tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN July 14, 2016 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
who said, the sign of a truly intelligent person is that, he said at the time, is informed by statistics. the statistics are overwhelming. 91 a day. over 1,000 mass murders, that being defined as more than -- four or more people being slaughtered in one incident. all of that since newtown. i know my time is drawing short but i'll just say this. these are statistics. more important than that, they are human lives. . how many more human lives, how any more sleeks of mothers and dads and he talked about the piercing sound of a mother's scream. i heard one of the mothers of orlando when she was suspicious that her son might have been killed. she said. i don't know. we don't have any evidence. he isn't at the hospital.
i'm afraid i have become a member of the club, the club of mothers who lost their sons and i want to speak out against gun violence so there aren't more moms added to the club. but that doesn't seem to resonate to our colleagues. they don't give the courtesy of attendance, attendance, to hear the concerns that people have. is it in difference? do they not know or do they not care? it is some combination. whatever it is, a disgrace to our oath of office to protect the american people. be assured of this. be assured of this. we are not going away. you will see us. you will see the faces of those moms and all the organizations that have come together that millions of people, the high
percentage, 85%, 90% of all parties who support the legislation that we are asking for. we are not going away until we have common sense gun violence prevention laws passed in our country to save lives. some save lives. that's the challenge we offer to our republican colleagues. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cicilline: unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent that we continue to have an additional hour to continue to speak about the urgency of gun violence prevention action. we have many democratic colleagues who are here and seeking time to implore the speaker to come back into session the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot entertain this request at this time. mr. cicilline: why is the chair not capable of entertaining a request for unanimous consent to provide for additional time to address this urgent public
health crisis? the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's policy under special orders does not allow us to entertain that request. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, for 0 minutes. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. i take the floor this afternoon to continue to talk about gun violence and to talk about the problems that we are
encountering in this country at this time with the issues of citizens being killed. olice officers being killed, domestic violence -- to talk about people who may be mentally ill who are committing gun violence. and this is a very difficult subject. you have heard from my colleagues for some days now about our determination to deal with this issue of gun violence. you've heard about the bills that we have tried to get taken up on the floor to deal with gun violence. very simple bills. one bill that is a bill that has fly, noracterized as no
buy, simply meaning that if you are too dangerous to be on an airplane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. and of course, universal background checks, to make sure we know who's seeking to purchase weapons and what their backgrounds are and whether or not they should be allowed to purchase a gun. in the middle of all of this work that we are doing, we are painfully reminded that there's another issue and another roblem that we have been confronted with year in and year out that really has not been dealt with. and this problem is one that has reared its head one more time. just a few days ago, we tnessed the killing of alton sterling in baton rouge and
philando castile in minnesota and of course because of the graphic pictures that were shown on television, because of the cell phones that recorded what was going on, it has really created the kind of discussion and organizing and rallying and protesting that forces us to have to deal with this issue even when it is too painful for many to deal with. we have been dealing with it for many years. ack in 1994, there was a woman who was shot down on her porch
in front of her daughters because she had not been able to pay her utility bill, her gas bill. her heating bill. and because she would not allow the gas company to turn off her heat, they called the police. and the police came out. a confrontation ensued, i think she had a butter knife that she lila lovehem and shot down on her porch. and i became very active back then in dealing with police shootings because, as you know, in the los angeles area, there had been incidents prior to this dating back before this that had created the kind of protests and
rallies that really caused people to fear what was happening in our communities. and so, i organized. i visited the police commission. i organized others to visit the police commission. we tried to put up meetings with the police chief at the time who was darrel gates. he was a tough police of chief and had no intention of sitting down with the community to talk about police shootings. he felt that every police shooting was justified and that the community had no right to question what happened when there was a confrontation between police and the community. we organized. we continued to put pressure on darrel gates. more incidents occurred. as a matter of fact, when you
heard about the death of eric gardner up in new york who died from something called the choke hold, it really was a practice that was used in the los angeles area by police officers. and at that time, darrel gates, the police chief said, the black people who were killed as a result of the choke hold, died because something was wrong with their carotid muscle and something wrong with black people that caused them to die when they were placed in this choke hold. so having worked in the greater los angeles area and witnessed police chief gates learning and understanding the choke hold and there was a batter ingram and on and on and on, i have known for many years that this was an issue that had to be dealt with.
and from time to time, others have tried. there have been meetings in various cities and towns in this country at police commissions. and many people have tried to create civilian police review boards. it has been resisted in many cities and towns. and very few have been able to create sit sense-police review boards. and so these killings continue. and they are disproportionately killing black men and boys. so when people raise the question about i will so many black folks are involved in this issue, it is because of the disproportionate number of african-americans who find emselves killed -- the families find their relatives
killed at the hands of police. now, of course, not all police someone.ooking to kill not all police are prejudice. not all police are bad officers. but, of course, we know that there are problems. we have pointed to the training. and we have asked for better training. we have always felt that the buck stops at the top. and that if police chiefs have the kind of training that we believe officers should have, then we could reduce the numbers of confrontations and killings of young black men in particular. i don't know what's become of this training idea. i think most police chiefs will tell you, oh, we do the proper training. we have the best training of any police department in the
country. but somehow people who are the victims of police officers who are responsible for these killings really don't believe that the training is what it should be. and so these killings are creating the kind of protests and rallies that are making a lot of people extremely uncomfortable. and we are all very saddened by the fact that we lost five police officers in dallas and that the killer of these police officers said, he killed them because he was seeking revenge. we do not want the revenge mentality to take hold in this country. that's very dangerous. and so what do we do about it? we keep working at how we can reduce these killings and how to eliminate these killings and what can we do. and i have some ideas about this
that i'm working with some people on as a matter of fact. i will be speaking to the national black lawyers' association in st. louis, missouri on monday. one of the ideas i want to talk with them about is, encouraging more communities to meet on an ongoing and regular basis with police chiefs, get to know them, talk with them, explain what has been said about them and the feelings of african-americans in these communities. get to know each other. i have also asked them -- i'm going to ask them to work with the members of the city councils who have the budgets of the police departments and with the county superviseors who have the budgets of the sheriff's department. talk with them and leverage your influence because you have the
budget in your control. to let them know how serious you are about reducing these killings and these confrontations. the other issue that i'm going to talk with the lawyers about is putting together a program to take to our police chiefs about reducing the confrontations by eliminating, stopping these automobiles and these drivers on minor incidents, minor problems. of course there are going to be some tail lights that need to be fixed. but do you need to stop that motorist. do you need to ask them to get out of the car. do you need to ask them to get out of the car with your hands out or arms and legs spread.
do you need to ask them to get out of the car and tell them to lay on the ground while you search them? do you need to search the car illegally? what are you looking for? if it is a tail light, can't you just give a warning, a ticket and go on about your business? why is it that these police stops about tail lights and other infractions are causing so much confrontation? of course, as most drivers try to do the business they can in driving and taking care of their cars, i'm sure there are those who would like to get some things fixed, whether it's a windshield wiper or a tail light or something else that may be wrong with the car. but i'm sure some may have to wait until the next pay day. they're not crooks and not criminals and they should be warned. there is something in the black
community that blacks have believed for a long time. when kids are coming up, they tend to get in trouble. sometimes they vandalize. sometimes they, you know, perhaps ring somebody's doorbell and run as someone was explaining the other night that was happening with their child. or sometimes they will pull a prank and run away and then they get caught and in the african-american community, we believe that oftentimes when children commit these minor offenses and the police stop them, they take them home to momma or tell them to get out of there or go home. when black kids are stopped, black kids are taken to jail. e have to straighten out we have to stop some of the misunderstandings about when black boys and black men are
stopped on these infractions. we believe a lot of confrontations do not have to take place if in fact these minor offenses are not treated like crimes. and we believe that we can reduce the occurrence of these confrontations by convincing the police department that they should not be asking folks to get out of their cars and creating a confrontation, people should not be calling each other name, and we want to eliminate from the mouths of any police officers the n word, or the kind of language that is oftentimes used when they decide that they're going to stop someone and that they're going to raise questions or they're going to search them, etc. we believe that that is a legitimate thing to do. and so i'm going to be recommending that. to the national black lawyers association that we put together a program that we present to
these police chiefs and these police departments about reducing confrontation and discontinuing the stops on minor offenses that end up in confrontations and killings. the other thing that i'm going to be recommending, not only to the national black lawyers association, but to the news media, and to these channels who cover all of this, why can't we have some public service announcements that go on every day and maybe at the end of every day where people are and ed about driving taking care of their cars, getting those windshield wipers fixed, getting taillights fixed, making sure that the windows are working. why can't we have public service announcements that just keep
reminding people have your insurance dock yimetation in the car with you, all of those things that could reduce the kind of stops that we are witnessing time and time again, that are ending in confrontation. i believe that there are many other things that we can do if we think about it. i know there's a lot going on about having discussion. people say that we should talk to each other more. well, that's fine and that's good. and for all of those people who would like to be involved in discussions with each other, with their communities, with the police department, you should do that. but talk is cheap. and it really is going to take some concerted actions to be able to deal with these problems. there are some police officers who should just be weeded out. they have no business being
police officers. they're either trigger happy or they are prejudice and when they 6'2", ung black man, 6'3", weighing 200 pounds, automatically they are afraid of them and they think that they have to protect themselves against him simply because of the size of the individual. when we take a look at eric gardner up in new york, who was of such size where he was wrestled to the ground simply because he was selling loose cigarettes. that was all about, we believe, some officer proving that they were not afraid of him and they could take him to the ground and they could deal with him. and of course it's what triggered his death. there was no need to tackle him. i just saw on television the other day a famous, i believe, tennis player, who was standing in new york and was rushed by
police because they said he fit the description of someone that had been reported had committed a crime. now when you say that you stopped a young black man because they fit the description, nobody believes that. we've heard that over and over and over again. and blacks believe that that's an excuse to stop somebody. and it's a convenient excuse to say, well we stopped because he fit the description. they don't have any other reason to stop, they have not violated anything, they have not made a traffic -- they don't have traffic warrants, etc., etc., but this excuse has been used over and over again, he fit the description and that's why we stopped and when people are the victims of those who say they fit the description, of course they're angry. and of course they're going to
tell the police officer that they didn't fit the description and they don't like what's happening and that causes another kind of confrontation. and so we need to be able to talk with the police chiefs and tell them these kinds of things and we need to get rid of that culture of silence in the police department. one officer can witness another officer actually committing a crime. to see that police officer targeting and treating someone bad but they will never, ever admit it. they will never, ever report it. that culture of silence and protection is something we all know about. and it happens every day. and so we need to be honest about what the feelings are and the police need to be honest with us about what they think about what they're doing in these kind of situations and even in all that i have heard on
television in the last few days where they supposedly having town hall meet, supposedly talking about these issues, i have not heard the real truth come out about how members of the african-american community who have witnessed too much of this really feel about the police and i've not heard the police talk about how they really feel about those that they think are committing crimes that should be stopped or what they understand about them and what's going on in the community. and so i'm hopeful that we can have a real conversation because i want to tell you, as we take a look at what has happened just in the last year or so, what we find is 1,205 people have been shot and killed by on duty police officers since january 1, 2015.
in the first six months of 2015, 465 people were shot and killed. in 2016, 491 were shot and killed. in 2016. a 6% increase in the number of such deaths during the first six months of the year. fatal encounters are strikingly similar too last year's shootings and blacks continue to be shot at .5 times the rate of whites. police have shot and killed a young black man, agented 18 to 29, such as michael brown in ferguson, missouri, 175 times since january, 2015, and 24 of them were known to be unarmed. so whether we're talking about michael brown or eric gardner or ezell ford or tamir rice, john rawford, walter scott, freddie
gray, sandra bland, rikah boyd, laquan mcdonald, or the last two that we have seen on television almost every night for the last eek or so, alton sterling or philando castile or names that we don't know, names not mentioned here because they have not been reported and we don't have the kind of database of these killings that we should have. that's another recommendation that i'm making, that we must have a database that is kept so that we can know for sure exactly who is being killed and why, supposedly, they are being killed. this is tough business that we have to deal with. this is painful business that we have to deal with. but when you see those mothers on television, as i saw last evening, saying i have a
14-year-old and i'm afraid for his life every minute he's not with me. and folks, -- and folks tell us you should talk to them more. and you should tell them how they should act when they're stopped by the police. i want to tell you, every african-american mother and father that i know talked to their children about the police. they are afraid they're going to be killed. they're afraid they're not going to come home once they leave the house. and they talk to them about how to conduct themselves, if they're stopped by the police. and while they shouldn't have to act any differently than anybody else, mothers and fathers of black children talk to their children about that all the time. they say to them, if they stop you make sure you keep your
hands visible, put them up on the dash board so they won't think you're reaching for something. if they ask you to get your driver's license out, you tell them to take it out of your pocket because you're afraid that if you go in your pocket to get your driver's license, it'll be an excuse to shoot you down because they -- too many of them have said and will say we thought they were reaching for a eapon. black people for the most part tell their young boys and their only to keep their hands visible, don't talk back to the police, make sure you don't look as if you're reaching for something, and be very, very careful that you don't do anything that will cause them to shoot you. this is real. this goes on all the time. and i don't know if people know or understand this.
none of us are saying that we want our children to be in confrontation that we want our men to be in confrontation. that we want our girls to be in confrontation with the police. we always teach everything that we can about staying out of a situation where there will be an excuse to shoot or kill you. body cameras. we he advocated for body cameras and now we find that in this last incident i believe in minnesota the body camera somehow was on the ground and it wasn't working. or the body camera was not turned on in some instances that we hear about. or even when the body camera records, in many instances, and maybe under practices and law in some cities, that information cannot be revealed for some long
period of time until after certain things have taken place within the police department. so we're -- so we've talked about that and we have advocated for body cameras and we were hoping that they would help us to understand what was going on. but we find that just plain old citizens with a cell phone is doing more to document what is happening than the body cameras that we advocated for. as a matter of fact, butt for -- but for the cell phone well, would not have known in baton rouge. and we would not have known what happened in minnesota. the sight of a man being pinned unable to ground, move, and a gun being put at very close range to his body and being killed is more than most folks can bear.
most folks looking at what happened in baton rouge and what happened in minnesota know that something is wrong with that. that that is not right. and it's not just black folks. there are many white folks who understand and believe. it's something wrong with this picture. and so while we are talking while we are talking about gun violence and be able to focus on laws to keep guns out of the hands that people shouldn't have them, we have to deal with what's happening in our country with the confrontations between african-americans, men and boys in particular, and girls, and police officers. and so, i share this information with you. as difficult as it is to talk about it. because until we get to the point of honest if i about what we feel and what we understand
and what we believe is going on, we're never going to be able to deal with this problem. and so, i'm going to continue to work on this. like i said. i started in 1994. and while my attention and my career has been diverted toll deal with financial services and other kinds of issues on wall street, i got to get back to main street and i got to get back to the idea that we can do bet they are than this and that our country cannot, cannot continue to not know how to deal with it, but rather come up with creative ideas and thoughts and ways which we can discontinue these killings. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. does the gentlewoman have a motion? ms. waters: mr. speaker, i move
>> if you are not careful what you have you have a runaway nominee and don't have a cooling off period, because if you don't have the cooling-off period, the first four states have a huge impact and win on the very first state on super tuesday, you literally could skyrocketal nominee that hasn't been vetted through the process.
it's complicated -- it's calculus. to try to do that right now in this period of something that took -- something that took us days is just too dangerous because we have no idea where the ultimate consequences would be. thank you madam chair and the andon i urge you to vote no study and meets the requirements of the 75% threshold. >> and he didn't even say football. is there anyone who wishes to be recognized in support? yes, sir. >> a lot of argument has been de to put this off to wait because we don't have enough time to study it. why are we here? why did we all come together?
why did we make an effort to come if we are not going to deal with some things. we left rule 12 in place. so after this meeting, things can be undone if they are significantly wrong. it is a high threshold, as the gentleman, my colleague, stated. if the commission comes back and decides that we need to undo this and we need to remove their privilege, as you stated, you alreadyville 128 delegates from those four states, 20 delegates from those four states who are not going to be part of your 75%. so the threshold has been moved even further from the possibility of truly dealing with this will amendment. and i agree with my colleague from colorado and several of the colleagues thatville spoken today. let's deal with it today and let's remove the privilege
that's in place that i heard no one give a true and honest reason why it is there. let's remove it and then if it is significantly wrong, we can -- the r.n.c. can undo it. i make a motion to move the previous question. >> the previous question has been moved and is in order. we will move directly to a vote on whether we will end a debate. a those ending debate place aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. we will move directly to a vote on amendment 16.2. those in favor say aye. of adopting amendment 16.2 say aye. those opposed, no. the nays have it. i'm going to ask you to stand and it's going to be quite clear there are not enough.
so rather than keep counting. and a if it's not obvious we are going to worry about the count. those of you in favor of amendment 16.2 please stand. i noticed that you counted. what did you get? would you be seated, please. [laughter] >> all those opposed, please stand. it's clearly the nays have it. thank you, you may be seated. the amendment fails. next, amendment 16., this
relates toll rule number 16-e-5 and submitted by the gentlelady will be ado, who recognized for the purpose of making a motion. >> and i would like to move to the proposed language to strike the words for the population therein at the end of this section. >> it has been moved. it has been moved and seconded. if you would like to address your amendment. >> this is dealing with the way the dell gates are apportioned and the state conventions that we have in our states in order to -- where the dell gates elect from the state conventions and they are apportioned according to republicans and it's pursuant o state law and party rules.
but it is at the end when it said having regarding the republican vote or the population therein, i would like to strike that. we want to focus on the republican vote where it is apportioning. and the reason i really like this is because it's noncontroversial [laughter] > but if we just aren't also focusing on the population overall, it is also not including the illegal immigrants that are comprised in the population therein. >> is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this motion? anyone seeking opposition? anyone else who would like to ? eak in support anyone else who would like to speak at all? i'm seeing some back and forth.
the gentlelady from california. >> i'm opposed to this amendment because taking to its logical conclusion you could see similar attempts to disenfranchise people in smaller states based on smaller population. our founders created a balance between the states that get apportionment in our national legislature based ol population versus their regional identity. one could say why is it fair that rhode island has the same number of senators as california? we have five million voters in california. sole live in san francisco such as i do and i was the chairman of the republican party in san francisco. many donors live in my district. our representation because if we are stuck with a nancy pelosi
were to be taken away on the basis, you guys come to san francisco for your fundraisers would see a decreased amount of interest there. but in keeping our delegates throughout the state of california engaged and energized, decreasing the involvement on the basis of a rule change like this would have very significant impact and shouldn't be taken lightly even though it is striking forward and will be a huge impact ol large states. >> anyone else who would like to support? anyone who would like to speak in opposition? >> john ryder tennessee. i oppose this amendment. we are a national political party. our goal should be to represent and carry our position to all corners of this great nation and
that includes areas that don't yet vote republican. we need to bring them enlightenment. and they need to be represented in our councils so we can share with them our vision for this country. so i urge a no vote on this amendment. >> anyone else who wishes to be recognized on this amendment? seeing none, the gentlelady from louisiana. >> i couldn't get up fast enough. i'm going to support in support of it. it seems to me-- whenever it's talking about the population thereof that the one that is mostly going to be affected are sanctuary cities
and i thought that was the biggest point for our presumptive nominee trump and i don't understand why there is so much opposition and i'm speaking in favor of it. >> i hesitated before i came here because i wanted to understand the implications of this. as i read it is directing the congressional districts, conventions, the local ones to only pick delegates. where currently it says you can do it on the basis of republican vote or the population therein. it seems to me what this is doing is taking away from the state parties the discretion to decide how they pick their delegates and being a texan but we don't like how washington is telling us what to do. nothing in the current rules prohibit you from basing it on
republican vote but just gives ou the option and the locale and the states decide. i think our states should decide how we pick our own dell depates. i will vote against this. >> we will go to a vote on the amendment. those in favor say aye. in adoption of amendment 16.3. please say eye. -- aye. those opposed, no. we will go to 16.4. mendment number 14.4 which pacts rule number 16-clnch-3 ii. this has been submitted by mr. ash. is mr. ash here to make a motion?
mr. ash is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. >> bruce ash from arizona. i would like to submit for consideration the proposal that's been put up on the board. >> it's been moved. is there a second? is there a second it has been seconded. mr. ash, would you like to speak to your amendment? >> this is along with the other amendments that have been presented om performance enhancement and it would strike the word a at the beginning of the subsection and insert the following language on or after presidential election. >> is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to
the motion? mr. ryder, are you approaching the microphone? mr. ryder is recognized in opposition to the motion. >> this is a point of inquiry. i was having trouble finding this language in the rule. and where does it fit? could we get some clarification on that? >> do we have this up on -- if the staff could put this up. s it the change? .ll right, 16-c-3 if i understand it correctly,
mr. ash, just perhaps to expedite this. >> certainly. >> it looks like you are proposing that -- would be proportional up to march 31. >> that's a current change of 15 days or 16 days? >> correct. is everyone clear on what the amendment would be? all right. is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? we have not had someone speak in pposition to the motion. is there anyone would like to speak in favor? >> madam chairman, if i could. while it's up there, this is a concept, colleagues, that we have talked about at the r.n.c. in fact, some of us who are working in this prior presidential cycle, seriously
believed that going proportional through march 31 was a good idea. some of the reasons that mr. evans talked about a few moments ago with respect to not allowing a well-funded candidate to pile up victories to allow momentum to flow in a number of states primaries and not have anybody get too far out in advance in the presidential cycle process. >> thank you, mr. ash. someone who wishes to speak in opposition? >> john hammond from indiana. this is a bad amendment. it didn't seem that way because most didn't understand how it works and i'm not going to profess i understand it the best but to me we should let states decide this question and secondly, we spent a lot of time in the last couple of years
trying to shorten the calendar. to me, it would be argued -- we have a proportion and i'm opposed to this. i think it's a mistake to make that move. i urge opposition to this. >> thank you, mr. hammond. someone who would like to be recognized in support? mr. blackwell. >> thank you, madam chairman. the effect of this amendment would be to return to the rules that were in effect with respect in equiring proportionality 2012. the rules were changed for this year and the states were allowed to start holding winner take all primaries after the 15th of march. what i believe this will amendment would do and correct e if i'm mistaken, is to say
that winner take all primaries could not start before march 31, which i think is in accord with the thinking of probably most of the people in this room. i think it's a desirable thing to do to extend the period in which proportional primaries must be held. thank you. >> thank you, mr. blackwell. someone who would like to speak in opposition? mr. evans? >> yes, the amendment tries to take us back to a world that doesn't exist anymore and tries to take us back to a time that we didn't have instant media, internet, constant communication. when we put together the 2012 p, if you shorten from 6 1/2 months down to 75 days, you limit the number of tuesdays to
vm primaries on. you then have to contract. if you contract the overall period, you have to contract the cooling-off period. the cooling-off period is proportional. no candidate can wrap up a nomination by say, march 10. and so that's what that's designed to do. on the other hand, we balance that. there is a counterbalance and the counterbalance is we don't have candidates cutting themselves up seven months in the process. we move the date from august to july. and move the end date up to the middle of may. move the beginning back to february so we were to cut down the total period, kind of like having a shot clock in the nba saying we want to go back to the four corners and we have a shot clock. that's why the point is, this is
the doctrine of unintended consequences is so serious and add the two weeks back in to a world that doesn't address anymore. and the last point, this rule 12 committee can fix that. no, it can't. imagine me going to the 14 states who are on the supertuesday and say we are going to move your day. guess what, they have more delegates than the 25% threshold. i can't meet it because they all have more delegates than the high standard that we set. it's a rubics cube and for us to try and solve it today would lead to consequences that we could never contemplate. i strongly oppose trying to do this in the context of the time period that we have here.
i agree we have to do important things. i don't think we should be attacking anything like this. it would be like tackling calculus in high school. mr. little. >> far be it for the supporters to speak to a line that doesn't exist. the opponents speak of history that they know nothing of. in 1998, the rules committee, the standing rules committee of the r.n.c. met in indianapolis to discuss what waled the delaware plan. the problem that we had was the front loading of primaries and we were going to have a national primary eliminating all but the most wealthy candidates. some plans began to be put forth that would prevent front loading. that was the delaware planning. the winner take all was the
solution to the problem, but it sn't much of a solution. it makes a lot of sense if we are going to stop front loadings to make that date march 31. and we are talking about the land of common sense. this committee should support this proposal. >> those who wish to speak -- be recognized in opposition. gentleman at the back. >> i'm from delaware and thank you about that shoutout of the delaware plan. i was one of the authors and the year was 2000. i don't think this amendment is necessary but certainly as it is currently drafted, it creates a huge ambiguity.
if you look at rule c-2 on page 0, the page before this one, it says any presidential to select allocate or bind delegates to the national convention that occurs prior to march 15 in the year of the national convention is held shall be proportional. so that says march 15 is a trigger where you can switch over to winner take all. this amendment drops down into c-2 and imposes a march 31 date and it creates a huge ambiguity. what happens on march 20. i have one section of the rules that says march 15. another section of the rules says march 31. if we are happy with the march 15 date and don't need this amendment at all. if we want to make the proportional requirement all the way through to march 31, the only change we have to make is
on-line 10 on march 30 and change page 15 to march 31. this is not the place to put it. i don't want to make a change but assuming we do. this amendment would won't and it needs to be fixed. i also think we should look at the delaware plan. i call the delaware plan. i still have many copies. >> is there someone who wishes to speak in support? lady from maine. >> based on what was just said, that's why i had come up to and proposed an amendment to have this language be changed into 16-c-2 and changing the march 15 date to march 31. >> the chair is going to observe that there is another amendment, 16.5 that would do exactly that thing. it proposes to strike march 15
and insert march 31. and so i'm going to suggest that we go ahead and act on this and then act on that separately. is that all right? >> sure. >> is there anyone who would like to speak in support? >> madam chairman. >> bruce ash from arizona. i don't think i had my entire two minutes and if i could re-dress the points made my colleagues. the same logic that my colleagues used to vote against a prior amendment. they're using also now to not pass this one. we don't want to run-away candidate. the same gentlemen who have talked about the front loading problem are also the same people on our committee for a number of years who have talked about
making all states matter, making as many states matter as possible. and this is what happens when we have proportional that goes a little longer than to march 15. march 31 is a pretty good date and if that does mean there are some regional primaries. that is a good thing. it allows it allows them to not be spread out all other the country. >> mr. evans. >> let me address my friend from louisiana, the past -- we have tools now available to solve the problems of the past in a very different way. i agree with him. listen, i ran the newt gingrich campaign, front end loading is a problem. but we have a tool available to solve that problem in a different way. that is the debate. what we did is, we had a debate schedule that permitted one debate per week so that each candidate