexus from the delegate from massachusetts. >> i ask again with the talk aboute we adding a couple of subheadings that hadreas previously and prior platforms than individually identified would not all run together under one heading that was not actually completely accurate to the text, so my two amendments
are to add subheadings or one international religious freedom shown here on the screen. that is the first one. the context that follows it is about international religious freedom. chair barrasso: is there a second discussion? seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. now to the same author, to the amendment on page 14. >> same point, just calling out what the section is about with the title that is consistent with what we have said in past platforms. chair barrasso: discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. that amendment is passed. the next amendment, i understand that this is not going to be offered, so we will just move on to the amendment following that, again back to the delegate from massachusetts. >> yesterday in our subcommittee
, as we were already late for lunch and hungry, the subcommittee decided that myself, working with our cochairman, stephen yet from , that wefront of me addendume an regarding human rights that are consistent with our previous platform in this area, so the following additional text is that work that we completed last night. ates wants to y add anything, i ask them to do so. chair barrasso: the delegate from idaho. : thank you, mr. chairman. it's deviates from idaho. there was sentiment that
reasserting sentiments would be a welcome move. the gentleman did work in good faith from other members to make sure we had the facts checked, so i urge the support of the amendment. chair barrasso: seconded discussion on the amendment. hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. the next amendment from the delegate from massachusetts. >> same storyline, continuing again the section heading that and the language that we had that reflects our republican values is consistent and comes congress on the foreign affairs committees that are working on this area, so same story, this addition is part of our subcommittee work that we did not finish, and we finished it last night. chair barrasso: just so folks know tha what they are voting of since you have a number
amendments. let's make reference to the vote on the specific line and page number. are amendment page 15, lines 20 and 26. is that correct? we are inserting the new headlines, line 20, in terms of combating human trafficking, and line 26 concerning the attached text, which people have at their seats. >> yes, mr. chairman, thank you for that clarification. you are correct. chair barrasso: discussion. seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. that amendment is adopted. back to the same author for the next amendment, and this has to do with page 15, line 27. >> right, this will now appear after the section on combating human trafficking, and again, consistent with the same story, our country needs to continue to reach out to people who are behind internet firewalls.
we face cyber terrorism from these countries, and we should be getting information to them, and this calls on us to do it. again, it is something that our republican members of congress are working to pass. chair barrasso: is there a second discussion? >> yes. alaska. >>chair barrasso: please identify yourself. the delegate from alaska. >> i believe that we can simply say we do not support this because i do not believe we need to call these words in there to make a statement that we do not support this. this is policy, it is going to be law. it is not a platform, so i am not going to discuss it. -- to support it. chair barrasso: additional discussion from north dakota. >> mr. chairman, i would like to know how many of the participating people, how many of the subcommittee members participated in this conversation i find today 40 idea of how it was --
conversation last night to get an idea of how it was that it. >> the delegate from the district of columbia. delegate from massachusetts, would you like to respond to the delegate from north dakota? >> yes. i worked on this together last night with the staff and a member of speaker ryan's staff. >> i failed to mention that i was the only member of the committee who expressed interest to help on this section during our meeting yesterday. chair barrasso: additional discussion. >> mr. chairman, i call for the question. chair barrasso: the delegate from vermont's hand was up. >> i want to make mention that when we hear politically about the threat through the chinese firewalls on our computers, i know in our little company, 50% of the efforts to that the firewall, 24/7 bang, ,very day, is coming from china
and i'm sure people are not even aware that those kinds of stress are occurring, just so you are aware, this is very real, thanks. chair barrasso: additional discussion? all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. trunchnishes the first of amendments, and they are now distributing the second tranche, , which takesch us back to page one of this. is there anyone who does not have the newly distributed first fact that takes us back to page one, a dangerous world? the top one is from the delegate from montana, and we will start with that one.
we want to make sure everyone has it. we want to start with page one of the plank "a dangerous world." yes, that is the one that says in the international arena. since everyone has these, we will turn out to the delegate from montana for an introduction of his amendment on the amendment on page one, line 29. >> thank you, mr. chairman. amendment.ple after the word in the international arena, it was simply strike "weakness" and insert "a weak administration." the american people are not weak. the individual men and women in the military are not weak. the weakness we are talking about is the administrative to -- the administration to lead affect -- to lead effectively. we do not have time with our
workload to get it done. see why. chair barrasso: is there a second discussion? oh, i'm sorry, the delegate from the district of columbia. >> we did talk about this yesterday and subcommittee. i'm going to oppose it because rhetorically, we think aggression is a strong statement, and i'm concerned that a weak administration, sounds like president obama is administering in a weak manner, but the idea is he is projecting weakness to the world, and that is inviting aggression, so i oppose this. chair barrasso: additional discussion. hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. the next amendment is from the delegate from minnesota. line one -- i'm sorry, page one, line 37. simple thing.t a in scanning through this late last night, my eyes were a little tired or it i did not the
basis of a call out to be members of our law enforcement, emergency responders, given the events that have happened in the last week, if we are going to have it, we should really call out and thank members of our law enforcement for serving and protecting and putting their lives on the line for us. chair barrasso: a second, a discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. it is adopted. the next is the delegate from the district of columbia. >> you can relax. i think this will be a much more friendly amendment than those i have been offering over the last couple of days. is subject of my amendment our defense budget. this is not addressed in our section. the budgett for committee but missed the deadline yesterday given the other things on my own to do it fits hereink perfectly in the section we have about the wording the troops. i will first read the few
sentences that i have added. cuts to our defense budget have put a strain on our men and women in uniform. this is especially hurtful at a time when we are asking them to do more in an increasingly dangerous world. the u.s. defense budget has suffered a 25% cut in real dollars in the five years since sequestration. we support lifting the budget cap for defense and reject the efforts of democrats to hold the military's budget hostage for their domestic agenda. as i said, i think our platform would be weaker if we did not have a strong statement in favor of rebuilding our nation's military. for itselfnt speaks in terms of the cuts that have happened since sequestration in 2011.
meanwhile, since 2011, things have gotten much worse in syria and iraq with the rise of isis, russia has invaded ukraine and occupied part of their territory, china's aggression in the south china sea, all of these be to the need for having a robust military budget that adequately supports our men and women in uniform. the harm that sequestration has done to our military, primarily comes in the form of readiness, modernization, and morale, and our party should demonstrate rebuilding the military. thank you. chair barrasso: it has been moved and seconded. the delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with this.issue at some who is a fiscal hawk, i feel the need to point out i do not think referring to spending cuts is appropriate here for the simple fact that my understanding is that while what
we have seen -- we spend more on the military, but we have decreased the projected increases in spending, so it is kind of like if i planned to gain 10 pounds, and i only gained 8 pounds, i could go in and say, "well, i have lost 2 pounds." if it works that way, i would be in good shape. i do not think referring to these as actual spending cuts is appropriate or accurate. chair barrasso: the delegate from colorado. ok. the delegate from virgin islands. i saw your light was on, it is now off. ok. the delegate from north carolina. as cochair, i support this amendment. if there is no doubt that the military in real terms, since my untilance of dependent on
now, has suffered greatly budget wise, and exactly for the reason pointed out in the amendment so that the democrats can support their social agenda. we cannot have the strong ores that we have been advocating for all through this document and not pay for it, folks. that is the cost. how wet of finding out can conserve dollars and other areas and move on. thank you. chair barrasso: additional discussion. >> call to question. chair barrasso: all those in favor of voting immediately please signify by saying aye. , opposed nay. we will vote immediately. all those in favor of the amendment proposed, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the amendment is adopted. the next is the delegate from utah amending page number three, line 30. the delegate from utah. utah, afterate from add a new sentence
that a republican commander in training --egard under the first amendment of the u.s. constitution and the current defense authorization. , the national defense authorization act, the language of religious freedom rights is in that law, so we just needed to train the personnel on existing laws. chair barrasso: is there a second? discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. it is adopted. the next delegate from louisiana. and i have two from the delegate of louisiana. the person is on page three, line number 30. tony perkins of louisiana, i
believe the text was just on the screen. end,erkins: line 30 at the the republican commander in chief will protect the religious freedom of all military members, especially chaplains, and will not attempt to ban bibles or symbols. we have seen a growing hostility to the exercise of religious freedom, especially in our military. chair barrasso: discussion? >> yes, clarification and the difference between what we just -- it seems very: similar, which is what happens when the deadlines -- yes, the delegate from louisiana. mr. perkins: the text of the previous amendment was incorrect. it was training. it was incorrect language on the screen. i think we got ahead of ourselves and the actual language. chair barrasso: you are right. they're both page three, line 30. one from the delegate from utah,
one from the delegate from louisiana. mr. perkins: one deals with training of chaplains, the other deals with religious expression. >> why don't we combine both of them? chair barrasso: could we -- what is the recommendation from the delegate from hawaii? do one and then follow with the other or combine? >> yes, because one talks about religious training, but the other one, more specifically, talks about allowing bibles and things, and i think that is important to put that in there. i think that is a very serious problem, and we should support the chaplain corps. chair barrasso: the one has actually already been adopted. with theld visit author of this amendment as well as the author of the one that has just then approved to make sure we have it in a way that is agreeable to everyone here. i think they're both wanting to be adopted.
we can set these aside for a few minutes while staff works with both of you in dealing with that. and i see that we have the delegate from washington state wants to make a comment regarding this. >> yeah, why should we expects the republican commander in chief to protect these things? senate every commander -- shouldn't every commander-in-chief protect these? why should it be a republican? it is ridiculous that the commander-in-chief is violating some of our basic principles. chair barrasso: we are setting the society. the delegate from louisiana. >> i just want to clarify, the next commander in chief will be republican, so that is why we want to clarify. chair barrasso: while we work on that combination, i turned to the delegate again from louisiana for your next motion,
which is on page four, line 4. perkins: tony perkins from page four,line four, at the mission readiness will be a , we believe that our nation's most secure when the president and the administration prioritizes readiness, recruitment, and retention rather than using the military to advance a social or political agenda. military readiness should not be sacrificed for political correctness, which this administration has done. chair barrasso: moved and seconded, any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. that amendment is adopted. the next amendment is from the committeewoman from new hampshire on page 14, lines 7 to 11. juliana bergeron, new hampshire. i am hoping to clarify that we accurately describe what millennium challenge corporation
does. spearheaded by president bush, it has had a transformational effect and how foreign business is conducted, focusing on metric-driven results, transparency, and accountability and private sector engagement. at the party, we should continue and embrace this legacy and promote these efforts. i hope you will support this amendment. thank you. so we areasso: striking your amendment that is ,n page 14, lines 7 to 11 strike those lines and insert the language that is appearing on the screen relating to the millennium challenge corporation , and people have that other desks. discussion? the delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. certainly respect the amendment, and i think that as opposed to the current model of foreign aid, this is certainly an improvement.
goldwater once argued in the conscience of a conservative that foreign aid in and of itself is holy unconstitutional. there is nothing in article one, section eight that gives congress the ability to take money from the taxpayers and give it to the governments of other countries. as commerce and ron paul once said, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to rich people in a poor country. while i respect that this is trying to put a model in place that is better than the current model of foreign aid, i respectfully -- i do not want to support anything in our platform that seems to lend credence to the idea that we should be engaged in foreign aid at all in the first place. chair barrasso: the delegate from massachusetts. discussedis was extensively in the subcommittee, and the delegate from maine's
perspective was almost unanimously voted down. also, the comment is not actually referring to the amendment that is in front of us. the amendment in front of us , which iw language would ask the delegate from new hampshire who is offering it, is subsequentlyg different, or is it just new language to what we as a subcommittee already have in the document. chair barrasso: the delegate from new hampshire? ms. bergeron: i was not there. chair barrasso: the delegate from the district of columbia. >> it is a little bit new ones, but it has to do with government to government. the problem is that while it does certainly emphasize private sector engagement and that text
is throughout the language that we have adopted as well as in the subcommittee, that will see reflected elsewhere in the draft, it does involve the u.s. government and other governments, so there is a bit of a contradiction, and i worked with the delegate of new because there is a bit of an inconsistency to say that we are opposed to it, but we are also very supportive of the mpc, which we should be. i work in foreign policy. the work they do is amazing to advance american interests and itster local economies, and really has transformed the way that we do foreign aid. it is a republican initiative, and we should do all we can to support appeared i strongly support this amendment. chair barrasso: this additional discussion. hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying please signify by saying aye. opposed nay.
in the opinion of the chair, the aye's have it, and the amendment is adopted. next, delegate from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment will insert a 18, afterge 15, line the sentence "radical islamic terrorism poses a threat to freedom and peace around the "lgbt" the insert will be individuals in particular have been a target of violence and will make two points on this. my first concern in suggesting this amendment was that we've heard a lot about not digging into the weeds of specific listening to specific policies, and i support that generally, but i want to
that a number of screening programs, a particular orson of -- portion of iraq of the country of iraq, we have found good reason to point out those specifics of our platform because they represent important values. i suggest that this action get to the bottle of the islamic terrorists in that they are not coming after us as a country, they are coming to after us as a value system. they are opposed to western values. nothing expresses that more than targeting lgbt individuals by the radical islamic terrorists. singlingk it is worth out for that reason. it is worth singling out because we have adopted provisions elsewhere in the platform that i , used toe will call call into question, our sincerity and commitment to universal freedoms and liberties and the support of individuals of all stripes.
i do believe that my fellow committee -- i do not believe that my fellow committee members have an anti-gay agenda, but i know that that will be an accusation. pointhave an agenda to out that we stand firmly against things like the nightclub shooting that took 49 lives in month ago today, by the way, that we stand against things like gays being thrown from buildings and hung from cranes like we see in the middle east when the radical islamists have their way, this is a good way to home.hat point, bring it this does not make any great policy statement. and then finally, i would suggest that as a political matter, we need to do something to address this issue for the benefit of our candidates. if we are going to go beyond the
boor, something the competitive nominee states, then we need to address these issues in a way beyond what we have done so far in the platform. i think this is a good move in that direction. i saw a pew research poll last week, and i guess i was not too surprised that hillary clinton was beating our presumptive nominee between 18 and 29-year-olds. what stunned me is that we are losing to gary johnson in that demographic. i do not believe one poll should drive us, but i would ask my fellow committee members to take that to heart. we need to do something here, and i believe this is an anarchy with what important way to make that statement. thank you. chair barrasso: the delegate from alabama. >> we discussed many issues, and we decided that we would not identify individual groups, and this is doing that, and if we started doing that, the list
would probably be 50 plus, so we chose not to do that, and i would recommend no vote on this. chair barrasso: the delegate from colorado. >> i called to question, mr. chair. delegaterasso: the from colorado has called to question. it is not debatable, but it takes 2/3. i saw a number of hands appeared all those in favor of voting immediately please signify by , saying aye. all those opposed, please say no. i asked those who vote immediately to raise their hands and count the vote. county vote of those who want to vote immediately. -- count the vote of those who want to vote immediately.
i ask you to put your hands down. all those who want to continue the discussion, please raise your hands. please put your hands down. the vote of the committee is to continue discussion. now i will have the delegate from maine. maine?h delegate from [laughter] -- i barrasso: whichever have maine, kansas, new york, ohio, missouri, michigan, andrict of colombia, yes, hawaii. so we have a long list of people. whichever one of you want to talk, if not, i will move on to kansas. defer to my college, but if i could be put in the queue. >> thank you. i think it would be a mistake to
single out one specific group when we have women, christians, jews that are all being targeted by islamic terrorism. [applause] chair barrasso: the delegate from kansas. >> that was going to be my too as often as. we seek a people thrown off of buildings, there are also christians put inside cages and burned to death. christians and use are the number one target of islamic terror, and we need to recognize everybody. chair barrasso: delegate from new york. think this is a rather innocuous way to recognize. human rights issue and rule of law issue. people thrown off the edge of
buildings and hung by a crane, they are killed first and have questions later. i would accept adding women, christians, juice, and -- jews, and minorities into this amendment because of course they also are human rights violations. chair barrasso: does the author except that? -- accept that? that.thor accetpts let's get in writing. the delegate from ohio. ofi would be in agreement adding those to that list because if we cannot single out one, but if we are going to make a statement, i think we should include everyone because everyone is a target of that group. chair barrasso: is the author receptive to that? >> yes. chair barrasso: we will get that reflected on the screen. the delegate from missouri who had her hand up. >> i'm glad that the others were
added. it is not our policy to keep on adding because we will miss somebody who will the targeted by isis, so we should keep it out altogether. chair barrasso: delegate from michigan. >> i'm opposed to want to strike this whole sentence. we do not need to name a specific groups. the words that are really bothering me and my sentence, -- sentence,this the words that bother me are "in particular," i think this is insulting. look at the violence perpetrated on christians since the beginning of isis, nobody put in "the christians in particular" and left out lgbt. we do not need any of us. radical islamic terrorism is targeting everybody. everybody but themselves during so we can and bring the sentence
with "peace around the world," period. >> that was in the original document, including christians. chair barrasso: will the author look at the screen and see if this is what you have agreed to at this rate? i will go to the -- at this point? >> i did propose a similar amendment and the subcommittee that identified lgbt individuals, or people, or community should be added to the scented so it is grammatically correct. my original amendment in the identified the lgbt community, religious minorities, and women. i was told we did not like lists. although i will point out that we did mention a lot of other groups throughout this platform. i am supportive of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. i think it is important to mention christians, jews, and
women. i do have other things i want to say. i know most of you did not support my amendment yesterday on lgbt issues, and it is important to remember that this issue, this current amendment is not about your stance on marriage, on traditional marriage, marriage equality. this is about standing up for the basic human rights of gays and lesbians around this country -- i am sorry, in this country and around the world. i am very encouraged to report, especially to our friends watching on c-span around the country, that after my remarks yesterday about being a proud publican, not a single person in this room has displayed any animosity, hatred toward me -- at least not to my face -- but i do want to urge all of you in this room who came to me, saying that you supported me as an individual, even though you did not support my amendment
yesterday, support this because if you support me as an individual, can you at least support our rights to not be killed by these individuals, by those who want to bring harm to our country, we saw that in the terrorists attack in orlando. it was one month ago today. it was a targeted attack on the lgbt community forcibly living in freedom as who they are. is one that we as a party, that you stand with me now, that you stand up for basic human rights against the lgbt community, christians, jews, and women, thank you. chair barrasso: the delegate from nevada. >> i think the party is supposed to be a big tent. and includehat tent these victims, name them, and be proud to name them. thank you. chair barrasso: delegate from
montana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think if everyone would look at line 18 on that page, that we include everyone, the republican party stands united with all victims. [applause] and we do care about everyone. thank you, mr. chairman. chair barrasso: the delegate from louisiana. i second the amendment. i am sandra mcdade from louisiana. i think the secondary amendment should read as follows, "we oppose the brutal assault on all human beings, all of room have inherent dignities." chair barrasso: we have a secondary amendment on the floor already that it has not been dealt with, and that is what the author has agreed to, so let's make sure that before we type in what the gentlelady from louisiana just mentioned, get issue. the
as you are agreeing, the delegate from rhode island. lgbt, i believe it reads better. it should say lbj t, christians, jews, women have been targeted in particular. chair barrasso: we're back with the author of the original amendment and what he that i will put to the group for a vote. i believe that language it up third also, mr. chairman, if i make him a one of your initial agreements of the body was to allow staff to do the cleanup work, and we will be meeting to tidy things up. we get toasso: before the amendment offered by the
committee woman from louisiana, we are going to vote on your agreement on the change of your original agreement, which is now on the floor. all those in favor of just accepting the author's language as the amendment that is on the floor, please say aye. opposed nay. ok, so that is the language that is on the floor. now to the gentlewoman from louisiana who wants to propose an amendment to this. mcdade: is it on now? amendment, and i'm offering this amendment because like everyone else, i was horrified by what happened in orlando. these are human beings, americans on american soil. i was not horrified by any subsection of groups -- i was angry because they were human beings. " e oppose the brutal assault -- chair barrasso: where does this
go? in addition to? in -- ade: chair barrasso: instead of? a complete substitute. withbelieve the screen is the original language. we have approved modified language. chair barrasso: yes, we need to get back to the language that this -- thank you. ms. mcdade: i would appreciate that clarification because it is very confusing what exactly -- chair barrasso: nothing has been passed. there is an amendment from the delegate from rhode island, and he has agreed to some changes, and this body has agreed to allow him to make those changes to his own language, and that is now on the screen, so to the original author, is this an accurate reflection of what you are proposing? >> yes. chair barrasso: all right, so --s is what the amendment
this is the amendment on the floor right now. it has not been approved or rejected, it is being debated. and the gentlelady from louisiana has a second amendment to it. that we have not seen yet. and it is to substitute entirely, is that correct? mcdade: as i understand it, the secondary has to be considered before. we oppose the brutal assault on all human beings, all whom have inherent dignity. i do not think we should be doing subsections of any organization. we oppose terrorism on all human beings. chair barrasso: so we have a motion to substitute, and it has been moved and seconded. discussion on that language from the gentlelady from louisiana. ok. the delegate from hawaii. opposed to the amendment
.uggested i think in this instance it is extremely important to name these groups in this case. we have done it in other parts of this platform, and i am totally in support of the statements from the delegate from rhode island. i think it is important to name them. [applause] chair barrasso: the delegate from west virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just like to say i am in support of the substitution from the lady, the delegate from louisiana. terrorism,nst all iainst any human being, and did not believe we need to be naming out subsections of people because we are surely going to miss one, and we have all agreed that we are against human suffering and humans being murdered.
so we are just against everybody as human beings being murdered and i fully support the substitution. thank you. chair barrasso: delegate from new york. no, ok. delegate from new jersey, sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was supportive of similar language yesterday that we voted down in the national security committee. we are very critical as the party and our presumptive nominee has been very critical and not calling islam and terrorism islamic terrorism. you have to apply specificity to that. if we do not apply specificity victims, makes the argument disingenuous and dilutes the argument that we have. [applause] chair barrasso: the delegate from michigan is asking to call the question. vote tores a 2/3 shut off the debate. >> i differed sometime back and
have not been called on pure it i have seen other people being called on. let me point out that you were on the list as well as delegates from minnesota, indiana, north carolina, california -- there are a lot of hands up. the question has been called that is not debatable. it takes 2/3 vote. the body decided they wanted to continue the discussion. the body has been called a second time. the specific substitution on the delegate from louisiana. it takes 2/3 voete to shut off the debate. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed nay. i believe there are 2/3 of you that would like to vote immediately. with that, we moved to the vote by the member of louisiana, the vote is immediately on striking the words that are on the screen
, and inserting the words that are on the screen in terms of "we oppose the brutal assault." today, what is before us the substitution suggested by the delegate of louisiana. all in favor of making that substitution, and then we will have a chance to vote on the entire amendment. all those in favor of that substitution please signify by , saying aye. all those opposed, please signify by saying no. the chair is in doubt. can i ask for a show of hands? this is a simple majority at this point. all those in favor of the substitution by the delegate from louisiana, raise your hand. majority vote.
>> chair, have a point of question. chair barrasso: you can put your hands down. all those opposed, please raise your hand. please put your hands down. the motion to make this substitution has passed. now, there was a parliamentary inquiry? yes, the gentlelady from alaska. froms, julie elledge alaska. what happened to the one that was struck out. ? chair barrasso: we have just voted on the substitute from the delegate from louisiana. now we have made that substitution, but now that is the amendment on the floor, and now that amendment is now open for discussion and vote.
the chairman of the committee. >> i call for question. chair barrasso: the chairman has called on that. to vote on the entire amendment as amended, the question has been called, all those in favor of voting immediately please , signify by saying aye. those opposed to voting and want to continue the discussion, please signify by saying nay. we apply the chair rules of 2/3. those on the motion as amended please signify by saying , aye. opposed nay. the motion is adopted. we go back ton -- the issue of the chaplain from page three, line 30, we have adopted the utah amendment, and we have in front of us the louisiana amendment, and the question is, since they both were amendments to line 30, how
would they be ordered? and if the chaplain amendments related to the delegate from louisiana is passed, that would put in first, followed immediately by the one from utah in terms of the way that it would read. the delegate from louisiana. >> i agree. i am fine with that in terms of the location. chair barrasso: any discussion from the standpoint of the the delegate from iowa. a movement to replace the first one from the second one in order? the first one has been accepted. chair barrasso: the first one is passed by the body. the second one is felt to be on a similar, but different topic area different points being made, but from the same location. that is the amendment on the floor now. >> thank you. chair barrasso: