tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 8, 2015 6:30pm-7:01pm EDT
61, mr. corley.. 61, mr. corley.. 61, mr. corley.. 61, mr. corley.e. 61, mr. corley.y. 61, mr. corley. >> did i mess that one up? sergeant, could you help me find mr. corley. >> right here. >> house will come to order. let's give mr. corley your attention. we are on amendment 61. representative corley. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> just a minute mr. corley. >> do you have a point, a question? >> yes. >> voting on the prevailing side i move to reconsider. >> move to second. >> on the previous vote. >> on amendment 59? >> amendment 35959. >> he moves to table. nine people voting on the board. >> mr. hart requests a role
polls will close. clerk will tabulate. by the vote of 60 to 57 motion to reconsider is tabled. next amendment. >> 61 mr. corley. 61, mr. corley. >> mr. corley, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen this amendment would remove the flag that is currently flying outside and would replace it with the exact same flag we just talked about, the first south carolina infantry flag but it would also do something different. so what it would do is it would put the flag on the pole and then we would have a commission that would design a pole in
memory of black soldiers who fought for the confederacy. upon completion of that pole, the current pole would be taken and placed in the relic room and the pole honoring those african-american soldiers who fought for the confederacy would be the new pole from which the infantry flag would fly. that's it. >> thank you mr. corley. >> pending question the is adoption of amendment 61. saw mr. brown move to table amendment 61. i saw mr. mcknight request a role call. do nine members second his request? nine do. we'll vote on the board. pending question tabling a motion on amendment 61.
>> mr. nbc knight. >> how many more amendments do we have? >> i'll check, mr. mcnight. if mr. pitts will suspend his comments and let me look. thank you, mr. mcnight. >> mr. mcknight it looks like we have ten amendments to go including those passed over. >> thank you sir. >> yes, sir. all right. we're on amendment 63. mr. pitts amendment. he's recognized. mr. pitts. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i will not take long at the podium on this particular one. it's one that we had previously that came in to question because it stated statehouse grounds. this is just the pole itself.
it says that 364 days a year the state flag, the south carolina state flag would fly on the pole and one day a year on confederate memorial day the current flag would fly there. thank you mr. pitts. the standing question is adoption of amendment 63. mr. bran non -- 34r bran nonasked if we'd table it. >> nine second her request. nine do. we'll vote on the board. tabling motion on amendment 63.
>> amendment 64 representative corley's amendment. he's recognized on his amendment. representative corley. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen -- can i have some order? >> members, it's way too loud in here. if you will find your seat, take your conversations outside. representative corley has asked to be heard and he is recognized. mr. corley. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, for some reason the republican party had a caucus breakfast this morning and we were asked to try to find a compromise and it looked like we had, and our majority leader and speaker who asked us to do that voted against it, so i'm at a loss for what can be done. so i would like to offer that we take the confederate battle flag down and move it to the relic room and replace it with what we
can now refer to as the unofficial flag of the south carolina republican party which will be a solid white flag. i don't have a picture but it would look like this. since we're so concerned with the national media who is never going to treat us right and voters who are never going to vote for us and have no concern for our constituents and what they want. so we can take it down and fly that white flag and maybe that'll make everybody happy. thank you. >> pending question is the adoption of amendment 64. mr. mcnight moves to table amendment 64. mr. cobb -- pending question tabling motion on amendment 64. all in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no. the ayes have it. next amendment is number 65. mr. pitts. yes, ma'am? 65.
mike elkhawk pitts. >> pitts is recognized on number 65, mr. pitts. >> thank you for recognizing me by one of my aliases, reading clerk. mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house -- mr. speaker, could i please get some order? >> house come to order. please give mr. pitts your attention. >> mr. murphy, for what purpose do you rise? >> just point of order. can we get the computer to update? they're about two amendments behind. >> mr. corley, thank you for pointing that out. >> murphy. >> corley -- >> i'm sorry, mr. murphy. both snappy dressers. i get you confused sometimes. mr. murphy they're trying to keep up. we're going a little quick for them. they informed me that they will try to -- try to get back up to
where they need to be. mr. pitts. >> thank you mr. speaker. this is one similar to one i talked about earlier this morning, and i'm going to ask you to look inside, every member of this body to look inside. check the hypocritical gauge and see where you are. this particular amendment replaces the current flag and pole with a bronze and granite memorial with the regimental battle flag represented in the same way that the opposite number the regimental battle flag carried by the first south
carolina north is inscribed on another monument on the statehouse grounds. i would ask you to support this. it's not a flag flying, it is simply the opposite side of the same coin that is currently on the statehouse grounds. >> thank you mr. pitts. pending question is the adoption of amendment 65. mr. brian moves to table it. roll call. nine members segment request. nine do. we'll vote on the board. pending question tabling a motion -- tabling motion for amendment 65.
what's your point of order? >> thank you mr. speaker. my point is this amendment is dilatory and i i'll reference the prior rulings from the chair during previous debate where in there were minor changes on amendments that have already been voted on and defeated and/or clenched. this particular amendment is almost identical to the amendment number 59 that we clinched earlier. there's been minor changes as far as i can tell, second two which aren't significant enough under the chair's prior rulings to allow this to be considered twice essentially on the same question.
>> mr. smith how is section two not an additional section that changes the prior amendment? >> in preparing the point of order, it appears as far as i can tell the version i have there is no significant difference between the two. unless the author -- as you recall in your previous rulings when we changed into the numbers or events you -- the chair's prior ruling that was in fact dilatory. this is essentially the same question it's the same flag as was considered in 59. >> i understand, mr. smith. the ruling that the chair has made on numerous occasions relates to different counties relating to different fines and penalties, amendments where
there are a number of amendments just changing a word generally. this adds another paragraph. ms. cobb-hunter you can be heard on the issue. >> thank you, so much. mr. speaker. mr. speaker following up on mr. smith's point, i would remind the chair of our budget discussions. and i think i might have been the subject of one of your rulings where we made efforts on several budget amendments and that we were being very creative. made changes very similar to what mr. bettingfield as done. you ruled at that time that in spite of my creativity they were inartfully drawn and not germane. and mr. speaker, you know i'm not a lawyer and not even doing a good job of playing one on tv
but i think the concept that you ruled on during that budget debate is very similar to what is before us. mr. bettingfield in his crafting of this amendment has changed section two. what he did is delete. but as mr. smith has pointed out, the substantive change is still the same. and it is, while a noble effort, still applies if we are to be consistent. you with me, mr. speaker? >> i understand. i'm going to hear from mr. bettingfield. mr. bettingfield? >> thank you very much plrsh, mr. speaker. substantial difference is wrapped up in section two where we can deal with the issue of the other flags on the state house grounds that was brought up earlier related to the veteran's monument.
and there's another section that was in the amendment 59 that is not even now present in amendment 66. >> i'll hear from you. >> thank you mr. chair. mr. speaker, what is being attempted to be done is basically take a provision a previous amendment which was already voted on and declared outside the scope of the resolution. you have taken that has already been declared to not be within the scope and adding it to a bill that's already been clinched. you have something that's clinched and something that's out of order. adding that to an amendment that has been clearly clinched does not make it valid to be considered before this body at this time. >> your amendment is dilatory, is it not mr. smith? >> on multi --
>> your motion -- >> yes, i would say it's absolutely dilatory. it's also adding a provision that's outside the scope. and it's also voting something twice that's already been voted on and disposed of by this body. on all three basis it shouldn't be considered at this time. >> mr. cobb-hunter. >> if i'm in order if you are about to rule on mr. smith's point of order that the amendment is dilatory, i have a separate point of order that i'd like to raise. >> i'm going to rule on the first point of order first and whether or not the amendment is dilatory i'm going to overrule mr. smith's objection. i don't think it's dilatory. i'll hear other points of order ms. cobb-hunter.
>> mr. speaker, i would raise a point of order that this amendment though creatively drawn is still inartfully drawn as far as the resolution is concerned. i would suggest mr. speaker to the chair, that in previous rulings point of order as it relates to the resolution and the scope of the resolution that all of your previous orders are points of orders in your rulings rather apply in this instance as well. mr. speaker, i think it is dangerous, just a word that comes not a really good word but one that comes at this late hour i'm real concerned about what precedent might be set when we have rules that allow for clinching then we have people come back i mean the resolution is there for a purpose.
it limits what we are able to discuss during the time we come back. and while i appreciate the efforts that mr. bettingfield and others have made, i still, mr. speaker, believe that this is out of the purview of the resolution. it is talking here about any flag authorized to fly on the grounds. the resolution as i recall specifically dealt with the confederate flag. and as such while, again, i appreciate mr. bettingfield's efforts, i do think that this is still outside of the purview of our resolution. simply because it is adding a section that references any flag, where our resolution talks specifically about the confederate flag, mr. speaker.