tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 8, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
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.
>> in considering that ms. cobb-hunter i have to consider the entirety of the amendment. and the entirety of the amendment with a little section added in. i don't think i can rule outside the scope of the resolution. if there were separate questions before me, then -- >> may i ask you a question -- i'm sorry i didn't want to interrupt. >> i'm going to overrule that point of order. did you have another one? >> i have a couple more but i'm going to yield to my colleague mr. smith, as i read through this once more. there are at least two, perhaps three more points of order that i think are pertinent here. if you would -- would the chair allow peame to consult with my attorney? >> no, ma'am.
>> we can't -- >> well, you can consult with him. if there's another point of order -- >> may i just say this -- >> mr. smith -- >> as he goes to his microphone what i'm not trying to delay. but the reason i want to consult with mr. smith is because i'm not an attorney and i really don't know the law. and i want to not waste your time. so i want to make sure. because mr. smith is one of the finest attorneys in here that he could at least direct me toward what my second and third point of order might be. that's what i was trying to do mr. speaker. >> i understand exactly what you're doing. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> mr. smith. >> thank you mr. speaker. as i understand it does the chair have any pending rulings right now? >> we do not. >> at this time, mr. speaker, i would move to divide the question on this amendment and i would divide it as follows, the first question being, section
one, which is the previous bill that has been voted on, defeated and clinched. and section two which is a previous provision which the chair has held to be outside the scope of the resolution. >> all right. so, mr. smith your motion is whether or not we can divide the question, is that correct? >> it is to divide the question and divide it with section one -- >> i've got to determine if it's divisible, would you let me do that? >> yes, mr. speaker. >> are you telling me you wish to -- i'll hear from you mr. bettingfield. i have to find out how he wants to divide the question. are you telling me you want to divide the question section one and the division point be at section two? >> mr. speaker, yes.
the question of whether or not it's divisible i would submit it is. these were two separate questions entertained by the body previously. section one would be the first question before the body. which is the question of that flag, which was previously voted down the substitute confederate flag. that is what's listed in section one. section two would be separated as a separate question before the body. that was the question about all over flags on the grounds which was previously ruled out of order and out of the scope would be a separate question. and question three would be section three which is about whether or not to send the bill -- the flag to the confederate relic room as the final question. >> mr. bettingfield i'll hear from you. thank you mr. smith.
>> thank you mr. speaker. i would argue it's not divisible, mr. speaker. both sections deal with the flags on the state house grounds. there is no section in this bill related to the confederate relic room. that was stricken. >> i'm going to let mr. bettingfield finish with his points. >> i'm done, mr. speaker. >> any additional points on mr. bettingfield's behalf anyone wishes to raise. mr. smith, your point? >> simply because different sections all deal with flags doesn't mean it's not devisible. you have one that's dealing with one specific flag. section two is dealing are all flags. we considered these questions
sprptquestions separately, they can be divisible under the rules. >> any arguments? >> none, sir. >> mr. bettingfield, i do find the sections are distinct enough where i can divide the question. now that i have found it is divisible between section one two three and four is shall the house vote to divide the question. >> mr. speaker? i move to table the motion to divide the question. >> tabling motion is in order. mr. bettingfield moves to table the motion to divide the question. mr. smith requests a roll call
>> polls are closed clerk will tabulate. a vote of 63-53 the house refuses -- house tables the motion to divide the question. we're back on amendment 66. mr. bettingfield is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. members i appreciate your indulgence. it's not often we have an opportunity to discuss these types of issues. and i don't envy the opportunity to be here on this particular issue. however, i wanted everybody to have one more opportunity to as mr. pope put it earlier, show some grace.
i completely understand that there is a division in the body on this particular issue. i have the greatest respect for both sides. as a representative of district 28 i feel it an obligation to continue to try to honor veterans. before you you have an amendment that deals with taking down the battle flag and putting up the flag that we looked at earlier the first south carolina volunteer infantry regiment
flag. it also addresses the issue of the other flags on the state house grounds that some of us believe are in peril due to the senate's original bill. i couldn't squarely look any of my fellow marines or sailors or soldiers, coast guard personnel or anybody else if i didn't take an opportunity to try to ensure that under no stretch of our imagination we took down flags that currently honor them on the state house grounds. this amendment guarantees that no other flags on these grounds are disturbed. or removed.
again, i ask you if you are proud of your south carolina state flag you have reason to be proud of the flag that would go up the pole in this particular amendment. the flag that flies on our dome right now has a blue background, a palmetto tree and a crescent moon. that flag that i'm proposing to go on that pole today, which still honors those veterans who fought and died in defense of this state from an overoppressive federal government looks exactly the same with a harmless crescent around the palmetto tree.ppressive federal government looks exactly the same with a harmless crescent around the palmetto tree. it's certainly understanding that there are people in this
chamber and outside this chamber who are offended by the battle flag that was abducted by hate organizations. it's also completely respectful to honor those veterans who died in defense of this state with this regimental flag. we do the same on the other monument that was created from the 2000 original agreement that nobody thought we would ever mess with. they honor, i honor first south carolina regiment. it fault for the union army. that flag is on this property.
surely, there is goodness and grace enough in this room to be respect respectful to folks like myself and others who want to continue to honor their heritage. i think sometimes folks begin to look at this issue and think how many people can be left who still care to honor that heritage when the war was 150, 200 years ago. lest we forget that their families, husbands and wives and children and grandchildren great grandchildren, great great grandchildren of those brave
south carolinaens. i dare say that every district that is represented here in this state house today has families that you would want to honor in that way. some districts probably more than others. i was having a discussion with one of my colleagues earlier. that reminded me we're not talking about a white and a black issue. there were many, many african-americans who fought in this same battle and gave their lives honorably in defense of this state and against an over oppressive federal government. this is not a black and white issue. this is a respect issue.
i want all of you to take a moment, just close your eyes roll your head back, think about it for a minute. those who want the flag to come down are getting that. you are getting it with this amendment. i in mowno way, shape, or form are trying to keep the battle flag up in this particular case. first time i came to the well today, i told you that i've labored over this. it's been a burden to me. i want to find a way to have respect and to honor both sides of this issue. it can be done. it can be done. i know many of you took an
opportunity yesterday to go over to the confederate relic room take a look back into that time and that history. all of you were very respectful. i apologize i wasn't able to go. but as i told you earlier today i took the time to go recognize the other side of this issue. i'm very proud of what i saw there as well. i don't necessarily agree with everything. i know many of you in this chamber don't agree with me on this issue and maybe many others. as it relates to my continued fight to push back against an over oppressive federal government and overspending in this state and a reliance on a federal government who's treasury is kraumcrumbling around us. it's happening today right
before our very eyes. it is certainly respectful for me to be here to try to continue that fight today. to offer these amendments. try to preserve some aspects while at the same time respecting the indifference that has been created by hate organizations and others to the flag that currently flies on the monument. i have constituents that i talked to just as recently as last night before my heart got to where it is this moment. i'm not sure many of you in here actually believe that i deliberated on this issue as heavily as i have.
this is not too difficult for us to accomplish. the flag in question here today right now looks so very much like the flag that's on top of that dome that you can hardly see from the ground. you probably will never notice the difference. >> first ten mr. beddingfield. >> i'll take my second. >> yes, sir. >> mr. speaker and members i come to you today to tell you that we have an opportunity before us right now to continue to honor folks who fought for this state and at the same time respect the fact that other flags on our campus here have
been co-opted and created turmoil for some folks. i don't think it's too big a stretch to ask to be respected personally and to respect the interested parties who want to preserve their heritage while still being respectful to the happenings of today's time. it's not an easy thing to come stand here in this well and continue to talk about the same issue minute after minute, moment after moment, and have the conversation be relevant to this issue.
but i tell you, my colleagues that respecting veterans who laid down their life to make our state what it is today is no different than respecting the other war memorials on this campus, my brothers in arms who gave their life in vietnam, world war i, world war ii guys let's don't forget that we have an opportunity to do what you want to do and at the same time be respectful and continue to honor and memorialize the history that created who we are today. were there things about that
particular conflict that i'm not proud of? sure there are. i told you earlier standing here. i don't believe in slavery. i don't believe in bondage. i don't believe any human should be restrained in that way. i wouldn't have believed it then, i don't believe it today. the folks who went before us to fight the struggles against the federal government overtaxation that fight is still in this chamber today. i've been in this well many times. in attempts to place a check in the way of the federal government from reaching into
our lives and directing our path. there is a tenth amendment. we should honor it. mr. speaker i will take questions. >> mr. gary smith recognized for questions. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for taking my question. you and i have served together for a while together as desk mates and as suite mates for many of those years, have we not? >> we have sir. >> we think a lot alike on a lot of issues. one of the things we have learned over the years is sometimes there's unintended consequences for things we do here, wouldn't you agree? >> we do yes, sir. >> one of the things it appears that's happened with the bill that came over from the senate is it may have accomplished an unintended consequences is that correct? >> it is sir yes, sir. >> and what you're trying to do here is try to correct that, is
that snot correct? >> that's one of the things being done in this amendment yes, sir. >> one of the things we have learned is when you amend a statute, when you amend something like the heritage act as being done by the -- >> mr. smith let me get some order. please give the courtesy to the speakers, they can't here. >> thank you. >> gentlemen. sergeant if you can help me restore some order please. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of the things that we have learned, wouldn't you say is over the years that when you take and amend a statute such as amending the heritage act as being done by this bill, that the courts usually look at what is done last, is that not correct? >> i believe you're correct. >> so what was done in 2000 would be superseded by what would be being done now in 2015 correct? >> i don't think so, yes, sir. >> if we were to pass this bill
with what is in there now, is there not, in your mind, a provision in there that would require that the other flags on the campus or on the capitol grounds be taken down? >> mr. smith i believe you are correct. i will tell you that the reason that portion of my amendment is here today is because i am not willing, i am not willing to leave it to a court decision as to whether or not the flags of our armed services and other veteran memorials on this site be left up to a judge to make a decision on. >> i agree with you. mr. speaker, can we get a little order again please? >> ladies and gentlemen it's been a long day. we've been respectful. let's continue to do so please, thank you. >> so what you're trying to do here -- i congratulate you for doing that. what you're trying to do is to make it very clear that what we
are -- what this bill does, it doesn't say we're not taking down the confederate flag at all, does it? >> it does not say that. it does come down. >> it does come down under your amendment. what it does do is make it very clear that those other memorials, those other flags will not be bothered, is that correct? >> 100% correct mr. smith. >> thank you very much for doing that mr. beddingfield, i think this is a very fine amendment. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> mr. riles recognize to be heard on this amendment. mr. riles is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. as i listen to mr. beddingfield there, there are things that i thought about earlier today that i decided not to bring into this. as i watched everybody today,b i think i made the right decision. i mentioned earlier that, you
know i had had an accident earlier this year. all of you are aware of that. it was amazing to me how this place became family to me. and all of you were here for me. and when i got back, there wasn't anything that i would ask for that somebody didn't take care of. and i will always remember that. i came to count on you as family and trust all of you in here. and as we were going through this today and i was watching everybody, you know, we talked about this issue as one that was about a flag. and i heard characterizations that that flag was a living breathing thing and other things are made of stone. we all recognize those are nothing more than symbols. their symbolic. and because of that, we as a group decided that it was time for that symbol to be set aside and not fought over and to honor the people who gave their lives. in this conflict between the north and the south in a manner
that left some dignity to the process. and going back to this flag that we say looks so much like our state flag today but does come from that period seemed like such a reasonable position. so reasonable there was a lot of infighting in our group about it early on. but everybody felt that we needed to work together and come to a resolution. and we got pretty close on that. and i was thinking about that. and that's what we're trying to do here, is honor those who gave their lives. and in one of the discussions i've had as we've all had with our constituents, one of them said to me you know, it's a sign of hatred and it's got to go away. and anything but that just what it was. and as she was going through that, her comment to me was, it's just time for everybody that was involved admit they were wrong.
i had to speak up a little bit louder and we'll see how that goes. but time for everybody to admit that they were wrong. and i thought about that. and i was thinking about what we're dealing with today, with all of our presidential candidates. and, you know, we're involved overseas in so many areas we have been in the past. so many of you in here have sacrificed on our behalf. we all appreciate that. but when you went over there to fight, when you signed up for the services i'm having a hard time believing that you did it because you thought that everything they were asking you to do was right. i believe what you were doing was serving your country. and so when our presidential candidates get up today and say well we were wrong to get into iraq. we made mistakes. and if i had to make the call,
we wouldn't go. how does that feel to the people that lost families and loved ones over there? is that something that they can say, well, they were wrong and we lost loved ones and that's okay. it's not okay. the people in charge made mistakes. they're saying they made mistakes. but the people who served this country didn't make a mistake. they gave of themselves to defend the borders. the country. the beliefs, the background, the history. and if we were ever to be in a situation where we would have to go to them and say, well you made a mistake when you went to fight for us overseas, you were wrong. we would never be able to survive as a country after that. because we need people that live here that raise their families here to be able to say i believe
in this country and i believe in what we're doing. and if history someday changes that, and in a case we're currently in it's changing rapidly. and all of a sudden the politicians say we're wrong, does that mean there's something wrong with the people who fought who sacrificed? who are crippled for the rest of their lives who live here today? should we change how we recognize them? should we take these flags down out here for our veterans? is that where we should be? or would we be here fighting for our veterans for those of you in here who fought for us that those flags mean something. i think i know the answer to that. and so here we are going back in history 150 years saying what they fought for was something they believed in. and there are people in our group that are willing to move
off that issue. that symbol of hatred. of racism, of all the things we heard it was. and say let's figure out a way to honor these people. they're not here to speak anymore. our veteran today maybe are but those people are not. what we have is our family members. and people who are up here to represent those family members. and we tried very hard to say we're looking for something to respect those people. that's what we're asking for here. we've acknowledged that there is a symbol that has been hijacked and, you know it needs to be placed somewhere else. we don't all agree with that. but we're willing to try to figure out a way to still respect those who fought. and a time era flag is very important. because it says to those
families, while we may have been wrong depending on what side you were on somebody was wrong individuals who sacrificed were not wrong. they believed in a cause and fought for it. i believe that's why we're all here today. we believe in a cause and we're fighting for it. but are we listening to the other side? when one side moves, it appears as though they're listening. when one side refuses to move on anything regardless of how amenable it seems to be from the offering person, there's something wrong there. and i don't believe anymore it's about the flag. i think this whole body is starting to realize it's never been about the flag. if it was, we have changed course and we're fighting over something else. and i'm here as a servant.
and i've heard references to the bible and i won't make them. i could go into that. but at the end of the day i'm going to ask all of you to look inside. are your actions reflective of the person you want the lord to see you to be? mine will be. thank you. >> mr. cambrel is recognized. mr. cambrel you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i don't come here very often. especially on controversial issues. a friend of mine called me on the way to the state house yesterday. he said what you doing. i said be honest i feel like i'm going to my own funeral. and i don't have the privilege of going in a hearse.
i try to get along with everybody in this chamber. i had three four maybe more friends on the other side of thealethe aisle wanting me help overriding vetoes in their district. i told you all you have to do is ask. that's what it ought to be like here. i voted. i think every one of them won. that's the way i come down here. i don't see r's, i don't see d's i see people. we're all down here representing the same amount of people. as i told the freshman class for years. you're down here to represent everybody. and that's -- i feel strongly about that. but i say that to say this, i'm speaking to my friends across the aisle and also some of my republican friends. some of us need help in our districts on this issue.
we really do. and i'm appealing to your cooperative attitudes to give us some help. i must need a lot of help. there's a no win situation on this vote whatsoever. there's no winners and no losers. but i guess i'm appealing to the folks that i've tried to help in the nine years i've been down here. i'm telling you up front probably myself and several other people in this chamber are going to need a little help on this. that flag needs to come down. this amendment does that. it takes that flag down that's been hijacked. i forget what the other word was everybody used. yeah, it pains me when i think of somebody in south carolina rides by and sees that flag and sees it for something different that i do. i can appreciate that. i can understand that. that flag needs to come down. however, we're not asking for a
whole lot. and i think this is probably one of the more milder amendments that we've put up. we've got to have a little something to take home, too. i'll go home and brag that we took that flag down. in turn, i've also got to go home and tell my folks -- who had folk pz got killed in the confederate war or had ancestors. i don't know if i did or not. i'm ashamed to say i never looked into it. we've got to have something to take back home to help those folks with their heritage. their heritage is just as important at other people's heritage. and sometimes probably a little more in the upstate than in others. like i say i'm brief, but i just wanted to point that out you know speaking from somebody that's tried to be totally blind as far as party, color anything like that i pride myself on being that. but i guess some of us on our side of the aisle, we're asking for a little help and consideration.
i think, mr. beddingfield put it, and i think mr. pope put it good i would like for you to show a little grace. i really would. we're going to get done what you want done. that thing needs to come down ain't no doubt about it. some of us need a little help too on the other side of this argument to take care and honor our confederate veterans. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [ applause ] >> mr. hill. >> thank you, mr. speaker. members, the confederate flag, to me, is not a big part of my family's history. certainly not something that i hold up in reverence personally. i don't even own one for that matter. in fact, really, the only
connection to the confederate war history that -- the only family connection i can tell you that i have is i have -- i'm told i have a great great uncle who found his rear end in a yankee prison and he was there for about three months after the war ended because he would not swear allegiance to the union. that's how stubborn he was. and when i was here for senator pinckney's viewing here a few -- couple weeks ago, it was a very somber, very moving occasion to me. as i saw him laying there as i saw the casket open as i met members of the family. afterwards, i was speaking with mr. mcloud and we have our differences of opinion. but we've had a very cordial relationship. i think that he's given me some
advice on a view different points. and he made the comment, the remark to me he said i remind him of a lesson he learned in high school, i believe it was if i'm telling the story right mr. mcloud. that he learned in science class that there are three types of coal. he said there's lignite coal bituminous coal and anthracite coal. anthracite is by far the hardest type of coal. he said my head is solid anthracite coal. you probably might agree with that. you know i try to do what i believe is right. and i'm not -- i don't want to do this in an arrogant way at all. because i am a fallible human being. i make mistakes.
now, you know my concern here -- well in the interest of trying to make sure that i don't make a mistake, i auldslways try and listen to the other side. last year, as i was running for office for the first time, which was a new and eye opening experience for me personally. i met an older gentleman, probably about 80 years old, he was a self-professed independent. he said he votes for the party not for the person. and he said i'm willing to vote for you, but only if you're not going to be one of those my way or the highway kind of people that votes on what you want and you won't consider a compromise and that you won't listen to the other side.
i said sir, i will never compromise on my principles. but where common ground can be found, i will try to find it. and i will listen to the other side. i will always give a fair hearing. and that's what i've tried to do. and as this flag debate has erupted, it's not a debate that i haveubs avoided. it's not a debate i have avoided with my own constituents. as people have reached out to me, i have to the best of my knowledge returned every phone call from my district. i have tried to respond to every e-mail. i have some catching up to do on that. just been such a flood, it's hard to keep up with. but i do try and listen. one of those calls was from a lady who was a civil rights activists in the anderson area. and she made a statement that
really kind of got me. she said i'm twice your age i'm over twice your age, and she said i lived through the civil rights movement. i was an activists back in the 60s. you do not know what it's like to have a cross burned in your front yard. and i had to admit no, i don't. i can't stand here and say i've walked even a fraction of a mile in some of your shoes. i realize that. as i've talked to people and as i've thought about this issue as i've talked to people on both sides of the issue and as well as to the media, the things that have crystallized in my mind as the principles at play here in this decision is that it's extremely important that we
remember our history it's also just as important that we present our history in an accurate and balanced manner. we should neither white wash our history, nor should we forget it, nor should we bury it. i was one of the ones that went with mr. quinn to the museum yesterday to see the museum, see the relic room, see the options of where the flag was going to be placed or was -- where the discussion -- where the options were as far as where it might be placed. and one of the things that i learned on that trip i learned a number of things but one of the things that hadn't occurred to me until that trip was that members of the public who wish to see the flag if we put it there, will have to pay admission. once to get into the museum and again to get goointo the relic room. there is no charge to walk
around here on the state house grounds and get an education. the question is are we presenting history in its complete and historically accurate context all the symbols, all the flags, are they being presented in a appropriate historical context? now, whether you believe that the current battle flag is appropriate next to the confederate memorial, which those soldiers fought and died under that flag or not, is a moot point. because the fact is it doesn't require that flag in order to teach the history of the sacrifice of those soldiers and the lives that were lost. now, unfortunately we did fight the state's right battle on the issue of slavery. and any of the heritage folks,
so to speak, who would deny that simply have to read the ordinance of secession from south carolina. i want to read you part of this. just a little part. not the whole thing. in 1787 deputies were appointed by the states to revise the articles of confederation, on the 17th of september 1787 these deputies recommended for the adoption of the states the articles of union known as the constitution of the u.s. the parties to whom this constitution was submitted were the several sovereign states. they were to agree or disagree. and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take effect among those concurring and the general government, as the common agent was then vested with their authority. if nine of the 13 states had concurred the other four would have remained as they were separate sovereign states independent of the provisions of the constitution. in fact, two of the states did
not aseed to the constitution. i'm going to skip down a little bit here. it says thus, was established by compact between the states, a government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. this limitation left the whole remaining pass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the states or to the people and renered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights. get this, we hold that the government thus established subject to the two great principles asserted in the declaration of independence. and we hold further that the mode of its formation subjects it to the third fundamental principle the law of calm picture. we maintain the obligation is mutual that the failure of one of the contracting parties entirely releases the obligation of the other and where no arbiter it provided each party
is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure with all its consequences. in the present case, that fact is established with certainty. we assert 14 of the states have deliberately refused for years past foofulfill their constitutional obligation and refer to their statutes for proof. what obligations were our south carolinaen forbears referring to? the constitution of the united states in its fourth article provides as follows no personal held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof escaping into another shall in consequence of any law or regulation there in be discharged from such rurves or labor. but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be do. >> mr. hill, that's your first ten minutes. >> i'd like to request the next. >> granted. >> so the compact that the south complained -- that south
carolina specifically complained of that the federal government had broken was the amendment to the u.s. constitution that said that escaped slaved should be returned. in fact, they go on to say, i'll read this one last short excerpt. we affirm these ends for which this government was instituted have been defeated and the government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slave holding states. those states have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of institution and have denied the rights of property, the rights of property established in 15 of the states and recognized by the constitution. and they have denounced as sinful the institution of slaver slavery and permitted open -- and to align the property of the citizens of other states. they have encouraged and
assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. have been in cited by books and pictures insurrection. let the irony of that cinque in for a minute. here we are complaining about the federal government breaching contract while south carolina breached the very rights to life and liberty of people they called slaves. there were many wrongs done. there is much to learn from this time in our history. guess what happens when you forget the value of human life? you enslave people. who might be enslaved next in
this country? perhaps people of all colors, all national origins, all ages, genders. our individual liberties are under attack, slowly being eroded away. and i am here under oath to protect and defend the institution of the united states and of this state. and that's a constitution as currently written which does protect the life and liberty of all of our citizens here in this state. so that older gentleman asked me -- before i say that, i want to say this. so what happens -- >> order mr. hill.
thank you, gentlemen. please give some courtesy as mr. hill continues. >> thank you. so what happens when you forget the value of life? some people are enslaved. the other thing that happened is other people lose their lives. unfortunately, this issue between the federal government and certain southern states, including south carolina became so in flamed we fought a war over it. there were many lives lost. you look at the history of england. william wilburforce. they were able to end the practice of slavery in england peacefully. why couldn't we have done that here? why couldn't lives have been spared? but prepared those were some of the consequences of the south's unwillingness to recognize the
rights of free human beings in an inherent selfishness both on the part of the north and the south. >> guys, it's been a long day. i know people are trying to work. please give mr. hill your respect. mr. williams, sergeant, i know that's my boss. but if we can clear out this area if that's what it needs to take, we need to extend the courtesy to mr. hill. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my point is there are many lessons to be learned. and if anyone finds that flag that battle flag and all the other artifacts offensive because they are connected to a period of time in which offensive things are done, i would suggest to every person here and every citizen of south carolina that we should all be offended at the wrongs that were
done. we should not follow suit in hypocrisy ourselves in this chamber here today. we have an opportunity here to find some middle ground. i'm willing to find -- >> mr. hill, i'm just trying to let the sergeant have an opportunity to do his job it of respect for you and every other member of this body. >> thank you mr. speaker. we have an opportunity here to find some middle ground. my concern in this entire debate is that this isn't about the flag. and i've told people that. and i've heard some of you here in this room deny that flat out. who's right? i think the vote on this amendment and the votes on similar amendments will have to tell the story. your actions do speak louder than words.
this is another opportunity. let's find some middle ground here. let's teach history. let's do so in a manner that does not remind every person who sees the state capitol all the painful things that happened after the civil war in the '60s. certainly we don't want to send the message that any person of any color is unwelcomed on our statehouse grounds. we must teach history if we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. and the worst mistake was forgetting the value of human life. so i ask you let's come together. let's vote on this. unlike perhaps there may be some in this room -- let me put it this way. there may be some in this room
who inwardly their ultimate goal was to defeat this bill. that is not my goal. if this bill does not pass on third reading, if this amendment -- let me back up. if this amendment does not pass and the bill does not pass on third reading then i will be saddened because we did not come together. i think we should be able to agree on this. i think if the issue is truly the flag is offensive and divisive, let's put a different flag up that doesn't have the same connotations. we can achieve the goal of remembering our history and teaching an unsanitized complete historically accurate version and account of history while not reminding those people who have deep scars on their souls from all the wrongs that were done
during the civil rights era and still are done to this day. we can do this. and i'm asking you to join me. you may look at me and eye i'm an idealog. and maybe i am. but i'm willing to work together on this issue. i think this is a great opportunity to do it. i can't think of anything more appropriate to fly next to the monument erected to the over 20,000 south carolinaness who lost this very warm than the very flag they fought defending. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. delaney for what purpose do you arrive? >> mr. speaker, i would move to adjourn on this debate. motion. >> ladies and gentlemen, a simple adjourn debate motion would take us from this amendment but we would return to
time has expired. tabulate. by the vote of 55-57 the debate continues. ms. horn is recognized to speak on this amendment. >> thank you mr. speak, for your indulgence tonight. and i know the hour is late. so i will be brief. as a member of the charleston delegation, i would like to express to you how important it is that we not amend this bill. and the reason why we need not amend this bill at this time is because if we amend the bill in any form or fashion it is going to a conference committee. it is not going to end quickly. we are going to be doing this all summer long. let me tell you i attended the
funeral of senator clementa pinckney. and the people of charleston deserve immediately and swift removal of that flag from this grounds. we can save for another flag where this need to go which flag needs to fly or what museum it needs to be in. but the immediate issue as far as i'm concerned as a member of the charleston delegation and speaking on behalf of the people in charleston this flag offends my friend mia mccloud my friend john king, my friend everett neil. i cannot believe that we do not have the heart in this body to
do something meaningful such as take a simple line of hate off these grounds on friday! and if any of you vote to amend you are ensuring that this flag will fly beyond friday. and for the widow of senator pinckney and his two young daughters, that would be adding insult to injury! and i will not be a part of it! and for all of these reasons i will not vote to amend this bill today. we may visit this another session, another year, but if we amend this bill, we are telling the people of charleston we don't care about you.
we do not care that somebody used this symbol of hate to slay eight innocent people who were worshipping their god. i'm sorry. i have had heard enough about heritage. i have heritage. i've a lifelong south carolyn yann. i am a descendant of jefferson davis. okay. but that does not matter. it's not about jenny horne. it's about the people of south carolina who have demanded that this symbol of hate come off of the statehouse grounds. and i will tell you i do know, and i have it on good authority that the world is watching this debate. and there is an economic development prospect in dorchester county that is in jeopardy because we refuse to
we have anthony shaheen senator of vincent that mean and bob that mean my desk mate for years. >> welcome the shaheen men to the house. welcome. >> number 67 is the next bill which we are passing over. >> ladies and gentlemen, before we take this next amendment, it's about five after 8:00 now. the speaker says we will stand at ease until 8:30. everyone can stand at ease until 8:30.
the south carolina house has been for much of the day today working through a series of amendments to a bill that would remove the confederate battle flag from the state capitol grounds. the south carolina senate approved that bill yesterday on a vote of 36-3. as you can see, the south carolina house has moved into a period of standing at ease until 8:30 p.m. eastern time another 15 minutes or so.
and we will continue our live coverage on c-span3. during this recess and proceedings, we'll show you a portion of today's washington journal with senator mark warner of virginia, who was our guest. >> and we are back with mark warner democrat of virginia. sir, you are here to talk about this economy. what is it? how big is it? >> a gig economy is something that not even everybody agrees with the term. it is the on demand economy, share economy. think of an uber driver part of the time i.t. consultant. it is a combination of two or three revenue streams coming
together to form a type of employment. some of this is coming after the recession. a lot of this amongst the millennials. a lot of people are doing this by choice. they don't want to work 9:00 to 5:00. a lot of these folks may be doing very very well. there is no unemployment workman's comp. disability. they are doing well to if they're on a bump back on public assistance with nothing in between to catch them. >> why is it a big deal they don't have this traditional
safety net? >> why is it a big deal they don't have the traditional safety net? how big is the fastest growing sector of our economy? >> there's not really good data but most folks estimate it's up to a third of the economy. some of that are people working full time and simply having a second job. some of these are traditional independent contractors, some folks who may be scientists, some who may be an actor, many journalists or independent contractors, but this is clearly a phenomena when you think about an uber north of 200,000 drivers, think about an airbnb that has more rooms than marriott, in a company that didn't exist seven years ago, this is something that has been driven by, frankly, your smartphone and gps technology which has allowed you to disaggrate between a traditional employer and employee and monetize something you weren't able to monetize in your past your spare time, a ride, a spare room in your house or apartment, so it's a big factor in lifestyle choices. >> you're spending time talking about this. we followed you to we work, ans
office sharing company here in washington, d.c. you sat down and talked to millennials, but there were baby boomers in that audience there that were taking your questions and asking you questions. but your concern is that because there's not a safety net, the tax payers could be on the hook, right? >> how do we make sure that we don't stifle the innovation, we don't try to put out kind of 20th century solution. right now, washington thinks about this in three categories. you're employed, unemployed or independent contractor. each carry different sets of legal requirements. i don't want to try to fit this new economy into these hold classifications, but i do realize that if there is no unemployment, no workman's comp, no disability, someone who might have a bump in their life as we
all do, could end up being back upon the taxpayer dime because there's nothing in between. there's no kind of ability to catch you on the way. now, health care in light of the supreme court decision, folks can still access health care. and i'm not saying i've got the absolute solution at this point, but i do think we ought to think about options. maybe there could be an unemployment exchange model. a model that the old building trades unions used to use. think about a carpenter who in the '50s or '60s might have worked for ten different contractors, they would -- the contractor and the carpenter would contribute into a social welfare fund based upon the number of hours you worked and that would be administered not by the government, by a third party, and it would pay out if the person became unemployed. maybe that model. might be a consumer driven model. get out of that uber car and put a little tip there that goes into a social insurance fund. i'm not sure what the right answer is, but i do know for the
fastest growing area of our economy, we need to be thinking about this so that there's not the circumstance where we suddenly have not millions but perhaps tens of millions of people in this part of the economy and then if we have an economic downturn, then having to turn basically back to social welfare programs as their only option. >> hasn't this sector of our economy always existed? >> well -- >> why is it something new and now being called gig economy or shared economy? >> there's clearly i'm sure some of the viewers rolling their eyes saying, gosh, this is nothing new. this is called getting by for folks who have had to cobble together two or three different jobs in the past. what is different is a lot of these -- this new type of employment, we could even question whether it's called employment, because you work completely on your own hours, because you have no set schedule, because you choose to work when you want, and there's not the kind of direct supervision where you show up at
a certain location and do a certain set of things, it really is a different kind of frame. it's really how you monetize some of your spare time or monetize some asset you have oftentimes with you directly dealing with whoever is paying you, with actually no intermediary at all. that's what some of the technology companies argue. i think from talking to a lot of these companies, and i'm finding frankly no politicians are talking to them at this point which i find a little surprising, 25 people running for president at this point and nobody has talked about the fastest growing sector of our economy, that many of them want to do the right thing, but trying to figure that out in a way to continue to allow the innovation, freedom and choice but also make sure that we kind of get this right, is something that we at least need to start this conversation. >> you talked to the airbnb ceo, other ceos. what do they tell you, how is government hurting them? >> you do see oftentimes, let's take airbnb for a moment, where you have lots of kind of conflict with the traditional hotel industry and sometimes with folks if you're in an apartment building and do you really want a series of other people coming into that apartment building staying
overnight? there are those kind of local zoning issues. when you think about a task rabbit, which is, you know, the ceo who invented task rabbit was having a party, she and her husband were having a party and needed dog food and thought i bet there's somebody in the neighborhood that would get the dog food for me if i could figure this out and they've got 30,000 plus folks now doing it. 70% of them, of the so-called task rabbits are people with college educations, that are doing this, a mom who may have kids but got a little spare time, that can monetize her time. so what i find from a lot of these, you know, millennials who actually the good news is they want to work for and buy from companies who have social responsibility, i think many of
these entities want to do the right thing. it's trying to think, you know, maybe we need a hybrid classification that doesn't fit into the traditional models, maybe we need to try the variety of states different models but i think they want to do the right thing. >> we're talking with senator mark warner about the gig economy, the near more than one third of americans who are stringing together jobs to make a living. want to get your questions and comments on this for the senator. we'll begin with mark in lovingston, virginia, you're on air with the senator. go ahead. >> caller: hi. my name is marge, actually. >> i apologize. go ahead. >> caller: that's okay. i wanted to ask the senator about the pipeline that they're trying to build through virginia that is totally unnecessary and that could be used, the money could be used for other things so easily. we could develop wind and solar energy and the pipelines will be obsolete in no time at all and destroy the beautiful county i live in. >> i'm familiar with what's going on in terms of the challenge in nelson county and,
you know, for process is going through its proceedings at this point. one of the things that i've said is that i want to make sure that all the citizens of nelson county and other counties affected get their say and called upon for the -- to have a second hearing because it seemed the first hearing was a little bit skewed towards the advocates in favor. i do believe we have seen this enormous growth, particularly in natural gas, around america that's actually allowed america to become more energy independent and actually has allowed america, because using natural gas lowers our carbon footprint to be one of the few nations in the world to hit the kyoto climate accords even though we didn't sign kyoto. there's a use for natural gas, challenges around how it's
shipped where it's piped and one of the things that i want to make sure at least, this proceeding is going to go forward, i want -- i'm watching this proceeding but i alsos want to make sure that any of these proposed pipe lines, if they are going to be put in place, they're done in the most environmentally conscious way possible. they've moved the pipeline route a couple times. i'm looking at whether they can use some of the existing right of ways but i think this issue is continuing to play out through the pros ses. i'll stay abreast of it. thank you. >> manchester, connecticut, benjamin, a republican. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i have a question. for you, senator. is eta overreach in last night's congressional hearing and voting on amendments? is overreach -- >> i'm not sure what you're talking about. >> caller: is the epa regulations hurting transportation, renewable energies in states rights? >> well, again, there's a lot of
controversy about a variety of epa regulations. i know there's controversy about the waters of usa regulations that have been put out and, obviously, there's a lot of controversy and something i'm watching very closely about the carbon regulations that are still being reviewed and will come out some time in the fall. i think we need to deal with the real challenges around carbon. i think we need to deal with climate change. i accept the fact that 98% plus of the scientists agree this is an enormous challenge. i think the pope weighing in recently adds a moral voice to this issue. speaking specifically about the regulations in virginia, i want to make sure the regulations ac foj the fact that a state like virginia that has nuclear power actually you can argue pro or con, nuclear, i believe nuclear ought to be part of our mix but nuclear power doesn't create any carbon footprint and we need in virginia to get credit for what we've done.
i think a lot of states will look at their regulations on an individual basis but those are the two that i know that a lot of folks are talking about at this point. >> back to the so-called gig economy, you said earlier, you know, 25 people are running for president, no one is talking about the fastest growing part of our economy but what about lawmakers on capitol hill, are they talking about it? does it necessary have to be a government solution to the problems that you're seeing or potential problems? >> i don't think this is going to cry out for a bill tomorrow in congress. but if we don't come out with some policy framework, what you could end up happening -- have happening is, literally thousands of cases of litigation all over the country. that's not going to be good for the companies who are engaged in this sector. that's not going to be good for the company or the individuals working in this growing sector. there are traditional firms. i talked to the ceo of kelly services yesterday that used to be a temp firm, i think kind of when i was a kid the notion of
the kelly girl that was somebody who was a kind of a secretarial role, now kelly is placing people as top level scientists in top 100 companies. they place people across the whole working framework. they're looking at this issue very closely as well. how do they make sure they look at providing benefits for the folks who work for them. so i think there will be at some point actually a crying out from these companies to say hey, give us a set of rules, give us some framework to work at, or at least a series of options because if not, you could end up with a series of court cases being litigated on the local level across the country. a case in california about overtime pay for an uber driver. you know, i think that has no precedence value beyond the of doing this on a one off litigation basis, doesn't make
sense if we believe that this is a sector of the economy, one that's going to grow, two, that many people actually like working in and choose to work in because of the freedom and flexibility it has, so how do you do it, but in a way that also makes sure that the taxpayer doesn't end up kind of in effect holding the bag if things -- if you hit a rough patch. most of the companies and those who work in the sector understand if there was a way to be some kind of collaborative contribution to create an unemployment, workman's comp, disability, easier platform into health care, that would allow the sector to grow. >> in the uber court case, the court was deciding whether or not this uber driver was an employee or an independent contractor. what's the difference when it comes to the tax code and why does it matter? >> if you are an employee a whole set of rules come in in terms of what types of funds are withheld, do you have to pay overtime if you go beyond a
certain number of hours and, you know, clearly there are some firms around the country, particularly in the kind of janitorial services, who i think simply in an effort to get away from paying benefits, have simply classified all their employees as independent contractors. they still have to show up at a certain time, wear a uniform, i have no sympathy for those companies because they're trying to skirt the law in terms of the benefits they have to pay. if you're an individual that might drive for lyft twice a month and rent out your apartment once a month and maybe you do some crafts that you sell on etsy a couple of times a month, are you really an employee for each of those three firms? i'm not sure that definition works as well. there may be a hybrid model or hour bank or exchange model that might be more suited for this 21st century kind of employment. >> that's our topic, those folks doing two to three different types of jobs to have a stream of revenue coming in. tim in littleton, colorado what
do you think? >> caller: senator warner, i find this an interesting research area you've gotten into. the gig economy seems to be a response to our changing economy. and one of the -- and so i kind of have a two-part question. you know, i've watched democrats and republicans agree on two things that are rare, trade agreements and nsa. when i see republicans and democrats agree on anything i'm astounded so there's something there. now, my question i guess is specifically, do you think that there's something in the trade agreements that could be done differently, whereby maybe companies have to produce x amount of their goods that they're producing, cars, whatever it is, in the united states, and when -- then they can go offshore and do the other
50% or something to help maintain what would be traditional employment because the gig employment looks like the alternative like the scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to keep afloat, so -- >> sure. >> let me address this. let me take in reverse order. i think there are some folks in the gig economy, i think about certain friends my age, who in the recession, lost their jobs, many of them in the finance world, now are in the gig economy, not by choice, but because that's how they have to put a living together i also know there's a whole lot of folks that i meet with who are millennials who frankly don't want to work in a traditional nine to five job, don't -- have a completely different mindset the idea that opening a house and owning a car is the key to the american dream, you know, they have the idea maybe they'll share a car, collect a series of experiences, and love the idea
of trying to be micro entrepreneurs and the notion that they're cobbling together a couple different things gives them a set of freedoms that frankly my generation and my folks' generation didn't have. they're doing this by choice. i don't think this is all scraping the bottom of the barrel. if you look at the workers in this so-called gig economy, they're actually college grads and graduate school grads doing this by choice. on trade, i actually firmly supported the trade deal. i think that when you look at our economy it's a mature economy. 95% of all the future customers for american businesses are going to be abroad. i want to make sure we can sell them our stuff and services, but i want to make sure, particularly when we look at asia, it's america setting the rules and not china setting the rules. china seemed to always go to the lowest common denominator and what i'm going to be looking for in the trade agreement is to make sure that countries like the vietnams and malaysias and others part of any tpp agreement, that they've got
strong labor standards, strong environmental standards, that there are human rights standards. this is going to have to be a much better agreement than the so-called nafta agreements in the '90s. this notion of content, domestic content, that's part of what a trade agreement ought to be looking at. at the end of the day, where america is going to be add the most value, we're going to add the most value around high skilled jobs, around jobs that are created from intellectual product, advanced manufacturing. some of the assembly jobs kind of on the low end, lower end of the scale, probably will be done elsewhere. but if we can dot basic research, the kind of advanced manufacturing components and as -- we see other industrial nations do this, germany has maintained a strong advanced manufacturing sector, if we can have that and sell those materials to countries all over the world, people want to buy our goods, that's going to be net good for american jobs. one of the reasons i supported the trade votes last week or two weeks ago i guess it was. >> to william in virginia.
democrat. hi, william. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: senator warner, i would like to thank you for your service to the commonwealth. i met you back in the '90s in elementary classroom in lynchburg, virginia, you were first campaigning and later on through the virginia education association i met you several times so thank you it for your service. just listening to you talk about these streams of income, i was a teacher but i worked three, four jobs until i was 50 years old. i worked for one company for 13 years straight, and i never could get the 900 hours that was required for me to become part of the retirement system or get any of those incentives. i was wondering the importance of social security for people who retire, never rolled about rolling it over or having to contact anyone or anything, i would like to know, do you think that keeping that strong for
these streams of income, or do you have a possible plan for separate something where people could contribute where it's going to be there when you get old like i've gotten? >> thanks for the question. i think we have to maintain the integrity of social security. it is critically important. it is critically important for folks who are qualifying and i just hit 60 this year, so i'm just a few years away myself, but i think we need to be honest about social security. when i was a kid, there were 16 people working for every one person on retirement receiving social security and medicare. today three people working for every person that's retired. that's not because anybody in politics messed things up. it's because thank goodness we're living longer. anyone that denies the math around social security is still working, can't read a balance sheet. i believe we need to make sure the promise of those in their
20s and 30s, you talk to millennials, none believe they will have social security, so we don't have the 20% plus cut in security benefits that will 2032 which sounds a long way away but isn't. whether it's raising the cap on the amount of income taxed. i've supported what the president supported, chain cpi, a different measurement of consumer price index, i think there are a variety of knobs you can turn. the sooner we start the process in place to shore up social security the better in terms of making sure we keep that commitment and promise to our young people. at the same time, we need to realize, think about the changes in retirement.
my dad's generation he worked for the same company for 40 years. he didn't make a lot of money but he got guaranteed a pension, there were good benefits, had health care. think about my generation, we kind of moved from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. kind of the 401(k) generation, so we've got a some level of back-end guarantee but much smaller. this next generation, you know, outside of social security, has very little. i think when we think about social safety net, we ought to be not only thinking about unemployment, workman's comp disability but what 21st century pension plans would look like so that some of these millennials who are cobbling together and living high and enjoying the so-called gig economy, that they're also having some ability to put away resources for the retirement. depending on social security alone is not a long-term good fiscal plan. >> couple tweets from our viewers. here's bjs says are people working multiple low wage jobs a part of the glamorous gig economy, do you think that all workers deserve living wage? first of all, not everyone who's working in the so-called gig
economy are working low-end jobs. some of these contractual jobs are quite high paying, i think about the airbnb statistics show somebody by renting out an apartment once a month gets about $7,000 in additional income on an average basis over a year. that's a fairly good chunk of resources. data has shown at least in the top end there's still some question about this, that in many cities, uber drivers are making more than cab drivers. there's still a debate about the level and the pay for some of these jobs out there, so i don't think you can categorize them one way or the other. i do think this is another issue that i've been working on, that we need to think about how to make capitalism work in the 21st century. i cofunded nextel, blessed to do very well, but i worry about an economy today where somebody can work, 40, 50 hours a week and depend on government assistance to get by. what has happened and i say this as a proud capitalist with the kind of enormous focus on
short-term quarterly profits, over long term value creation, i worry the focus on short term and capitalism will destroy capitalism and that the traditional kind of macro economic model that says we have abundance of labor and shortage of capital and everything in our tax code promotes capital over labor that has switched around in america, that you look around we have lots of capital sloshing in the system, we don't have a lot of qualified labor, so how you can re-set some of the tax code to actually incent investments and pay quality labor in upskilling of labor, is something i really think we have to wrestle with. long term if you get this right, you could have higher disposable income for people.
a more trained work force and actually, the government have less obligation to pay out benefits. >> another tweet who says this, if companies desire solution to what you're talking about, it will only be because they fear -- all in favor say aye. >> on 36. >> adjourn debate. >> moves adjourn debate on amendment 36. the ayes have it. agreed. >> 37. >> mr. pits moves to adjourn debate on amendment 37. all in favor say aye. the ayes have it. >> 38. >> move to adjourn debate on amendment 38. all in favor say aye. the ayes have it. >> 39, mr. pitts. >> all in favor say aye. the ayes have it. >> next amendment passed over
was 56 quinn pitts and delaney. amendment 56. >> mr. quinn is recognized. >> mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen and of the house, i have spoken to many of you about this amendment and had good conversations yesterday. i took a group mr. gillyard tommy pope i think there were 30 people that went by the confederate relic room. the purpose of my asking folks to do that was because i wanted them to understand something about where i'm coming from and also about people that aren't racist that want to remember their history. i realize that the southern cross flag that's currently on the monument has been used by racist groups. and i understand the perspective of african-americans and others who see this as a symbol of
hate. for me growing up my grandfather would tell me about my great great grandfather who fought. there are people who want to think about that, their deaths. in the war 50% of the male population was killed or wounded. one-third of the male population died during the war. so slavery and the civil war left scars for everyone. and those -- there are folks out there that don't see don't look at the relic room and think about racism. they want to remember their great grandfather or relatives that died. bringing folks there, i was trying to bring them that context. most of the proposals, everything i've seen has the flag going to the relic room. what i've asked is the relic room has not had the support -- i appreciate that y'all vote to go override the veto of the relic room last week. but it has not had the support
of the state that it needs. it has been the red-headed step child of the museum and is in the back corner of the state museum. so incidentally one of the things i was very proud of about the relic room is they have the only banner on display where african-americans who fought for the union flew under the flag. it's one of the major components of the museum. and i was proud to see that. so to me one of the things i think that is essential to this is for the folks who aren't racist, who just want to remember their families who died and for the folks who are going to want to go to the relic room when the flag is retired there, what this amendment does is is it merely says january 1st of next year they have to present a plan and a budget for which they will -- how they will treat the manner that it is retired and how they will
remember the southern confederate soldiers who died. and really all who died. and so i think this is a very reasonable request that allows for some measure of comfort for people who are worried that maybe the relic room won't have the support for them to have the idea that yes, there will be a plan and there will be a budget to display the flag and remember the soldiers who died. >> we have a question, mr. quinn. mr. merrill is recognized. >> mr. quinn just to clarify, this is just in addition to the existing bill. it would remove the confederate battle flag, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and it would still remove the flag pole? >> i don't effect anything on the senate bill that deals with removing the flag. >> it accomplishes all the objectives we were talk building. it removes this. and then it places the flag in
historical context at the confederate relic room and establishes a committee i think for the display, is that right? >> actually it's very interesting. i researched this pretty thoroughly. i delve into the minute knew that of things. it actually has a new commission formed july 1st of this year. it has not yet been appointed. three from the speaker, three from the senator and three from the governor. it lets the commissioners know when they are appointed we are expecting a plan and budget for how they will handle the matter. i feel, in particular with mr. hosy and others who have a military record, i feel silly talking about it myself. one of the things about this to me that's kind of a story that was told, i think mr. jefferson made a very good point yesterday, when a war is fought it's very often children that are killed. a lot of what i'm asking for is
to put all of this into context for those folks who died. we're talking about sending it to a museum. give us a plan and budget next year so we can have that and actually support the relic room so it's done in an honorable manner. >> i understand this isn't necessarily a win for either side. but it is the very definition of a compromise to some extent. wouldn't you agree? >> for me yes. i see this as a way for the people who -- look i think this is a tough issue, y'all. everybody knows that. i was here in 2000 for this. it feels like groundhog day in some ways. to me there are -- as i mentioned, there are many people who aren't racist that just want to remember their family members. this gives security that we're not going to display the flag in a dishonorable fashion. >> they also want to show some
deference to those who lost forefathers in the war. this would allow them to accomplish both of the goals? >> yeah. and i'm hopeful that the members voting to keep it up on the monument see this is really to me i think a goodwill gesture to let them know that the flag will be handled in an honorable fashion. >> this is more minutia. but if someone voted for this amendment, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to vote fort bill at the end. it could stand on its own. it is doing something for both sides, both parties. would you agree with that? >> that's my hope. that's my hope. >> all right. thank you srefplt very much. >> recognized for a question. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. quinn let me, if i may, just ask you a couple of questions based on on your amendment. and thank you for allowing the tour yesterday. >> i appreciate your time doing
it. >> sir? >> i appreciate you giving the time. >> yes, sir. >> i know we're all busy. >> did we have a conversation at the relic room yesterday about your amendment and the concept of your amendment? >> we did. we were very honest about it. >> and did we reach consensus pretty much yesterday what what you are trying to do is a very good thing and that we supported that? >> that was my feeling from you, yes, ma'am. >> did we also say to you, though, that because we are concerned of the timing of this bill and because we want, as the governor has requested, as the senate has done we wanted a clean bill so that there would be no need for a conference committee. would it make sense for us to come back in january and do not only what you want to do or our proposing to do in this amendment, but did we not also
have a conversation about the african-american history monument and the process that was put in place there? do you recall that? >> oh, yeah. i was there. yes. >> what i'm trying to do is figure out what happened, mr. quinn, from the tour we did yesterday where all that goodwill and kumbaya was flowing freely. and now, because i was under the impression -- tell me if i'm missing something -- that yesterday we didn't have a vote or anything. but based on the 30 35 people bipartisan, biracial group that was there, did we not talk about using a process that would restore the flag to the confederate relic room with honor, pomp and circumstance, have the citadel come in and do all of that? did we have that conversation?
>> we did, ms. cobb-hunter. you made that point. and i think your comment was there was a trust issue. >> right. >> i would say the senators i talked to i've spoken with them, i miami'm not going to name them -- >> i don't care about the national media. >> they're telling me this amendment is fine and i think it's a reasonable proposal and i think several members and maybe the whole drink caulkemocratic caucus -- >> you and i have been through this twice. >> yes, sir, i don't want to do it again. >> to handle this issue it required mutual trust. >> yes, sir. >> i think this is a moniker, a gesture, almost a -- not a commitment but letting people know that we're going to get a plan in january, we're going to
get a budget. we have to debate it and have votes on it but it's giveing them some zreg of confidencedegree of confidence we will address it next year. >> mr. quinn if i may, the hour is late and i'm not what i used to be. help me to understand this and i meant that in a positive way. i hear my colleagues chuckling and i don't even want to think about where their mind when when i said that. did you know that? >> i have a lot of faith you're still the person you used to be. >> let me try it this way mr. quinn, the senate already said and concurred -- there is no way -- you talk about having conversations with somebody and they're okay with it. >> miss quinn, that's your first 10 minutes. i apologize, and you want your second? >> yes sir. >> i know there are others who want their time and i don't want to vo gard their time and what that word means i don't want to
monopolize your time. >> i know. >> it's not for you but some people in here who didn't know that. >> heres a what i wanted to get at i thought weed a reached a point where we had allowed this process to play out, let everybody have their say and at some point vote up or down on an ai amendment that simply moves the flag, as the senate has done, and allowed the commission because did the director of the relic room not say to us yesterday that they are not prepare dd to sep theaccept the flag if we do it? did he not tell us that? >> you're making my point for me. >> no. if i am its a certainly a mistake. >> well -- >> on my part sfp. >> my point is i think he does not have the resources i think he does not have the human and otherwise resources to deal with
this. my point to you is this is a way for us to show we have a commitment to handling this in an honorable fashion. you mentioned the process this is a process. as far as i know in my years of service here as i've mentioned you, i had two lives, this last one only 3 1/2 years here i've never seen a process where the idea is no amendments is the process. and i understand -- i understand there's an idea that, you know, if you have one amendment that's when things start rolling. that's not my intention here. my intention here i understand we have to resolve this issue. okay okay? i want to resolve this issue but at the same time we're going to have to -- we have to understand there are different points of view and perspective. i've heard a lot of people say the war was about slavery and, look, you can't argue that it wasn't on some level right but to me one of the things about this, and i mentioned that earlier, the 16-year-old boy that was killed, they actually had his uniform in a case --
>> are you still answering my question? snow this is my podium, yes. >> i know. i was trying to figure out if you were because i had just one more. >> please don't interrupt me. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. >> what i would say to you is in terms of people that want to remember their relatives who died, i think it's important we mentioned slavery as being an issue for the war. that's true. politicians and powerful people decide to go to war right? it's very often the poor and middle class that fight the war. i think, you know that 16-year-old boy, i think when whoever -- whomever his relative relatives are may come and want to see that uniform i think they're remembering his death i don't think they're remembering you know, hey, this is slavery this is race item numbers. i will agree there are some like that and why i voted in 2000 to take it off the dome. incidentally you voted against me that day. >> sure did. >> what i would say to you that war was fought for a lot of reasons. i found a quote. i'm not a very eloquent person but it's older men declare war
but it's the youth that fight and die. what i'm asking here is just to have a plan, when the flag is removed for the pole it's handled in an honorable fashion and that the relic room, for the first time in my career i think yours as well miss cobb hunter, we're making at least a latent commitment we're going to fund the relic room. i think you mentioned bogarting my time. >> like you just said, you know, i do a pretty good job of speak speaking for myself, so if you don't mind, i do have one last question that i'd like to ask you. since you talked about death, and mr. speaker i'd like a little order because i want people to hear this question that i'm about to ask. [ gavel knocks ]. >> ladies and gentlemen please give some order so we can hear. >> thank you mr. speaker and mr. quinn, this is my last question.
you talked about death. do you know almost two three weeks ago exactly this time on a wednesday night, that dillon roof sat in emanuel church and contemplated killing nine people simply because of the color of their skin? did you know that? we are almost at the hour where that occurred. >> miss cobb-hunter. >> wait like you said let me -- don't interrupt me because i don't want to interrupt you. >> i'm supposeing you will speak too. >> i am, but here's my final point. did you know that i personally am so offended by the references to us showing inging inging grace to this amendment and compromise, did you know that i am offended by that because in my view for this body and the people in this body making that request to say to
those of us show some grace like those nine families did toward the shooter show us some grace by agreeing to a compromise. do you know your intention and i say your not meaning you personally but to all of those people who have come to that podium and said that whether they are aware of it or not, there are some of us in here who are extremely offended by that comparison. we believed did you know, compareing apples and oranges and that we would really -- i would -- i'm not going to speak for anybody but me i could ask you, mr. quinn since you're in the leadership, if you would please share with your caucus, to please not take the podium again and ask us to show grace in this effort like the folk who were so generous and forgive inging
of the shooter in charleston, thank you so much, mr. quinn. >> i understand this is a very emotional issue. for me, it was emotional. i met him when he was 19 or 20 as a page. i shared tears with mr. smith and talked to mr. rutherford about it. we got in the car the next morning and went there. it was horrible, one of the worst experiences of my life. >> recognized for a question. >> we talked about your proposal and you speak of the relic room but you also spoke about nameing veterans in the war that died. >> yes sir. >> are you talking inside, out side? can you expound on that? >> they don't have a commission yet. i purposefully tried not to push any particular proposal. i'm not trying to mike manage the commission. micromanage the commission. what was discussed was have a
wall with the names of all the folks killed within the war somewhere around 22,000 people, as i mentioned earlier. to me, i want to give opportunity for people who want to remember those relatives to have something where they can go and do it in a way that's not racially motivated. these are folks that want to see the names of s ofs of the folks that died in the war. that's my hope and what i hope the commission does. and i think where the staff is leaning but they haven't been appointed yet. it will be up to us to decide whether to fund it when the time comes. >> mr. san dossandofer, mr. gomez is recognized for a question. >> mr. speaker, i'll get straight to the point and make mine simple. i've had opportunity, did you know, after reading the senate bill that was passed over that based on the language in there
that it allows for what you're trying to do in this amendment? >> it merely references the rel relic room. that's the issue. we obviously all understand that the national media and all this coverage has made this a very tenuous situation. my intent with this is to give comfort and give some direction to the new commission as to y'all need to get back with us january 1st so we can see what your plan is give us a budget and we'll debate that issue here and fund it or not fund it. >> but, mr. quinn would you not agree that with the language that exists in the senate bill, that it accomplishes the same thing? >> no, i don't agree. i don't. it basically this ref repses the relic room. it doesn't say anything about how to handle it. i think it's important that we handle this in an honorable fashion. so that's what we're asking them to do. >> well, mr. quinn, do you know that of course