>> we are on fp3. submitted by mr. erickson. >> okay. my apologies. >> someone else asked to speak. >> right here. carroll one of oklahoma -- >> three c's your hand. i can't see -- >> i also have an amendment on this subject, and i would offer a friendly amendment to mr. erickson's amendment and offer mine to that which would say we recognize israel's orders with the palestinians and serve that language in the sentence, thereby supporting irsael completely not saying that we support the two state position necessarily, but allow irsael to do her roane negotiations. >> but we have a number of

amendments that relate to this. >> called for just a minute. we are checking with our parliamentarians. all right. what's the number? if everybody would take a fp103, that's her amendment. that's what she is bringing out now. that is a broad amendment. you've offered this amendment 2 to meet. there is a second. is there a discussion? i'm very much in favor of the

amendment to strike the two-state solution language platform. i don't think we can possibly support irsael when we talk about we envision to solve all their problems. i feel there's a better way to support irsael is to take that language out and to support them in determining their own fate and making their own decisions about their own country. >> mr. sturm from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to point out that when we are discussing this, i think we need to recognize the are not telling israel to do anything. this is basically saying they deserve the right to make their best decision for their best interest. when the previous debate was going on, it sounded like we were trying to twist this into we are going to tell irsael to do something but i'm coming down in support of this because i think we do need to allow israel or at least have rhetoric that's

going to allow irsael to be free to make their own decisions for their best interest. >> congressman would -- whitfield. >> i would ask her to read a section of her amendment that she is proposing so that we can get a very clear -- >> is it on the screen? >> it is on the screen. is that sufficient? >> just a minute. >> all right. >> is that correct? >> no. we need to strike we envision that to space states -- space states. actually, it would read starting

on line 28 we support irsael's right to exist as a jewish state with secure a defensible borders with the jerusalem as its capital, period. and then the new sentence we recognize irsael's right to negotiate her borders with the palestinians who live in peace and security, period. so that would end on line 29 and then go on with the rest of the original language. >> the language has been clarified. the senator from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment and the amendment to it is an attempt to free litigated the issue we've essentially just voted on, which is whether our platform is going to support the policy of the government of irsael, and that shouldn't be

mistaken here. if this language is removed, and we are removing the language which states the policy that prime minister netanyahu committed himself to publicly over and over again, i will share again some language from the prime minister the palestinian shared a small land with us and we seek peace which will neither be israel's subject more citizens. they should enjoy in national life of dignity as a free, voluble and independent people of their state. if you don't like the fact irsael is pursuing that policy, you can debate that coming and i think there are plans to be said for that. if you want to support the policy of irsael, you have to defeat these amendments and so i would urge all of the amendments to this would be completed. >> i appreciate there is more of you that want to comment. we have got to move on at this point. i am going to have to call for the vote. again, we have a lot of ground to cover him and i know you want to weigh in on a lot of the subjects.

all of those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. those opposed, signify by saying aye. the noes have it. the amendment fails. mr. parliamentarian, do we need to return to fp3 now? all right. we are now back to fp3. and i would call for the -- okay, mr. erickson. and then we are going to vote on fp3 as well. >> again, just in response to mr. talent, by striking of the language making the two-stage solution our official policy, we are not undermining that position or keeping any of our candidates, whether it's governor romney or anybody else, from supporting that as a solution. it's just broadening and and being a little less specific so that if in fact that some white in time the palestinians reject and commit to working peaceably, then we can think about other potential solutions, and we are

not really saying to israel with their position would be if they change their mind. this is nothing meant to undermine their current position or to undermine the strength of our support for israel. it is simply meant to keep the idea, the box of i.t. is open for the creative solutions. >> again that substantial debate on this amendment. i'm going to go to the question. all those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. huffpost, same sign to read the amendment fails. now we are on to i believe it is fp102. >> that's correct. >> same line. this is -- well, wait a minute. i've got rfp 102. okay.

102a -- you have it? okay. >> withdraw, mr. chairman. >> fp102 a and fp3 102 are my amendments and i would withdraw them. >> sp102 and sp102a or withdrawn. the next 1i have this fpo and hundred for that is submitted by tony perkins of louisiana. >> mr. chairman, with all respect to the gentleman from missouri i disagree on the current platform i think it is leading to the two-state solution encouraging irsael to pursue that half. i think it should be up to them, however, the will of this body that dealt with this matter i would withdraw this amendment. >> all right. fp104 has been withdrawn. i have fp105. i'm sorry i can't read the gentleman's last name.

on hundred five from hawaii. yes, sir. >> this amendment in no way alters support for the two-state system recognizing some reality in the middle east. so i would suppose line 29 adding the following. we recognize that this will not be possible so long as hamas is part of the palestinian government coming and so long as the palestinian authority refuses to stay in arabic that israel has the right to excess as a jewish state with secure and sensible borders. is there a second? >> there is a second. >> again, i have read that submitted by senator talent. it's fair and balanced and i do not think it should be altered in any way.

i think it achieves exactly the kind of -- without putting up red flags it achieves what the republican party wants to say on that particular subject and i would oppose this and any other amendment to say it is probably the best written plank in the entire platform. >> i can't see your name. i'm sorry. >> ted newton from columbia. i would like to echo with the previous gentleman said and called to question. >> the question has been called. we will vote on calling the question. all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed, same. all of those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. all those opposed, same sign. the motion fails. those are all of the amendments i have at this point. so, at this point we will close this section. our unequivocal support of

israel gives a changing middle east. amendments submitted for the changing middle east is there any discussion? all right. we will close that section. all right. at this point, we have no other amendments. i'm going to return briefly to senator talent for the closing comments and then we will vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i heard of the admonition to be brief and i will be and i think the delegates for their debate i think we have a great subcommittee of report and now i hope part of what you have further to the date i think it's important because it is a celtic is vital to the military to understand of the sequestered

will call cahal an absolute a real increase in defense but to, ah. they are allowed to go heparin next year half from $553 billion to $498 billion. 55 million-dollar cut and will not recover, will not get back to 2012 levels until 2018. unprecedented that a president could support the sequester a cut in defense budget the secretary of defense has said cannot haul and my recollection all of lawyers involved in this issue everybody in the kennedy remember when the commander-in-chief of do something like that what we are strong against that and nine thank the chairman and i urge the committee to adopt this platform. >> ha leadership handle the committee members i know everyone is very passionate ally appreciate the speaker and the debate we have had.

i hope everyone is happy with the way that it turn not and we thank you so much. and to all for your passion on this and your consideration. with that we will vote. all of those in favor of the section has has been amended to signify by saying aye. opposed, the same sign. the motion carries. >> mr. chairman, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. senator hoeven we will take a ten minute break.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] bringing you live coverage of the republican national convention platform committee meeting today as they draft their position on topics such as foreign policy, healthcare and education and as we approach the rnc convention. we have been sending tweets and we appreciate your tweets and a couple we would like to pass on to read tea party influences talks in tampa

>> tests are underway on the republican convention floor in tampa florida taking place the form marco rubio introduced mitt romney other speakers include new hampshire senator with kelly hinault, bobby jindal, christie and ohio senator robert portman. as a ten minute break is under way we will go back to earlier today and show you some of the appropriations that took place during rnc meeting.

>> we need to go back to the policy of george bush before 9/11. 9/11 pushed us into the situation we had to do some things, but we have to go back to democracy and just focus on the goal of getting our enemies and bringing our troops home as soon as possible. >> mr. ford, you say that after we see similar challenges. so does it actually relate to line one coming before the current administration? or are you replacing -- >> i'm not replacing anything. >> so you're just adding it after the similar challenges; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so it would start on line one? page two, line one.

is there second? there is a second. is there a discussion? >> mr. chairman. >> senator talent. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i see what the amendment is getting at, but i am very concerned that it would be read and may be intended to be read as getting at the whole range of tools that we regulate this foreign policy to protect american security as an expense of a cost as possible, tools by which we insist other countries and developing grassroots space and economic institutions. now, we've been successful at doing that in the past and in doing so have reduced conflict. look at germany and japan we helped develop in that way. we are trying to do that right now and as a matter of fact ought to be trying to insist libya as it emerges as a

democracy that doesn't mean that as a nation, but it does mean that we can use tools like that in order to prevent having to use more expensive, more costly kinds of tools to protect our security that might well cost americans in life or considerable treasurer. so i have to oppose the amendment and would also say that we spend a lot of time on the subcommittee we consider a lot of these taken into account instances where policies and powers have been infused to provide hedges and protections against that so that we have a good, strong principal and balanced subcommittee. i certainly appreciate the contribution the delegates trying to be constructive, but i oppose. >> mr. ford. >> i feel 110% of nation-building blows up in our face especially in the middle east. we have yemen on fire right now.

bald rain gets ignored. there are so many issues over there that it doesn't work. it's pretty much al qaeda central now. >> mr. chairman, campbell from alabama. a brief comment in response i agree with senator talent that when it comes to nation-building i don't think anyone is trying to promote nation-building, but what we can say is this. we don't like democracy the only kind of democracy we want. either we are for democracy or against democracy in the world. we can't sit here and pick and choose i wanted the country to have a space government, but i don't like the way the space government looks the next country over. it's not consistent with our founding principles. >> are we ready for the question? >> come on. >> are we ready? mr. kirby, did you want to make a comment, first? >> yes, sir.

i would like to speak in favor of this amendment. i respect the opinions of everyone here, but i don't think this in any way would teach her us from using tools. it is a policy that we believe in national sovereignty we must respect the national sovereignty as other nations as well. if they become a threat, then we will deal with them. how many years in afghanistan, and we keep finding new people to fight for new people come to fight us, one will fight as one time and then we will be friends with them and another title fight us another time, and the people that we have lost over there it seems like we keep making no progress and the idea

we are going to keep continuing to do this and other parts of the world when our borders are wide open and we have our own national securities here and the financial crisis. so, i'm going to speak in favor of this amendment. >> the gentleman in that come and then governor mcdonald. estimate from massachusetts. may we call the question, please? >> the question has been called. and second. we will vote on that motion. all those in favor of calling the question, signify by saying aye. opposed. the motion carries. we will not vote on the motion. all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. those opposed, signify by saying aye. the motion fails. all right. governor mcdonald, you have something? >> mr. chairman, just briefly. for us to maintain order and to be able to get through some

number of sections, whether it's going to be a lot heartfelt disagreement, please, speak when you are recognized and let's follow the rules of decorum. we do have a light on and we are going to use that as a guide at this point. but if we get to the point we can't keep the comments to emineth we are going to have a little stronger enforcement. because we have been ahead of schedule, we have been pretty lenient with that. but let's please, govern yourself accordingly at this point. and speak only when you are recognized by the chair. thank you. >> the guy is 45 seconds. we are going to try to limit. so we are trying to keep your comments are now the minute or so. and again, we want to get as much d date as possible. we want to make sure we have time for the amendments and give everybody a fair shot. this is about maximizing and making sure that everybody has a chance to give their thoughts and comments and their input. >> with that i believe we are

ready. >> fp12 relates to the current failure, so that is mr. ford as well. >> mr. four from ryland again -- from modi land again. i think it is the entire black block with india and china, and they all want the currency to fail. >> mr. ford, would you explain where this amendment sets? you have page two, line four. where would that amendment sit? right up to the word rising. >> turn on your microphone.

>> brazil, russia, india and china. >> economies and us on our hegemony and around the world. okay, putting it right and where we have the chinese. spearman because it's not just the chinese. >> that's the amendment. is there a second? i am sorry? did i hear a second? there is a second. >> thanks for the help, but is there a second coming and if there is, please identify yourself. is there a second for the motion? >> henderson from north dakota. i will second. >> all right. discussion.

from idaho. >> illinois. >> illinois, i'm sorry. >> i don't think the countries would fit together in their political attitude. i would oppose the amendment. >> they are all working together to trade out of our currency and completely disrupting our hegemony in the world, so i would have to disagree. >> mr. schoenbom? >> i would like to speak on behalf of brazil. they love american and don't want our currency to fail. i guarantee that is the issue. to call out names of friendly countries to the united states and such a pejorative manner i think is an error, and i oppose the amendment. >> senator talent from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to the amendment, america is not a hegemon and

brazil and india wouldn't be opposing this perspective of the delegates on call for the question. >> the question has been called with sufficient second all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. opposed, same sign. the motion carries. we will now vote on the amendment. all those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. all of those opposed, say aye. >> the amendment fails. i believe that close is out this section. on the current failure. now we move on to the sequestration. >> mr. chairman? >> we are going to make sure we've got -- do we have an amendment in the sequestration section? >> no, sir. >> all right. sequestration is closed.

the only section i have left open is the changing -- page 14, unequivocal support of israel. the changing middle east. >> the remaining sections are unequivocal support for israel, and in a changing middle east. we have at this .3 amendments that -- fp13. >> additional amendments are being offered right now. >> fp13 has been submitted. this is submitted by randy page of south carolina. this was the amendment that we finished yesterday the would replace our unequivocal support of irsael with the new section.

mr. page? >> randy page, south carolina. i appreciate the opportunity to reintroduce the discussion that we closed down yesterday evening. the change proposed should not be controversial. it doesn't contradict the israeli government in any way. it doesn't prejudice any particular course of action or outcome. it wishes to continue a policy of negotiations that can certainly do so. but only as a matter of its own free will. our voters want to work towards repairing the damage that obama has done to israel's standing coming into the u.s. israeli relationship. we can't simply offer them more of the same. of the voters will president at fahmy in office already agree with us completely on the spirit of the language. we have good reason to hope that we are more tempered and realistic approach will strongly appeal to the democrats in florida, ohio and pennsylvania who will be crossing over for this very reason. in fact, just recently the

republican national committee passed a resolution that was offered by the committee from south carolina to put forth a one state solution. it is a two-stage solution i simply want to move us to a neutral position to allow israel to be sovereign in its own. i want to close by reiterating my remarks from yesterday evening. i would decide on the choice we are facing here today. to be known to the public. if you stand for the idea of having american pressure irsael to continue negotiating the establishment of another terror state in its backyard, just like president obama has, then i challenge you to hold your hand up high for every republican and every friend if irsael can see just where you stand if you vote against this vast improvement. >> is there a second? >> second. islamic there is a second. is there further discussion?

yes, ma'am. maine and state, please. >> julie harris from arkansas. i'm in support of the amendment after two decades of failed and i don't think it's the republicans place to put in a platform to pressure or dictate to israel how to negotiate with palestine so that, you know, we certainly don't want to go contrary to israel's wishes, but even their prime minister at one time felt like to get palestine their own state would be against the palestinian terrorism ciro i would support this amendment to simply drop the language supporting perlstein, and let governor romney said his own policy for irsael, as we know it can change from one week to another. thank you. >> please try to keep your comments within a minute if you can. the gentleman in the back.

>> tony perkins from louisiana. i rise in support of the amendment. the current language in the platform is as good as it pertains to our support of israel, which i agree with mr. page that we need to be unequivocal and our support given what this administration has done with our friendship with israel. however, the language in the current proposed platform is leaving and that is as we envision a tuesday solution. i agree it should be have to irsael to decide what is in their best interest, and we should be neutral on that language. i support the amendment. >> senator talent of missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the delicate recognizing the language in the subcommittee report that does express some unequivocal support of israel. so, i plan actually after the delegate to read the first paragraph of it but i want. i encourage anyone that hasn't read it to read it. you will see how strong the

language is in support of irsael. the question is whether we should say something in this report in support of the lady of the two states in the middle east. now, the argument is offered that we shouldn't say that because if we do say that, we will be pressuring the government of israel. but it is this amendment pressures the government of israel because the government of irsael right now and has been for a number of years is to negotiate peace that involves the two states. and i would suggest that the sponsor of this amendment don't like that i'm not sure that they are wrong to do with the government of israel to envision they're the ones questioning the government of israel and this is what the prime minister netanyahu said and this is in a speech to congress. irsael will be ever vigilant in its response we will never give up. israel wants peace and means peace. we have achieved the historic peace agreement with egypt and jordan that have held up for decades but they are not enough. we must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the palestinians.

two years ago it publicly committed to a solution of the state's with a palestinian state along the jewish state. how we express support for israel if we are offering an amendment which is pushing the direction of abandoning the policy that they have chosen? so, this is why. we've talked about this in the subcommittee. i appreciate the support of the delegates of israel. i just have to oppose the amendment on the ground that i think it is a way to achieve the opposite of what it is intended. >> proceedings from earlier today as the republican national committee continues meeting this week to craft their party platform. live now to tampa for more from the meeting. we do welcome your proof tweets.

we will watch as the plot for meeting continues. incoming your participation and tweets are welcome. c-spanrnc. >> i think most of us would agree. [applause] more freedom and prosperity and liberty and opportunity for people in the united states than any country. the language another constitution provides the same opportunity. it took a lot of work the federation of 1777 were determined to be insufficient for the union in 1787.

september 17th, 245 years we celebrate that and a couple of weeks. so the document was finished. those testified in the document like james madison and george baker and others that had a hand of crafting that would participate at virginia made a contribution. a ratification of 1788 a document that has grown an immense amount of good for 300 plus million people of the united states. this year the platform as i assume the chairmanship we felt because of some of the assaults on the united states constitution by this administration and because of the need to reaffirm our belief in the incredible time of this

constitution, so we would do what no other platform has done at least to have a separate section solely on the united states constitution. those principles have protections not ignored but others based on the area of health or crime. it was incredibly important to focus the constitution, and many from states felt that was important as well to have the support section dealing. whether it is the big government or excess of care for various mandates on states on the system of federalism that jefferson and madison and others thought were important in the united states constitution and whether some of

the things that have been done through the administration process to the representatives in the united states congress, whether it's been some of the action from the united states attorney general recently in an hour of scrutiny by the united states congress. i think we have had significant terms about whether or not this great document has been honored by this administration and that is another reason that we decided to carve this bill. i think a burly and reaffirmation -- brilliant reaffirmation that we are a nation that was a revolutionary concept from some 225 years ago and it's a section that we have a number of things that are important including not only reaffirming the principles, but saying how the further amendments might be necessary to protect human life.

the constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage and a constitutional amendment to require -- of future generations because we will force of discipline on the united states congress. there are a lot of important issues that are covered in here on the first and second amendment or so fundamental to our liberties. the fact the fifth amendment needs to be given to life or private property. so this was exciting for all of us. many of you are here -- to get involved in the political process thank you for making that reality to it i think this is and be a great exchange. we have a couple that has

already come in and i am going. there is a clock. i want to ask you to please, keep your comment to a minute for us to have a robust discussion and show respect for your fellow delegates so each can have their say and move on to call to questions all amendments can be done in short order i'm going to ask that you please keep your amendments to your discussion at one minute. we have great leaders of the subcommittee that went through more than any of the subcommittee. i think the end of the day there were about 75 or 80 amendments that were offered and be dated and many of them adopted in this of kennedy. i think that the improved the document to the point that you see it in front of you now. and if the subcommittee was led by jim bob who is a constitutional lawyer of many of the split from committees from the great state of indiana and is also the vice chairman of the

republican party and for the state and also james from ohio, who is a state attorney. with that i'm going to turn it over to jim bald and then we will take amendments. jim? >> mr. chairman, i would like to first express my appreciation to the co-chairmen of ohio for her leadership in her thoughtful contributions to the work of the subcommittee. as this election is about big things and there is nothing bigger than the united states constitution. the united states constitution was a very radical development in the history of the world. for the first time, it was the people controlling the government, rather than the government controlling the people. constitution was based on the idea that the consent of the governed and that our citizens were actually engaged in an exercise of self-government.

now, the united states constitution guarantees a limited government, so the people will have the maximum freedom to pursue their life dreams, and of course this is resolved and the freest and most prosperous country of the world. something that all will seek to emulate. the obama administration has ever has taken numerous steps to put out by defining the protections of the united states constitution. the subcommittee on resolving the constitutional government addresses of these big and fundamental issues. for the first time in a separate section in our platform. we started with an excellent six page draft cai and after the consideration, mr. chairman, of some 100 amendments, i think i can say we have met the

challenge to develop this section that celebrates the promise of our u.s. constitution the second explains how the obama white house has shown utter disregard for many of our constitutional guarantees as it grabs on president of executive power and how our republican party respects the genius of our founders and framing our constitution and how it will restore that vision. many substantive issues are addressed in this section. we condemn the obama administration's a violation of the rule of law by exercising authority in defiance of the act of congress and the united states constitution and calling for a balanced budget amendment. we condemn the judicial activism and call to protect the traditional marriage and to restore the legal protection for the unborn.

.. >> we support the first amendment's freedom of speech and call for the repeal of the remaining provisions of mccain-feingold and for razeeing or repealing contribution limits to campaigns and political parties. we advocate further protection of that right. we urge measures to be taken to

protect the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fifth amendment's protection of private property from being taken by the government. we urge a respect for the ninth and tenth amendments which protect the rights of the people and the states against encroachment by the federal government. we support the protection of the flag and the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, and we oppose the use of foreign laws in interpreting u.s. statutes and our u.s. constitution. i'd like to congratulate our subcommittee for their fine work, and we are pleased to present our subcommittee report and draft to the full committee for its consideration. >> jim, very well done. apologize for understating the number of amendments that you took up. [laughter] over 100. but that says that many of these

issues were well debated in that committee, and many adopted. you've improved the document, and it's terrific work that you did in just a couple of short, short hours. so that was very well said. i look at the declaration of independence, by the way, also written by a virginian, the second golf -- governor of virginia, thomas jefferson. [laughter] it's great being chairman, i can talk -- [laughter] as the charter of the country, and then the constitution's the bylaws if you think of it in corporate terms. and these bylaws have really been tremendous and well debated in the early days and only been amended a small handful of times in these 225 years. so it has stood the test of time. so over the next two hours we're not going to rewrite the constitution, we're simply going to say how we think that applies to modern day democracy and what we want to reaffirm what we

would like to see added to make sure that this incredible document stays strong and a source of our liberties. i think it's so important that this document starts off with the principle that we all reck these that these rights -- recognize that these rights come from the creator and governments are instituted among men to protect them. and that's why the constitution, particularly the bill of rights, goes into some detail in how to protect those individual liberties. jim, very well done. jane, did you want to say anything before we get started with the amendments? >> yes, thank you. i'd like to thank the chairman for the honor of serving as the co-chair on this committee. i'd also like to thank my co-chair, jim bopp. i believe we did an excellent job. in addition, i'd like to cite the preamble of the constitution that states that the role of the constitution is to secure the blessings, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. the constitution is the foundation of our great nation,

and again, i'm honored to serve on this committee, and i look forward to this full committee approving this, these, this section. thank you. >> okay. with that, we will go to the beginning of the section, caption restoring constitutional government. [inaudible conversations] >> and -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, but i don't -- i see no amendments in this section. the first one i've got is page 2. page 2 on line 14. that's the first amendment. so with regard to the section restoring constitutional government, is there think discussion on this section? is there any discussion on this section? all right, hearing none, that section is closed. second section, page 1, line 22, restoring constitutional order. congress and the executive

branch. seeing no amendments, is there any discussion on that section? hearing none, that section is closed. page 2, line 10, marriage and the judiciary. now, is this strike on 14, is this line 14? >> [inaudible] >> okay. all right. let me recognize then barbara ann fenton from rhode island. >> thank you, chairman. and i appreciate you hearing me out. this has been one of the coolest things -- >> don't start with that rookie stuff. [laughter] you've done a good job. >> it's been the coolest two days of hi life. first, i want to start off to preface the amendment saying as a roman catholic, there is nobody who believes more that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. but those are my religious beliefs, and this country was founded on a separation of church and state.

and being from rhode island, we take that pretty seriously. we were founded out of the freedom of religious persecution. if you look back over the course of civilization, many times the heads of religion were also heads of state, and so things get mixed up over the course of time. marriage kind of becomes a colloquial term after all. our founding fathers weren't anticipating the debate several hundred years down the road that the definition of marriage might be defined. i think we have to stay very strong in keeping marriage the religious sack remit that it is and recognizing as many of us are christians our church's definition of one man and one woman. but our founding fathers kind of took it in a colloquial sense in that that's how the government categorizes us. we're married, we're single, we're widowed, you know, and what not. and it truly became a method of categorization. this amendment is offered out of the basis that every one of us

must have equal rights. perhaps the greatest success of my parents' generation and the generations before that is that at 31 i don't see people because of the color of their skin, and i don't recognize them by their sexuality. and that might be their greatest achievement, that a lot of us don't. um, and for my own generation a lot of times homosexuality isn't the biggest deal in the world anymore, and that's okay. somehow they still have to have equal rights -- >> so a sentence to summarize then, you are striking -- >> striking line 14 where, um -- >> and i want to say that, apparently, the copy was cut off, so if everybody would, please, direct your -- >> i will read it. >> -- eyes to the screen, and if you'll just make sure that's correct on the screen. you have added some new language. >> yep. so we're striking line 14 where it says "this is more than a matter of warring concepts and ideals. and in the interest of the

separation of church and state, introducing at the end of the after the that "in accordance with the founding fathers' guiding principles of the separation of church and state, we promote ending categorization, instead recognizing a civil union partnership for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. and i want to make one little correction with what i offered there. it says may the blessed sack remit of marriage -- sacrament of marriage be recognized by the church. >> okay. let's get the rest of that up here. are we going to try to get that in a color? >> [inaudible] >> okay. all right. to get the amendment in front of us, is there a second? >> second. >> all right. there's a second. discussion? >> okay, i figured there might be. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> let me call on, i'm sorry, next to mr. bopp, ms.-- >> cherie langenstein from

illinois. >> okay. recognized. >> i'm here to oppose the amendment. an almost identical amendment was proposed in my committee, and it was rejected soundly by the committee. i think that this is, um -- our party has always been the party defending traditional marriage. we need to continue being the party that defends traditional marriage, and i would ask all of the delegates to vote this opposition to this amendment. >> okay. ms.-- i'm sorry, i cannot see. >> [inaudible] from connecticut. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, um, i firmly support this amendment and just briefly, i know we don't have a lot of time, but i serve in the legislature in the state of connecticut, and we were the first state to pass civil unions legislatively without judicial interaction. and i think ms. stenson said it quite eloquently, and it's a debate we've had for many years. i don't think this diminishes or

degrades marriage. my participants have been married -- parents have been married for over 55 years and, um, you know, i believe that institution. but i think that these terms have been comingled for so long that we've lost the difference between civil and religious. and i think that this defines that very clearly, yet does not denigrate or take away from what we truly believe as republicans and what we believe -- >> okay. >> thank you. >> all right. we are not going to be able to entertain all the people that want to speak. we'll ask for a couple other comments, and then aisle going to ask the -- i'm going to ask the subcommittee chairman to say what happens. mr. perkins. >> tony perkins from louisiana. the amendment seeks to interject something that is not completely true when we look at the issue of marriage. government extends benefits to marriage because marriage benefits society. the social science as well as

the experience of marriage is that it benefits children which in turn benefits society. children who come from marriage do better from -- from intact marriage do better economically, culturally, socially. they do better in their school. this would move us away from a party that recognizes the benefits that marriage extend to a society. historically, marriage has been the cornerstone. we, we dealt with this in the health committee as well, and very clear that this party has stated something in clear contrast to the other party. we recognize nature, we recognize history, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. this would move the party immensely away from the position that this party has held. >> yep. i think, listen, i think everybody understands this issue. i'd like to call on mr. bopp to ask what was the discussion in the subcommittee, was in the taken up and what was the discussion there?

>> there was a similar amendment proposed in our subcommittee, and it died for lack of second. so we would oppose the adoption of this amendment. the recognition of marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do -- when the government does that, has nothing to do with separation of church and state. there are numerous and such compelling reasons for government to protect a husband, a wife and a child, children as married and a family that every country in the history of the world has recognized that as a fundamental basis for their society. so religions are free to recognize whatever unions they choose to, and under our free exercise of religion there is nothing that prevents that from happening. but the civil government has a

responsibility to do what is best for society and protecting traditional marriage as opposed to adoption of what would be a counterfeit marriage as a civil union would be is adequately supported by the compelling reasons to -- >> okay. all right. i think both sides have been properly represented and you know what you belief on this -- believe on this subject. is there a motion to call the question? >> [inaudible] >> all right. is there a second? so moved and seconded, the question be called. the motion -- the question is, shall the amendment be adopted? all in favor of adopting the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed say, no. >> no. >> okay. the amendment is rejected. okay. the -- >> point of order? chairman in. >> yes. >> kim lehman over here.

>> ms. lehman from iowa. >> i just would ask for consistency. if we're going to actually call the question, have it seconded, that we actually vote on it. >> you're, you are exactly correct. i got a little ahead of myself. >> i'm sorry. >> so here's what we're going to do. we're going to do it right. the actual first question was on whether or not the debate should be ended. and the question was called. so the first vote is shall the debate be ended, in other words, shall the question be called? all in favor of that say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> okay. the opinion of the chair, the question is to be called. the question is, shall the amendment offered by ms. fenton, page 2, line 14, be adopted. all in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> are no. >> opinion of the chair, the amendment is rejected.

ms. lehman, thank you very much. i was getting ahead. okay, the next amendment is c.o.n. 15, page 2, line -- hold on, that's in the next section though. so on the section -- >> [inaudible] >> marriage -- let me see. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. governor, it's con 5, constitution 5 -- >> constitution 5. >> 17? patrick kirby? >> hold on just a minute. is that in the marriage and judiciary section? is. >> no, sir, it's in the next section. >> okay. so in the section -- >> it actually overlaps. >> okay. i couldn't tell because you have line 17. so what section, mr. kirby s this actually going to be in,

under the marriage and judiciary and the defense of marriage? >> um, this would begin in the marriage and judiciary and then actually defeat -- deletes the defense of marriage. >> okay. so before we close marriage and the judiciary, we'll recognize mr. kirby for con 5. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be brief. i'll -- this is a similar amendment, and, um, my purpose for this amendment is that i believe this is the most important election of our lives. i believe that the country is at a tipping point already, and i believe this social issue grants hollywood and the media to paint us as people who aren't after a free country, but kind of a theological we want to impose our will on others. so i'll read this as it comes into the -- so for thousands of years virtually every civilization has been entrusted

with the rearing of children and transmission of cultural values. that being said and wile we oppose -- while we oppose any attempt by the judiciary to legislate from the bench, republicans recognize that the role of government is to protect the rights of the individual. in a free society, we must accept the rights of others to live in ways we cannot condone. as long as there is no infringements on the rights of others, it is not the role of government to judge. and, um, so that i really, really, really, really don't want obama to win this election. and i believe this is an issue -- [laughter] that will be a tipping point, um, and that we can take this stance and still keep our commitment to the institute of marriage. that's not in debate. what is in debate is where under the constitution every american gets treated equally under the

law. >> okay. mr. kirby? similar point to the last one, so we'll have brief discussion. ms. kennedy? >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> excuse me. is there a second to the amendment in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> all right. it's properly in front of us. who had the point of order? >> i did. >> ms.-- >> i did, mr. chairman. >> north carolina. >> i was just raising a point of order that you didn't second the amendment. >> okay. it's been seconded now. discussion, ms. kennedy. >> yes, thank you. cynthia kennedy, nevada. there has been, there are a few groups who have taken the time to come here and present their cause, and one of them is the young conservatives for the freedom to marry. there are and to quote from their -- and to quote from their literature, something i think needs to be said here to the body, they say we are a group of politically-active young conservatives who strongly believe that support for the freedom to marry is in line with

our core belief in limited government and individual freedom. as president ronald reagan said, it is the role of government to work with us, not over us. to stand by our side, not ride on our backs. they feel strongly that excluded committed same-sex couples from marriage does not mesh with those principles. to quote former vice president dick cheney, freedom means freedom for everyone. now, um, i want to say that these people would be compelled to leave the republican party and go third party or even democrat when they are republicans, and they should not be condemned for their desire to have a civil union. and as had been said in many pages here about a union being the best environment in which to raise children, a couple union, these people also deserve to raise children as a couple. and to have their union be -- >> okay.

>> defined. >> okay. ask everybody, again, please keep your eye on that clock. we're going to try to keep to a minute. mr. coback. >> chris coback from kansas. i oppose this amendment, i think the wording is too broad. especially the last sentence, it is not the role of government to judge. well, our government routinely judges situations where you might regard complete, people completely affecting themselves like, for example, the use of controlled substances, like, for example, polygamy that is voluntarily entered into. we condemn those activities even though they're not hurting other people, at least directly. so this is worded way too broadly for inclusion. >> mr. bopp, was there any discussion of this in the subcommittee? >> again, the only proposal related to this subject failed for lack of second. i would like to address the issue substantively. first, as to whether or not it's politically disadvantageous for

this party to support traditional marriage. actually, over 30 states have now incorporated in their own constitutions protection of itosed it has passed, even in the state of california where in 2008 at the very same time that obama was carrying california by almost 20%, the defense of traditional marriage passed in california by 52%. that's -- and recently in north carolina as well. this suggests that strongly supporting traditional marriage is actually quite popular and would enhance the support of our candidates. secondly, the fact that under our constitution people are free to come together and raise children, they can have it sanctioned by a religious body. the only question is that it cannot be and is not sanctioned by government x that's a

proper -- and that's a proper decision for government to make. thus, it has nothing to do with the religious freedom. >> but i think this is a similar topic to the last amendment. i think people know where they stand on in this. it's been a good exchange. is there a motion to call the question? is. >> call the question. >> so moved. >> it's been moved and seconded. the question be called. all in favor of calling the question to end debate say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? okay, the question is called. the question is now on the amendment offered by mr. kirby. all in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> okay. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment fails. the next amendment is, i think, con 15. >> [inaudible] >> okay. that section then on marriage and the judiciary. hearing no other comment, it's now closed. and the subsequent section,

defense of marriage, page 2, line 17, is also completed. and it's now closed. the next section is on the budget, page 2, line 30. the first amendment that we have in that section is con 15. richard ford from rhode island. mr. ford? >> that's line 36, and richard ford from rhode island. >> okay. go ahead, mr. ford, address your amendment in a minute. >> first, i would like to say that as republicans we should all really take truth to the constitution and really hold it as our guiding principle. and now i'll read my amendment. the federal income tax is unconstitutional and should be repealed. it is a soft version of slavery. it is unconstitutional to tax our labor. it's only constitutional to tax corporate profit. the income tax only insures the

interest of our national debt to the federal reserve. national debt -- we don't need to insure our national debt. we need to eliminate it. >> okay. so the amendment is at the end of that section, at the end of line 36 calling for the elimination of the federal income tax. is there a second? all right. hearing none, we will move to the next amendment which is -- oh, actually, that's the last amendment from that section. any other discussion on the section on the budget? okay, hearing none, that section is closed. page 3, federalism and the tenth amendment, the first amendment that i see is con 6. mr. kirby from nevada. >> hello again. [laughter] um, yes. i just wanted to add, um, the --

i'll read it through. we support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, comma, operational inefficiencies, comma, and abuse of power. and then it continues. and to determine -- >> okay. so, mr. kirby, and i apologize. we have made new forms that make it a lot clearer. we have insert and delete, and this is still the old form. but what you are doing on line 4 after operational efficiencies, you're inserting or abuse of power. >> correct. >> and it's on the screen. does that look right on the screen, mr. kirby? that's what you're adding, it's been highlighted. >> absolutely correct. >> is there a second? >> second. >> is there a discussion? >> i'll just discuss briefly. >> go ahead. >> we've all seen the, um, the agency that did an armed raid on

a dairy. and that kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated in the united states. it's, the agencies need to be held accountable and not abuse their power. >> okay. discussion? all right. no discussion. >> [inaudible] >> all right. it's been moved and seconded. the question being called. all in favor of calling the question to end debate say aye. >> aye. >> all in favor? all opposed? [laughter] question is called. now, all in favor of the amendment offered by mr. kerby say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed to the amendment say no. >> no. >> okay. the amendment is adopted. [laughter] [applause]

mr. kerby, do you need to step out for a press conference or anything? [laughter] all right. the next, next amendment that i have is con 13, which is mr. henderson of north dakota. no, i think this is still this section, right? still federalism and the tenth amendment? paul henderson, north dakota. >> paul henderson, north dakota. thankthank you, mr. chair. i love the wording at the end of this section that we're not going to take financial responsibility or require the nation's taxpayers to pay for the -- >> hold on. hold on. sorry, mr. kerby. >> con 13. >> elise? [inaudible conversations] >> hold on, please. is there a 12?

>> raise your hand if you do not have 13. [inaudible conversations] >> 12 is on page 4. >> they are numbered by when they come to the desk, so, please, chronologically -- >> yes. con -- that's right. i know this is confusing, but the amendments are not picked up in the order of their numbers. so we're taking 13 before 12 because we're taking them, obviously, in the sequential order according to the page number and line number. so 12 is actually page 4. we will get to that later. right now we are on con 13, page 3, line 36 which is an addition of language at the very end of that section after "misrule of state government," and you see it on the screen shortly. that says "nor shall the states assume the federal government's financial responsibility." mr. henderson. >> thank you.

>> further comment on your amendment? >> thank you, chairman. i just was going to reiterate that i love that language that we should not pay for the misrule of a few state governments, and my addition would be nor shall the states assume the federal government's financial responsibilities. and i say that coming from north dakota running a projected $1 billion surplus that i'm in the back of my mind i think that the federal government's going to look at states with surpluses and get greedy. >> okay. put in proper posture, is there a second? is. >> second. >> discussion? all right. it's been moved and seconded that that amendment be agreed to. all many favor of adopting that amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? no.

that amendment's agreed to. that is the last amendment i have under that section. is there any other discussion on federalism and the tenth amendment on page 3. all right, hearing none, that section is closed. page 4. first amendment that i see here is c8. mr. kobach, excuse me, from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as secretary of state of kansas, i believe that it is incredibly important to add this to our platform. this, if you're just reading it, has to do with proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration which is an additional protection beyond photo id laws which we now have in almost a dozen states, true, robust photo id laws. it is a significant form of fraud. at present, only two states have proof of citizenship at the time of registration, those are kansas and georgia, in effect. laws in effect. two other states had it, arizona and alabama. arizona's was recently struck

down by the ninth circuit which can give you an idea that it was probably a good thing. [laughter] and alabama has it in its laws but is awaiting preclearance from the obama justice department which can tell you that if this president stays in office, they'll have a very long wait. so i think it's important that the republican party stand firmly behind the principle that we verify citizenship. there are a lot of other states that would like to move in this direction, and this platform will give them a boost in doing so. >> if anybody does not have it, it's currently being handed out. it's also on the screen. >> mr. kobach, let me just make sure. the way i read your amendment you're not -- >> it's not striking it. >> you're adding this language. you're not necessarily calling for adoption by the states, you're simply saying that state laws that do this are a protection -- >> yes. >> -- stating more of a principle, but you're not calling for any particular

action. >> well, just like the sentence which precedes it, this expresses support for state laws that require proof of citizenship at the time of registration. >> okay. >> second. >> is there a second? >> yes, second. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded that that amendment be adopted. discussion? yes, ma'am, ms. hall. >> yes, tamara hall from montana. i would like to indulge you for one second to -- well, actually, 60 seconds -- >> 39 to be exact. >> thank you, sir. [laughter] >> i know. i was this that committee. and i would like to share with you that there are certain issues that are of the heart, certain issues that are of the head, some that are on the boots working. this is one of the most important things we will discuss today, in my opinion. i think we these to give it time as tired as we all are. voter integrity in america is at risk. it is at risk, it is poison to our entire system. i think we have to acknowledge and be bold that people on the

progressive side are willing to cheat in ways we could never before fathom. and i think it is time that we respect every state that is struggling with this issue and help them address this, specifically through these whatever is proposed, we these to understand that. i am a mental -- i have a mentally disabled daughter, and a community organizer group took my daughter without our permission, without our knowledge. she cannot read, write, count, tell time. and for cookies and milk they had her vote. we -- you have no idea the extreme these people will go to to steal an election. we need to stand for this, fight for this and be bold for this. [applause] >> mr. chairman? >> okay. ms. suma from north carolina? >> marie suma from north

carolina, i would ask mr. kobach if he would accept an amendment to begin that paragraph or begin that statement with we support state laws that require -- >> i would accept that for the amendment. >> as a member of the largest county's board of elections in my state, um, voter integrity is paramount to our freedom to vote. so anything that we can do to assure that people who are voting are actually the people they say they are and they are u.s. citizens, we need to do everything. in a state that our democrat governor vetoed our voter id. >> okay. ms. suma has made a second-degree amendment to the primary amendment. is there a second to her amendment? >> second. >> okay. >> mr. chairman? >> okay, hold on. so that amendment to the original amendment for mr. kobach has been moved and seconded. now discussion on that. >> point of order, or actually -- >> yes.

>> -- point of information. i think she means to say we also have to add the word "too," if you make it we support. after the time of registration to protect our -- it changes the structure of the sentence, so you -- >> okay. so that's your amendment, ms. suma? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> okay. so it's on the screen now. ms. suma's amendment to the primary amendment of mr. kobach has been moved and properly seconded, and now discussion on the amendment. yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. clarence mingo from columbus, ohio. i think the language we're discussing here be it the first amendment or the second is interesting, but i think it is very important and critical that this language not be used for strategic political purposes. our effort in this regard must be sincere, and that's to prevent voter fraud. any other message or any other

suggestion that the party or this platform is attempting to suppress votes for political gain i don't think will help our cause much. and that's certainly not the intent of this body. but i do think it's terrifically important that demonstrate sincerity in this regard in that we highlight the fact that this is about voter fraud and not political gain. >> okay. the amendment -- hold on. the amendment, the substitute amendment or the second-degree amendment is largely clarifying, to put it in a pieceture of we support as opposed to state the principle. so why don't we get to the main issue in front of us, why don't we act on this amendment of ms. suma. is there any other discussion on that largely technical amendment? all right. hearing none, all in favor of that second-degree amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment is agreed to. now we're back to the amended amendment of mr. kobach on the issue of voter registration. discussion. >> mr. chairman?

chris -- >> yes. >> tennessee. i'd just like to echo what the gentleman from ohio said, and also the democrats have wrongly asserted that we have political purposes in mind on this, and all we're trying to do is to protect voter integrity. and in our state we actually had an election overturned because of people voting in the names of the deceased. so we understand that this is a problem, and i urge this committee to pass anything that protects voters' integrity. >> okay. let me see some others. mr. lucas from west virginia. >> mr. chairman, just to simply echo a lot of the statements, i'd like to applaud mr. kobach for offering this. as a state where this month alone we have three elected democrat officials being charged in voter fraud from the primary election that we held two years ago, we know this is a problem in preserving voter integrity cannot be underestimated as anything less than -- safe and

fair elections under democracy, but i thank them for introducing this. >> other discussion. ms. dayton from utah. >> [inaudible] >> okay. ms. dayton has moved that the question be called. is there a second? >> second. >> moved and seconded. all in favor of calling the question to end debate say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? question is called. now, the question is on the amendment offered by mr. kobach. all in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> no. the amendment is adopted. now that, mr. kobach, let me ask you, your next one is page 4, line 9. is that, actually, in the next section? >> you know what? that one, if you're talking about con 10, that one is withdrawn. >> so that's out? >> if that's the one that says

move the heading voter integrity, yes -- >> okay, con 10 is withdrawn. therefore, i believe that is the the -- wait a minute, i'm sorry. [inaudible conversations] >> i'm sorry, is there another one? hold on just a moment. thox thox. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. that is the last amendment, though, that i see for the electoral college section, so any other discussion on that

section? okay. that section then is closed. we now go to the voter integrity. section on page 4, line 9. and has the parliamentarian looked at, we have two amendments to page 4, line 13. it appears that mr. kerby's is broader and should be taken up first. i don't think they're in conflict. >> mr. chairman? >> hang on just a second. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. we're going to go with mr. kerby's first. was there a point of order, mr. henderson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is very close to mr. kerby's, and i would just support his and withdraw mine. >> okay. thank you.

all right, mr. kerby from nevada. >> hey, that's one vote. [laughter] thank you, mr. chairman. um, this would continue on the voting integrity right after the word "generations" on line 13, and it states: we recognize that paper ballots are the best way to insure a fair election. let ambition counter ambition as madison said -- another virginian, by the way, i believe -- >> thank you very much. >> when all parties have representatives observing the counting of ballots in a transparent process, integrity is assured. we strongly suggest that all electronic voting is systems have a printed paper ballot so that preliminary electronic results can be verified by a hard count of paper ballots. >> second. >> second. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded that this amendment be adopted.

and it is now -- >> mr. chairman? >> -- it is now on the screen. discussion? >> i believe -- >> mr. kerby, you've got more to say? >> sure. [laughter] i just believe that if a system can be corrupted, it will be corrupted. and i much, i think we're a lot better off when all of us are looking over each other's shoulders as ballots are counted than we are trusting in the voter machine fairy. thank you. >> mr. chairman? mary suma, north dakota -- >> okay, hold on. i'm going to try to recognize a few people that have not spoken that much. ms.-- >> [inaudible] >> from maryland, yes, ma'am. >> thank you. i'm hoping the author of the amendment would be open to a friendly amendment to his amendment on the line where you have a printed paper ballot. in maryland we've been fighting this, and the correct words that

we've used is a voter-verified paper audit trail. and what that does is exactly what it stated, the voter verifies the paper audit trail. so it doesn't just print out a piece of paper, but the voter verifies that that is, indeed, what they've chosen. so if the author of the amendment would entertain that, i'd appreciate it. >> okay. would you state, ma'am, your specific amendment, where it goes? >> >> yes. it would be on the third to the last line where, um, mr. kerby's amendment says "a printed paper ballot" and substitute "a voter-verified paper audit trail." >> certainly, if that's the technical term for that, i have no problem with that. would we also need to put it at the very end? or could we maybe just put a period after hard count?

>> that the preliminary -- it's a little redundant. >> are yes. >> we could probably take -- >> yeah. probably put a period after "voter-verified paper audit trail" and then eliminate the redundancy. >> okay. >> thank you. >> so to state the amendment then, it's on the third to the last line from the bottom. we're going to strike "printed paper ballot" and insert "verified -- >> "voter-verified paper audit trail." period. >> okay. and then put a period after "hard count." >> no. after "audit trail." >> and that is on the screen, the amendment. and is there a second to that substitute amendment? >> i'll second that. >> and mr. kerby is in favor of that amendment. >> are yes. >> okay. so the substitute motion from

the gentle lady from maryland has been moved and seconded. discussion on the second-degree or substitute amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman? >> oh, ms. temken. >> while i can appreciate the sentiment -- >> let me just make sure, are you speaking to the substitute, or are you speaking to the overall amendment? question on the floor is the substitute, the amendment to mr. kerby's amendment. are you speaking to that? >> not at this time. i will withhold until after -- >> okay. this is more, i think, of a technical or clarifying amendment to get the main issue before us. so are there any discussion on the language of the substitute? mr. kobach? >> yes, mr. chairman. i appreciate the amendment from the gentlelady from maryland. her language is correct in the second part which is where i believe she inserted it, printed paper ballot at the last part of this amendment. the vv pat or the voter-verified

paper audit trail is something we're trying to move toward in a number of states in not just kansas, but all across the country. and the other alternative which i think the first half speakess so -- either way, with the paper ballots or the vv pap, you have a record, so i think as amended the amendment is better. >> okay. mr. posener? is in mr. chairman, i'd like to make two recommendations to the individual who proposed the amendment. the first is i'm not -- when he read it, he said "strongly suggest." on mine "strongly suggest" is crossed out, and it says "demand," and it said demand on the screen. we don't, for example, demand a human life amendment, we say we strongly support -- >> if i can interrupt, though, the question -- that may be discussion, but the question

right now is simply on the amendments that have been made by the gentlelady -- >> i'm sorry. i thought we got through that. >> are okay. we're not through that yet. so are there any other questions on this substitute amendment to modify the main amendment? >> [inaudible] >> all right, hearing none, the motion -- is there a second on calling the question? all in favor of that motion say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the question is called on the substitute amendment. all in favor of that amendment say, aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> okay. that amendment is adopted. now we're back to the motion of the amendment itself by mr. kerby. mr. posener, you had a question now on another part of the amendment. >> yes. only to tell you i don't know whether the person who proposed this, mr. kerby, wants to use strongly suggest or demand, but i would suggest we use the language we used through the rest of the platform, which is "strongly support." and, number two, i would recommend taking out -- i love

james madison, i don't know that the quote adds much to this -- >> oh, i think it adds a lot. >> i like it. [laughter] >> it is the constitution section, after all. >> yeah. >> um, mr. chairman, pat kerby, from nevada. >> mr. kerby. >> i made a technical error, and i put "demand" instead of "strongly suggest." so i'm saying that i have no problem going back to and the strongly suggest." that is how i read it when i read it to you, but it was printed as "demand." so -- >> or strongly support with is what we -- >> hold on, hold on. one at a time. mr. posener, you had a question on the demand language, but you also had an issue with madison, but you haven't offered any amendments. >> i would take out -- i'd like to do this separately. i would do "strongly support," and it sounds like mr. kerby's

in agreement with that, so maybe we should do that first. >> [inaudible] >> okay. mr. posener, are you making a motion then to now remove "demand" and reinsert your original language of "strongly suggest." >> no, i'm moving that we say "strongly support." >> all right. is there a second to that motion? >> second. >> all right. it's been moved and seconded. it's on the screen. been on the one, two, three, four, fife, sixth line down that the word "demand" is struck and insert "strongly support." that's been seconded. any discussion on that technical amendment? >> i'm all for it. >> okay. so moved and seconded that that amendment be agreed to. all in favor of that amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> okay. that amendment is adopted. now we're back to the main amendment of mr. kerby, discussion. >> mr. chairman? >> ms. suma from north carolina.

>> mr. chairman, i seven on the maclin berg county board of investigations, and what concerns me are paper ballots. absentee ballots, we're going to have 20-30,000 absentee ball ballots. or are the ones who voted, so i'd like to make a motion that i'm all in favor of voter integrity. i would like to make a motion to strike that first sentence about paper ballots because i have a lot more confidence in our machines with our paper trail that we print than i do in paper balloting. >> second. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded that the kerby amendment be further amended to strike the first sentence through the words "fair election." is that correct? ms. suma? >> um, i would strike it

through, um, "process." >> mad madison? >> no, you can keep padson. i'll give you madison. >> ms. suma, i'm confused -- >> blue process and put, period, voter integrity must be assured, period. strike everything -- well, take madison out, sorry. [laughter] >> point of order? >> strike everything until you get to the word "process." put -- and then start the sentence "voter integrity must be assured," and then go back into "we strongly support." >> point of order, can we have that in writing? >> i have a point of order. could we have mr. kerby, the honorable attorney general from kansas and maybe ms. suma just huddle and -- >> yeah. that's exactly where i was going with this. we spent a fair amount of time on this. i think everybody knows what the

issue is here, and that is ballot integrity and whether or not we want to have paper ballots or paper backup. we still have some more discussion on that, but you're getting now into some significant amendments to the amendment, and rather than everybody try to follow that along, if you're going to do that, let's propose it as a substitute amendment, and we'll take that, we'll take that up at a later time. we still have -- no, we still have another amendment here in the voter -- without objection. we still have another amendment in the voter integrity section that i see, and that is con 14. mr. hoseman from mississippi, page 4, line 17. mr. hoseman, you want to discuss your amendment? >> yes. i'd like to state i'm secretary of state of mississippi, and sometimes reminded of faulkner's comment to say that to understand the world, you must

understand a place like mississippi. that being said, we led the states in electronic voting for overseas military. i visited afghanistan, iraq and kuwait as well as the hospitals in germany at the request of the department of defense. the military today is interdispersed everywhere. all the services are interdispersed, the navy's in with the army, the army's in with marines all over, and we have very difficult times in getting mail to those people. the department of defense has an expedited voting process where they mark the ballots, but still military very rarely gets to vote in our country. in fact, their percentages are less than half of everyone else's. mississippi law allows for electronic voting to come back to the circuit clerks in our state at which time it is opened, placed in an envelope and placed this their precinct ballot box. we think that is critical. it is so difficult to find people on a sand dune anymore that can receive mail.

i ask hundreds of servicemen and women whether or not they like the process and whether they were concerned as to the security of electronic voting. each and every person in each and every one of those countries said they did not. they just wanted their ballot to count. therefore, i would propose to add to the end of that sentence and the utilization of electronic voting where -- that should be where -- >> okay, that was my question, doesn't read right. >> that's a technical amendment, doesn't need action. where allowed by state laws s. there a second to that amendment? is. >> second. >> discussion? yes, sir. >> um, i want to just see if the good secretary of state of mississippi would accept a friendly amendment. i know exactly what you're getting at, and i wholeheartedly agree. i think what he means to say is electronic delivery of ballots. there are some people who are calling for voting at web sites which are hackable whereas we absolutely must allow electronic

delivery of ballots which is the sending of a pdf. would he accept that amendment? >> i will, chris, thank you. >> mr. kobach, would you be kind enough to repeat it or look look at the screen -- >> mr. kobach has been recognized to state his amendment to the primary amendment. mr. kobach. >> the word "voting" should be struck and replaced with "delivery of ballot os." >> okay. so on your sheet, and it's on the screen, strike "voting" and insert "after electronic delivery of ballots." >> second. >> and it's on the screen. there's been a second to that secondary amendment. any discussion? on that clarifying amendment? hearing none, all in favor of that secondary amendment say, aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? that amendment is adopted. we're now back to mr. hoseman's main amendment as amendedded by mr. kobach. any discussion on that amendment?

all right. it's already been seconded. all in favor of mr. hoseman's amendment as amended by mr. kobach say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed say, no. okay. that amendment is agreed to. and i believe that's it for the voter. is there anything else in the voter integrity section? okay. we are going to leave that section open -- >> mr. chairman? sorry to interrupt. >> hold on. we're going to leave that section open until -- oh. you've got it worked out? >> i believe so, sir. i just wonder if we should bring this down to have it printed or if i can -- we think we can change it to "we recognize that having a physical verification of the voting process is the best way to insure or a fair election." >> please repeat that. >> we recognize that having a

physical verification of the voting process is the best way to insure a fair election. >> and, but hold on. what does that relace? >> that replaces, that replaces, it takes out "paper ballots are." >> and everything else stays in then of your original amendment? >> correct. including madison. [laughter] >> you're really angling for my vote, aren't you? [laughter] >> yes, sir. >> and is that now accurate on the screen? is that blue? okay. >> that is correct. >> so this is a second dare amendment to -- secondary amendment to mr. kerby's primary amendment that he is offering on

his own. it's been seconded. now, discussion on the substitute or secondary amendment. >> right here. from oklahoma. >> ms. mcclarity. >> just on that last change, having a physical verification of the voting process, is that what we want, or do a physical verification of the vote? >> [inaudible] >> yeah, that's good. that's fine. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> hold on. we now have -- mr. kerby, i'm going to give you one last shot at this, or we're going to have to skip by and give you more time or act. ms. mcclarity has come up with another idea. are you incorporating that now as part of your -- >> i take that as a friendly

amendment, yes. >> okay, well, are you incorporating that, is that your new amendment now? >> yes, sir. >> all right. restate then fully your amendment which is now on the screen. >> are we recognize -- we recognize that having a -- yeah. we recognize that having a physical verification of the vote is the best way to insure a fair election. and then the madison thing. >> okay. is there a second to the substitute amendment by mr. kerby? >> second that. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded. any discussion on that technical amendment? mr. collier. >> thank you, mr. chairman. jim collie, pennsylvania. my question to the maker of the amendment would simply be this: who receives the physical verification of the vote? is the voter themselves? and if so, does that not enhance the possibility of vote selling?

>> all right. since everybody addresses their questions through the chair, i will then address that to ms. mcclarity, did you or mr. kerby want to answer that question? >> well, i mean, i believe it's answered in the second part. when all parties have representatives observing the counting of ballots, that it's meant to, obviously, go to whoever is counting the votes. whoever is verifying the count. >> but how does -- >> forgive me, mr. chairman? >> all right, speaking through the chair, governor cawley. >> how does then the individual voter know that their vote has been verified if the verification is going to a counter who could not possibly know how the voter has voted?

>> mr. kerby? >> well, in nevada, we have sequoia machines, and they print out -- as you do your vote, they print out something that you can look at and verify. but i though that's not the way it's done in every state. what we're trying to do here is just get to the principle of saying we don't trust electronic voting without a paper backup. and so i guess maybe we should take some more time and, um, massage this a little bit to try to come up with the best way to let us, to convey that it's a philosophical thing and we're not trying to dictate procedure. it's the philosophical idea that we don't electronic voting without a physical backup -- >> okay. >> and -- >> all right. here's what we're doing going -- all right, mr. kobach, secretary of state, you want to clear this

issue up and see if we can act? if not, we're going to pass this by and give you one more shot at it. >> the vv pap machines do not allow the voter to take the piece of paper. they roll a piece of paper under glass, and it goes into a box that is attached to the machine, so i don't think this language could be misconstrued as allowing the voter to take a receipt of his ballot. indeed, many states prohibit taking a camera because that's another way of selling votes. so i don't think that's a problem, and i would just ask staff to correct a grammatical error in the final sentence. i think this is fine as it is now. >> okay. mr. kerby. you are going to incorporate that technical amendment of mr. kobach into your substitute

amendment that is now on the screen, correct? >> [inaudible] we strongly support the policy, yes. >> okay. so that is now your new amendment. is there a second to that amendment? >> second. >> okay. so -- hold on. to get this in front of us, mr. kerby is now making his substitute, secondegree amendment to con 17 as identified here on the screen, and can that is the -- and that is the amendment, the secondary amendment that we are now going to a act on. is there any more discussion on that amendment? >> [inaudible] >> all right. question has been called. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. question has been called. the question is now on the adoption of the second-degree amendment that is on the screen

offered by mr. kerby. all in favor of that clarifying amendment say, aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> all right. the clarifying amendment is adopted. we spent a lot of time on this. we're now back to the main amendment of mr. kerby dealing with paper ballots, ballot integrity, con 7 as amended. it is now fully on your screen. now, is there discussion? we've got to have just a few comments and act. mr. hoseman? >> yes. as the secretary of state of the state of mississippi, i support the amendment that we have a written ballot on our machines we do have paper ballots that verify. however, i would encourage mr. are kerby and tell him that in each instance over the last four years we have had zero instances of our machines being incorrect, and they have been verified by technical people on, in each and every election without problem.

while i do support the paper verification, the justice department has waived that for some of mississippi's cities. we've taken quite a lot of time to go back and verify the machine count, and in each and every instance they have been accurate. so while i do agree that we have a paper, and i will support this amendment, i disagree with the philosophy that it is inaccurate in the machines. >> okay. mr. bopp, was there any discussion on this issue in your subcommittee? >> no. but i think this amendment is consistent with the approach taken by the subcommittee. >> okay. further discussion on mr. kerby's amendment? governor cawley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. jim cawley, pennsylvania. i think it's important for us all to recognize that the sensitivity towards voting was raised as a result of the vote count in the presidential election of 2000 in the state of florida which, by the way, were paper ballots. so the suggestion that paper

will be the, the answer to any problems regarding the counting of votes, i have some concern about as the secretary of state of mississippi just, i think, very clearly pointed out. time and time again these electronic voting machines have been proven to be accurate. we all, i would hazard to say, conduct most, if not all of our personal finances in banking electronically. as such, i would just be wary of any suggestion that this solution would lead to absolute integrity of a vote count. thank you, mr. chairman. [laughter] >> okay, thank you. ms.-- [inaudible] from maryland. >> thank you very much. i just want to make one comment about the voter-verified paper audit trails. there is a professor at johns hopkins university that used the

diebold voting machines. you can find it on the internet. and he hacked into the system and jeopardized -- and changed the vote on a voting machine. and that is why the voter-verified paper audit trail is such a big issue in many states that use electronic voting machines so that you though your vote is counted a certain way and that there is a way to go back and check the vote and not just hit the recount button on the electronic machines. thank you. >> okay. any further, any further discussion on this amendment? we these to act. -- we need to act. yes, ma'am, last comment. >> [inaudible] >> we cannot hear you. see if you can -- >> yeah. >> -- use the. >> call the question. >> okay. it's within moved and seconded. -- been moved and seconded. the question be called on con 7 amendment. all in favor of calling into question, say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called.

the question is now on adoption of the amendment. all in favor of adopting the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed say no. >> no. >> okay. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is adopted. >> [inaudible] >> okay. that closes the section voter integrity on page -- >> governor mcdonnell? >> -- 4. >> governor mcdonnell? >> >> i had submitted a late submission of an -- >> to this section? >> to this voter integrity section regarding vote by mail and protecting the integrity of the vote by mail ballot. >> okay. it's con 18? >> the body does not have it. we're putting it right on the screen. it was just handed in by the gentlelady from washington state.

>> all right. is it being handed out? >> just got it. >> and it's going -- >> it was just given to us. we're just going to put pit right on the screen. it's up mr. right now. -- up there right now. >> point of information. >> yes, mr. sterns. >> [inaudible] >> okay. this is page 4, line 17. after "ballots delirium" -- tha, is it after the word "ballots"? >> it would fall underneath where the additional amendment was added. it would fall in that same paragraph in the, in the adopted

version. >> okay. it's immediately after the language of the last amendment that was just, just adopted. so we'll go, is that the end of that section? >> it appeared to be after line 17. and it could easily fall anywhere in that section as a separate topic only to assure that the vote by mail states. >> okay. let me -- just technically. page 4, line 17 it is now on your screen, this is after the new language that we just adopted about the electronic delivery of ballots where allowed by state law which will be, i believe, at the end of line 17. so this is new language being offered by ms. dye. and that language is highlighted on the screen. >> i would suggest that it would fit better after line 13.

because it really does not reflect necessarily the military ballot, but all ballots cast by voters -- >> okay. you've drawn it up to be after line 17, that's your amendment. >> okay. >> i mean, that's technical. is that -- >> that would, technically it would be more appropriate after line -- >> okay. it's all new language, so, okay, we'll adopt that as a clarifying amendment. all right. do you have anything else you want to say to explain your amendment? >> yes. washington state and oregon state are both completely vote by mail. when the ballots are cast, there's no -- first, the ballots are mailed to every registered voter, so some people may not intend to vote, some people may not be capable of voting, and so there are ballots at large. as you know, we have had recounts in washington state, and those recounts have been based on the fact that, um, boxes of ballots have appeared inexplicably and unexplained in

larger urban areas. voters in rural areas are completely disenfranchised, and there's no way to be certain who cast the ballot. there's no way that you can protect the integrity of a vote-by-mail ballot. you're not even certain if the ballot arrives at the auditor's office is actually cast in your name. and so i would suggest that there is no, um, the voters have no protections under vote by mail, and we can't assure the integrity of the ballot in either oregon or washington, and i'm concerned about it. so that's why i entered this language, to oppose vote by mail. >> second. >> all right. it's been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, so it's properly before us. discussion? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. kobach. >> mr. chairman, may i offer what may be considered a technical change? i think what the gentlelady from washington means is not vote by mail because that would encompass absentee ballots, i

think she means all hyphen length mail. it's terminology, but it's important because not all ballots cast by mail are problem problematic. i think that's what she means if she could indicate so. >> yes, that's exactly what i mean, the states that are completely vote by mail. where they have adopted no physical casting of ballots. >> the change is being made on the screen. please, make sure it reflects what you wanted, ms. dye. >> all right. is there a second of that clarifying amendment? >> second. >> it's moved and seconded that that clarifying amendment of mr. kobach be adopted. all in favor, aye. >> are aye. >> all opposed, no? we're back to the amended amendment of ms. dye on vote by mail for, essentially, only those states that are all-mail elections -- how many are there, do we know, counsel? two? >> [inaudible]

>> i believe washington and oregon. >> washington and oregon. >> let's not make it a national trend. [laughter] >> all right. discussion now on the amended amendment. mr. walker? >> mr. chairman, russ walker, state of oregon. this is a huge problem in the state of oregon. we have had thousands of -- we've had research done on voter integrity within the state of oregon. it's difficult to get records, they're quickly destroyed by many of the county elections offices, and what we have been able to verify problems, it's usually one address where hundreds of ballots go to one address, and we cannot find them. unfortunately, it's difficult to verify because the county elections office is in those counties, they're very partisan, and the records are quickly destroyed. i know this is something that is moving to other states. there's discussion in other states about going to vote by mail, all vote-by-mail systems,

and it is just very difficult to, um, to monitor. so i support it wholly, and i ask the committee to, please, support this amendment. >> okay. this is merely a, appears to me to be a statement of principle and it's race risky, but there's no call for action here at all. mr. bopp? >> i support the concept of the amendment. i have no idea on the last line what she means by "ballots must be considered at large." what does "at large" refer to or mean? ..

at a table you check your name off on the piece of paper and the person verifies your identity prior to casting their ballot. not every person that receives a balad intends to vote about. that's why the ballot is loose and available to be picked up by political purposes. it's at large. >> i'm going to suggest on that at large has other meanings and the other places in different space, and they're seems to be

at least some sympathy to the concept and the risks, but now we are talking about two states. i think if we are going to act on this why don't we try to make sure the language is exactly right. i'm going to recommend we bypass this for now. mr. bob would you discuss this and get to this in a clear forum especially if there is free to be some call for action as a statement of principle which is fine. but there isn't an objection to that what you discussed this and we will come back to that? >> thank you for giving me the time. >> i think that is the last item is that not in the voter integrity section? >> i would be delighted to announce the justice department approved virginia voter i.d. law yesterday. [applause]

>> okay. i think the next 1i have -- that includes the voter integrity section. we will live that open for purposes of mrs. dye's amendment. the next 1i have in order is co1na; is that correct? >> that's correct, co1na replaces con1. this is brian fisher from nebraska. i would like to point out to the group today this was the first amendment submitted and i was using the first draft of the some submitted. it is actually deals with the fourth amendment, which is on page six, line seven. and i would ask everyone to get out 1a and dom lane six, page seven that is where the appropriate place this should be taken up, and i request the chair before bring co1na back to

the floor -- >> okay. so it's drawn to different sections. we will dever actions -- defer actions on that. i have no other actions on the first amendment, and our first freedom on page four and five. any other discussion on that section? then that section is closed. page 5115, the first amendment freedom of speech. i have no amendments to that section. >> mr. chairman, i just submitted an amendment to that section. >> all right. then we will leave that section open and pass that by at this time. page five, line 26. the second amendment.

we have gallifini from mexico has amendment co13a. >> thank you. i have submitted one, and i thought perhaps it might have been lost, so i submitted again. you have two of them in front of you. con3a and co147 which can be combined. >> wait just a minute let's take a look at those to make sure -- let me get those votes in front of me so i can -- 3a. i don't have 17.

are you asking us to take these up to get there? they are drawn to this section after firearms, 95 -- page five, line 32. you want us to consider both of these? >> yes, sir. >> all right. hold just a moment. which one should we take up first? okay. we are going to take up 3a first. >> yes, sir.

thank you. line 32 after store firearms, i would like to add this also includes the right to obtain and to store ammunition. >> ms. galasini, to confirm on the screen so does it show what 3a is? this is 3a by itself, not including 17; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay this is just 3a, not trying to include 17. >> correct. >> let me ask -- the way that i am reading this, we would not

need both of these, we would need one or the other. at the end of -- continuation linus 31 to the hell lowercase reforming the right we recognize individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms, and then you want to add ammunition. are not those of duplicative and have the same purpose? >> i don't think so. firearms r firearms, not any good without ammunition. >> i'm sorry. we are not communicating. [laughter] i'm talking about the two amendments. >> i'm sorry. [laughter] >> let me ask just procedurally so we can act -- let me ask

procedurally so we can get to the right posture. do we really needed both of these amendments if they accomplish different purposes? they both seem to basically at after firearms elon to an ad and ammunition. >> that's correct. we're just talking about 3a, is that correct? >> yeah, and asking do we really need to have 17 and 3a? the amendments seem to accomplish the same purpose, they are just for did a little differently. i'm asking you to take one. they seem to be the same purpose. >> mr. chairman? >> hang on. >> i guess what i am trying to get at is i don't want -- it was rumored a year or two ago that the current administration wanted to actually have you registered your ammunition as well. i really owned know how that would have worked, but i would

like to add 17 to actually just say this also implies the right to obtain and store without registration ammunition. i don't know if maybe there is perhaps a better way to write that, but i don't want to be able to have to register my ammunition as i was a firearm. >> mr. chairman? >> let me ask you this. on number 3a i'm trying to get one amendment as opposed to the two. should we say this also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration, so you have one concept in front of you? >> that's fine petraeus too just so we can act on one concept. >> that's fine. >> you're offering that now has

the amendment? >> it's changed on the screen also? >> okay. so 3a now will read this also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. and then 17 will be withdrawn, correct? >> correct. thank you. some of that amendment has been moved. is there second for discussion? during a discussion, moving to that amendment be agreed to all in favor say aye. opposed? that amendment is adopted. i have con11. are you ready for that?

yes, mr. chairman. as many in this room are aware there have been recent proposals coming from the far left wing of the democratic party to resurrect portions of the failed clinton gun ban, including restrictions on the passage to more than ten rounds and other elements that were a part of the ban. congress rightly allowed that ban to expire, and i don't think we should allow these recent incidents to allow the ban to come back one provision at a time so we would insert this language. >> please let us know -- this is cocon11? >> i will read it for those that don't have it while they are waiting. >> it's also being put on the screen. >> we condemn legislation to restrict or second amendment rights by limiting the capacity or otherwise revising the led by nist clinton gun ban.

end of quote. >> please raise your hand if you don't have con11. >> they are not revising. otherwise restore. >> mr. chairman? >> to get this properly in front of us, -- yes, you are actually saying that this was drawn not exactly correct, and online three you're saying revising should read restoring? >> yes, i made an error. >> we will adopt that. that is a clarifying amendment,

and that is now the amendment. is there a second to this amendment? when i say this amendment, i mean the entire amendment. it's been moved. so, the amendment is now in front of us for discussion. >> mr. chairman? >> hold on, folks. we haven't heard from yet -- i can't see your name. estimate mr. short from colorado. would you accept a friendly amendment and change the word cliff to magazine? >> that's fine. we could use cliffs or magazine. the gun aficionado's in the room may disagree as to what the terms refer to but i would say clips or magazine. >> are you saying the amendment

is too straight defeat could strike clips and change to magazine. >> i was suggesting to replace but as he suggested we just do clips or magazines, which is acceptable to me. >> state your amendment. >> i would agree to the amendment that changes the freeze capacity of clips to capacity of clips or magazines. >> is there a second to that amendment? that amendment be agreed to. any discussions on that amendment? all in favor of that amendment, say aye. all opposed? that amendment is agreed to come and is now on the screen as well. discussion on the amended amendment. ms. bruce from new hampshire.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. would you accept a friendly amendment to use the word oppose instead of condemn? >> i'm sorry. see that again through the chair. >> would you accept a friendly amendment to change the word from come them to oppose? we oppose? >> yes, i would. >> the amendment for ms. bruce is to strike condom online one of the amendment and insert oppose. is there a second? all in favor, say aye. all opposed, no. okay. [laughter] the condemnation caucus votes

no. [laughter] okay, now we have the amendment that has been twice amended and agreed to and now the discussion is on the amended amendment. ms. joslyn from alaska. >> i oppose that because first of all -- >> i'm sorry, you oppose what? >> it's already been voted on. >> it's poorly worded. >> okay. >> ms. jensen? >> issued and -- it shouldn't rhyme. [laughter] >> ms. jensen? celtic woman speaking to the amended amendment. >> what he agreed to change a gorgeous removing the word proposed does it have to be proposed legislation >> or we could add the word the

proposed. >> mr. kovack is there a specific proposed legislation? >> it has been proposed in congress. we could take out proposed if you don't like the rhyming. [laughter] yes, i would agree. >> the move that proposed. all of those in favor of that amendment, aye. all opposed, say no. that clarifying amendment is adopted so we don't rhyme. [laughter] we've got to act on this vote because i feel you know what this is out. last comment, mr. stearns from virginia. >> sorry. i don't mean to be too into the detail. the capacity of clips live like to offer a friendly amendment changing clips to magazine. it's done? i'm sorry. i just got in the room.

my apologies. >> the question be called to end the the date on the constitutional amendment number 11? all in favor of the motion, say aye. all opposed, no. now the question is on whether or not constitutional amendment 11 should be agreed to. all in favor of adopting the amendment, see aye. all opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. and i believe that this the last amendment we have on the second amendment section to read any other discussion? that section will be closed. page six.

>> con1a after searches and seizures. >> page six, section -- >> okay. i'm sorry? >> i don't have that one. is there a con19 mr. wallace? mr. wallace, are you still pursuing your amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. mike wallace from maine. i want to insert online 25 after speech codes, free speech zones, just another form of censorship and i believe it goes with the intent of the amendment. >> does everyone have con19? we are not on the screen yet. page five, line 25 insert the

word free speech zones after speech. is there a second? >> i would like to second that. >> okay. moving and second to that amendment be adopted. is there any discussion on mr. wallace's amendment? i think that he's address it. is their anything else you want to do to explain your amendment? >> i think it stands on its own. there is no form of censorship. >> okay. the discussion. >> from illinois. i want to voice my support for this particular amendment. ayman allied attorney for ally for freedom. this happens on college campuses. the free speech zones you can say whatever you want to leave your bike in a far corner of the campus where no one actually walks by or happens to be -- >> all of those in favor, say aye. opposed, no.

the amendment is agreed to. is there any -- is their anything else on that subject? we held that open for mr. wallace, but i think we are done. hearing other amendments to the first amendment, that section has now will be closed. page 615, the fourth amendment section from nebraska. >> that's correct, mr. chairman. >> the amendment was originally 1427 and this is where you want to insert it. >> brian fisher from nebraska. i do have an amendment to the fourth amendment section on page six, line seven. it currently reads we support pending legislation to promote unwarranted government dillinger version for the use of surveillance drones on u.s. soil. my amendment is to broaden that to include more than just

drones. my proposed languages we support pending legislation to prevent warranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance or fly over on u.s. soil. the point of my amendment is recently the epa decided to start doing flyovers over certain seed lots, many of them in nebraska without announcing such, so it's kind of likes playing and i just want to point that out. this is something that is important to those in the agricultural industry. one thing i would like to say is this languages specifically designed to not deal with or not prevent law enforcement agencies from doing surveillance because the word in there from the fourth amendment unwarranted or unreasonable. it is warranted or reasonable, that can be done.

if it is unwarranted or unreasonable as the amendment states, that is the point of the amendment. so, i would encourage anybody to this amendment. >> second. >> the amendment has been moved and seconded to discussion. >> this amendment is needed because the way it was originally worded was inaccurate. the initial reports were using drones' they were actually using manned airplanes, so it's important that we be accurate here so it's a good amendment. >> this is brian bishop. that is why i made the amendment because the facts of accuracy has pointed out by the attorney-general. >> okay. any other discussions on the amendment? all right. hearing none, all in favor -- well, we will just go to the amendment. all in favor of endorsing or

supporting the amendment, say aye. all opposed, know. the amendment is agreed to. i don't believe there's any other amendments to the fourth amendment section. yes,yes, ma'am. >> i have not read now the amendment. it just came to my attention and i wanted to submit to eliminate within the exception of the international borders that line eight, page six just because when you are saying that you want to prevent unwarranted governmental intrusion with the exception of patrolling international borders does that mean that you can in an unwarranted way patrol the

international borders? i am just submitting we may want to review that language. >> do you have an amendment that you are going to propose? >> i would strike with the exception of the international borders. >> have that drawn-out and we believe that sectional been in the come back to. quickly. >> yes. >> okay. page six lenni 11 the fifth amendment. >> we do. mr. erickson from minnesota has an amendment at the end of that section. this is confour. >> thank you mr. chair. there is a technical correction and the first line we close any efforts to deprive citizens the word too should be in there. that is a technical correction. >> so again this is page six,

line 21. will be the addition of a new paragraph. does everyone have confor written on the screen? to get it in the right posture, as a clarifying amendment on the first line, we oppose any effort to deprive citizens. we will take that as a clarifying amendment. mr. erickson, do you want to explain your amendment? >> i am currently a passenger but before i became a passenger mile is a public defender and one of the questions i frequently got is how can you be a christian and defendant guilty people. i got that a lot. actually in law school i said the one thing i would never be able to do is be a public defender because i couldn't do that. but as i learned how the system worked and i learned more about how our constitutional rights as individuals our intention against the power of government on the increasingly understood the public defender is vital in protecting us against tyranny

while the great majority of the law enforcement and prosecutors and judges are honorable people trying to do a good job to keep us safe there's always a handful that are corrupt and the more authority they have that is unchecked by the provisions the more corruption. above the top people in answer to the original question as my rights and your rights are only as secure as those of the offender is also all mahal people because they didn't understand it. as we think about the date at age there's this increasing pressure to have indefinite detention of u.s. citizens whether it is defining them as any combatant or not the question is who gets to decide who is going to be a combatant. where are the checks and balances and that power? in the current administration the way they are defining the suspected terrorists if you are a member of the tea party, you

may be in any combat. if you are libertarian you may be an enemy combatant. if you are a preacher who preaches the word of god forcefully and vehemently you may be an enemy combatant, so we need to and from every party the we support due process against indefinite detention of american citizens. [applause] we have had this discussion in some measure before so we are only going to entertain brief discussions. is this an issue you discussed in a we had another amendment before but did you discuss this on the subcommittee? >> we did discuss this on the subcommittee, mr. chairman. and as you can see that issue did not pass our subcommittee, and i would reiterate your words that we have had lengthy discussions on this issue can the prior sessions and i would recommend we have a shortened discussion at this time. estimate nobody disagrees with

the first sentence. you are respecting the fifth amendment. the second one we had discussion on an earlier amendment so i'm going to allow a couple of comments. senator talent. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will repeat what i said before all the again, i appreciate the delegates eloquence on this and we discussed it a little bit in my kennedy. everybody gets the of due process. was specifically reaffirmed in the national defense authorization act to get tedious kristen process which means they get a hearing before a court. but they don't necessarily get is released because of their enemy combatants and they've taken up arms against the government against the people of the united states the government has the right to detain them. so again, i appreciate the energy and the concern for the constitutional act by virgin no vote on this. >> i can't call on your name tag is upside down on your desk.

there you go. that's better. thank you, governor. i just want to mention this is a well-intentioned good stuff and i just want to remind people enemy combatants is such an interesting term. during world war ii he wasn't taking up arms against the united states he was seen at an opera house and taken to rikers island with no shoes and kept there for six months because he was an italian and there's got to be some limit to the power of government to deprive people of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. whatever the amendment says has eroded away and i think this gentleman from minnesota, my home state where i went to school is well-intentioned.

it may have to be phrased differently that i think what he's trying to do is we get people that we are losing our liberties and it's being done very quietly and quickly under an enemy combatants or whatever term they want to use. but he wasn't in any combatant and germans went and were detained in the japanese were detained during world war ii under the circumstances of the war but we are not at war right now and it is still the imposition of the restraint of liberty some people taking place. spec mark baker, montana. if mr. treen, called to question. >> moved in the second and the question be called. all in favor, aye. all opposed, know. we've had a good robust debate. i think there's every member of the platform committee that agrees the due process clause is important and no government at

any level should deprive people. the question is whether they create mr. stott to be corrected in the platform and we have had a good the date about that and appreciate the civility and passion on both of these amendments. so the question is being called on the adoption of the amendment. con4 offer by mr. erickson. all in favor, aye. all opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment fails. next ii believe that is the last amendment and the fifth amendment section. hearing none other discussion on the fifth amendment, that section is closed. page six line 22. we have no amendments. any discussion about that?

the forgotten amendment. okay that section is now closed. page six, line 30 sanctity and dignity of human life and we do have an amendment from north carolina. amendment c9 of which c is calling a technical amendment. yes, mr. chairman. this is a product of somebody not being able to write my hairline. should we urge congress to the protection act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on health care providers. without objection that will be agreed to. okay.

is their anything else? is there any other discussion on that section? i have seen an amendment circulated earlier that dealt with the issue that was to be introduced here. i'm assuming it got interest and turned him? >> i have no other amendments and i'm not asking for any. [laughter] >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir tebeau >> page 7110 there appears to be a typo. >> name and state? >> john from delaware. on page seven, line ten there appears to be a typographical error. the word for following the word lethal i believe that should be form. islamic after most lethal should be for mccaul and of course we of the broad prerogative to make all of these corrections will be noted and corrected by a plot of

the committee's work version well done. page seven line 22 respect for the flag symbol of the constitution. no amendments on that section any discussion? that section will be closed. page seven, line 29. we have con16. mr. kobach, you are recognized for your amendment. >> this is an amendment that points to an additional source we see it from the top where the i united states court has called for in law interpreting the constitution and it's coming in at the bottom as well as being raised as an argument in the courts around the country and not aware of an accord that has accepted the argument, but in

the cases involving either spousal abuse or assault or other crimes against persons the defenses are raised their base in the sharia law that we actually put a provision to this affecting kansas statute this year and if it's important to say they shouldn't be used as part of the common law or to term defeat the interpretations in a lower state courts as well. >> everyone has con16 that is also on the screen. is there a second? >> second. >> moved in second of mr. kobach's amendment. is there adopted discussion? all in favor of the adopting of that amendment, see aye. all opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. and i don't think we have any other amendments there that i

have. >> the section foreign law will be closed. now, returning to page four, line 13. ms. dye has been working on her amendment. this is con18. amended the all male amendment. >> thank you, governor. again, i just want to restate the state that use all mail to elections when the ballots of to every registered voter the ballots could be stolen or voted by unauthorized individuals because they do not have a way to verify the identity of the voter. we call for states to adopt systems that can verify the identity of the voter.

the ballots sent to every registered voter not every registered voter will cast their ballot in any election which means there are boats are available and states are considering adopting an all male selection reconsider the decision and in particular when we believe in our party and the rule of law and the integrity of the law and abiding by the law we should consider the vote with fraud. >> to modify the amendment has been moved and there is a second discussion. >> mr. lucas? khanna i would like to offer a friendly amendment to expand this where it says states i would like to insert the word or

jurisdictions since there are only two states that use this but we have municipalities that of all male elections and the second use of the word states it may be appropriate to insert the word and jurisdictions said the first sentence would read states or jurisdictions that use all mail elections and then the final sentence of ms. dye it would recall for states and jurisdictions to adopt. >> is the proper word jurisdictions or subdivisions? >> political subdivisions that's what we call it in virginia. >> refer to the great state of virginia on that one. [laughter] >> you left us 150 years ago. [laughter] i don't know if there is a uniform -- does the council have

any -- ether? political subdivisions. >> diavik political subdivisions better, too so i would like to have the amendment -- >> mr. lucas offers that amendment political subdivisions and those spots on the first sentence and that the first one, too, three, fifth sentence that says state or political subdivisions is their second? all in favor of that emotion, say aye. the amendment is agreed to. a discussion on the amended amendment? >> i would like to ask the proponent of this if there has been indication of any widespread fraud by using -- >> ms. dye? >> in the last recount under governor rossi but it was not commit was governor larsen we have a ballot box that turned up thurston county after the votes

had all been cast and counted at least twice and so i would suggest perhaps some of the balance had been at large had been found in voted. >> further discussion? yes, sir. in nebraska we do have all mail elections in certain situations and i would rise to oppose this amendment for the reason that it allows certain elections to be conducted at much less cost than the otherwise would have to take place if we were required to actually have precincts open and a staff available to them that the regular rate. maybe it's because in nebraska we have the republicans controlling the commission offices in these areas and maybe that is why we are more comfortable with that foot but

the reality is we also have a statute that allows both parties to be represented in the commissioner's office of the larger cities and because of that i think both parties tend to be more comfortable with the all male voting situation insert it limited the elections and given that i would suggest i understand there are problems in some states that making a suggestion to all of the states where fiscal the we can be more responsible having certain limited all male the elections would be in my view not appropriate. >> of your discussions? yes secretary of state. stat we in mississippi are taking the position of course the we have the right to adopt or own constitutional voter i.d. standards as your state was approved just yesterday and to me this is contrary to the argument that states have the right to establish their own voting process these.

and while i recognize there are absentee ballot frauds in our state that we work diligently on i think each state should have its own right to conduct its own the elections and when we start down this path, we start down the path we start to pick and choose. >> thank you mr. sherman. i find the argument as the previous speakers curious that we have already gone down the trail with the voter verified paper audit trail. that discussion was never raised at that point. it seems we were already down that road and this amendment should be considered on its merits as a result thereof. >> further discussion. ms. landrieu from iowa. >> first, i oppose anything that is anything all male voting. [laughter]

but with that, i know and we'll do agree that there is voter fraud and this is an election we should take up. i was completely unaware this was even going on. now that i am aware, i should say that it would be opposed, all mail voting just because leads to clearly a lot of potential voter fraud. so, i agree with this amendment and i would be voting for it. >> i would like to call to question. >> the question be called. all of those to call to questions a aye. all opposed? the question is called. the question now is on the adoption of coneach team as amended carry it all in favor of adopting the amendment, say aye. all opposed, no.

i don't know if there is less of them or you're just not as passionate. [laughter] of those in favor of adopting the amendment, raise your hand. okay. the amendment is agreed to. the last one -- what's si -- hold on. with that, we will close this section of voter integrity. of the last amendment that i have is con20, page six line eight. you're an amendment from puerto rico. >> yes. i would like to strike after u.s. soil the phrase with the exception of the international borders. basically there's just an underlining implication that the

government can and would proceed with a more into the surveillance and, you know, we are a nation under the rule of law, and even in the protection of the border. so i just think that language should be stricken. >> that languages now on your screen. is there second to the amendment? >> the amendment has been moved and second. do you have any discussion on the subcommittee on this? >> no, not specifically on the exception. however, the purpose for the exception is that the u.s. government is authorized to patrol the border and does not have to get a warrant in order to for instance of search cars that are seeking entry into the united states so it's legal under the u.s. mulhern needed to

show probable cause to search things up the border. so, it is appropriate to have this exception under our law. >> of course there are other were sent less -- warrantless this is one in the situation that you feel strongly should be closed. >> mr. kobach? >> to your point, mr. chair, the other cases where warrantless searches are involved don't involve airplanes and that is why i think that mr. bob is right. we want to specify under these circumstances aircraft can be used without a warrant, and we should be using them without a warrant to control the voters. >> other discussion? and i'm going to let you have the last word.

any discussion on this amendment? yes, ma'am, from alaska. >> debbie johnson from alaska. i want to say when i first read this on the interpreted the unwarranted word in differently -- >> that is a legal term, without a warrant as opposed to the colloquial term i think. >> do you have anything? >> it's basically the same thing. i don't want drones' flying over my house. i think there would be ridiculous. we have silence like alaska, hawaii. the idea that all of a sudden we have this exception and i agree with the delegate from puerto rico that that should be struck because it means more government intrusion into private lives, and i support the amendments. >> i would make sure everybody remembers that this is always in

the context of line six and seven, which is unreasonable search and seizure. that is always going to be the standard whether it is with or without warrant. with that, you have the last word and i'm going to act. >> i'm just not opposed to obviously, you know, securing our borders and patrolling. i just think that the average person who may read this may not know the specifics, and it may come off in a way that's not -- it may come off from and i just want to have language that people understand they feel comfortable with, particularly because there are sensitive areas where this activity takes place. islamic the discussion i think if remondi understands. but moving second to the amendment to be agreed to. all in favor of adopting the amendment, say aye.

all opposed, know. okay. the amendment is defeated. so, that will close the fourth amendment section on linus six and i believe all of the rest of the sections have now been closed and no other amendments are offered. if we don't offer any more we can go to lunch. >> mr. chairman crux yes i would like to make a motion that we would approve the section on restoring the constitutional government as amended. >> is their second? second? you did a great job handling those amendments which made the discussion robust but shorter than it would have been otherwise. i appreciate that good work and the courtesy and civility in discussing these great constitutional principles of the

republic. as a, job well done. all of those in favor of adopting the subcommittee report, say aye. all opposed, mo. okay, the report is approved. well done. thank you. [applause] okay. you have earned it yourself an early lunch. we have got to start on time. so, at 12:55, please be in your chair and we will finish the last two sections at that time. thank you. >> quickly when you come back from lunch, and you'll find a government reform amendments on your chair. those of you here are getting in place, so those are the next section. enjoy your lunch but let's get back.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we are bringing you live coverage as the republican national convention platform committee continues its the leggitt meeting drafting its position on topics such as foreign policy, healthcare education and defense and members are taking about an hour long break for lunch and they will be back at 12:55 and we will continue our coverage of that time. we are also inviting your tweets

to read the possibility the platform delegates reaffirming the party stands on abortion making an exception for the rate

earlier today leaving for a two day campaign swing through ohio and nv at 1:00 this afternoon the president will give a speech in columbus ohio, and then later tonight we will have live coverage of his stock in reno nevada, as the president meets supporters at community college. coverage begins at eight eastern on c-span.

now i know that there are those that criticize me for seeing complexities, and i do, because some issues just are not all that simple. seeing that there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq doesn't make it so. seeing that you can fight a war on the chief doesn't make it so, and proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so. three days after september 11th i stood where america died in the ruins of the twin towers, workers in hard hats shouting to

me whether it takes. a fellow grabbed me by our man said do not let me down. since that day, i wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. i will never relent and defending america, what ever it takes to it if ..