>> the section dealing with civil unions. >> barbara ann fenton from rhode island. >> thank you, chairman. and as a complete rookie at this, i appreciate you hearing me out. this has been one of the coolest -- >> don't start with that rookie stuff. you've been at this now for two days. [laughter] >> it's been the coolest two days of my life. first, i want to start off to preface the amendment saying as a roman catholic, there's nobody who believes more the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. but those are my religious beliefs x 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 the civilization, many times the heads of religion were also the heads of state, 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 sacrament that it is and recognizing as many of us who are christians, our church's definition of one man and one woman. but our towning fathers kind of -- founding fathers took it in a colloquial sense in that that's how government categorizes us. we're married, we're single, we're widowed and what not. this amendment is offered out of the basis that every one of us must have equal rights. perhaps the greatest success of my parents, 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. for my own generation, a lot of times homosexuality isn't the biggest deal anymore, and that's okay. >> so summarize then, you are striking -- >> striking line 14 where it's, 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 legal concepts and ideals. and in the interest of the separation of church and state, introducing at the end of the paragraph that in accordance with the founding fathers'

guiding principles of the separation of church and state, we promote ending of categorization of: >> i want to make one little correction with what i offered there. it says may the blessed sacrament of marriage -- strike religion there -- in whatever way a religion chooses to define it by recognized by the church. >> okay. let's get the rest of that up here. are we going to try to get that in color? >> we're going to highlight it. >> okay. all right. to get the amendment this front of us, is there a second? >> second. >> all right, there's a second. discussion? okay. i figured there might be. [laughter] let me call on, i'm sorry, next to mr. bopp, ms.-- >> [inaudible] cherie langenstein from craig. >> okay. recognized. >> i'm here to oppose the

amendment. an almost identical amendment was proposed in my own 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 in opposition to this amendment. >> okay. ms.-- i'm sorry, i cannot see -- >> [inaudible] from connecticut. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, 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 actually said it quite eloquently, and it's a debate we've had for many years. i don't think this diminishes or degrades marriage. i certainly agree with that. my parents have been married for over 55 years, and, um, you

know, i believe in 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 this very clearly, yet does not denigrate or take away from what we truly believe as republicans and what we believe in marriage. >> okay. >> thank you. >> 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 i'm going to ask the subcommittee chairman to say what happened. 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, from an intact marriage do better economically, they do better 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. >> 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 this 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 the 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 believe on this subject. is there a motion the call the question? all right s is this a second? 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 o -- opposed say no. >> no. >> okay. the amendment is rejected. okay. >> point of order? >> chairman? >> yes. >> kim lehman over here. >> ms. lehman from iowa. sphwhrl i just would ask for

consistency. if we're going to actually call the question, have it seconded, that we actually vote on that? >> you're, you are, 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 say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> in 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. >> opinion of the chair, the amendment is rejected. ms. lehman, thank you very much. i was getting a little ahead. okay. the next amendment is con 15,

page 2, line -- >> [inaudible] >> hold on, that's in the next section though. so on the section marriage -- let me see. [inaudible conversations] >> i'm sorry, governor, it's con 5, constitution 5. >> constitution 5. >> page 2, line 17. >> but, let's see, what section -- >> patrick kerby? >> hold on just a minute. what -- is that in the marriage and judiciary section? >> 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. kerbys this actually going to be in, under marriage and judiciary or in defense of marriage? >> 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. kerby for con 5. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be brief. i'll, um -- 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 -- 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 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. [laughter] and i believe this is an issue 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 whether under the constitution every american gets treated equally under the law. >> okay. mr. kerby, 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? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> second. >> all right. it's properly in front of us. who had the point of order? >> i did. i did, mr. chairman. mary suma, north carolina. >> 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 harry. and to quote -- to marry. and to quote from their literature something that 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 back. they feel strongly that excluding 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 civil unions. and as has been said in many pages here about a union being the best environment in which to raise children, couple union, these people also deserve to raise children as a couple and to have their union be -- >> okay. >> civilly defined. >> okay. ask everybody, again, please keep your eye on that clock. we're going to try to keep to a

minute. mr. kobach. >> chris kobach. i i a oppose this omit, the wording is too broad. especially in the last sentence, it is not the role of government to judge. well, our government routinely judges situations where you might regard 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, directly. so this is worded way too broadly for inclusion in the platform. >> mr. bopp, was there 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 thousand incorporated in many

their own constitution -- in their own constitutions protection of traditional marriage. in every single state this which it has been proposed, 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 -- 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 is 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, and that's a proper decision for government to make. thus, it has nothing to do with

the religious freedom. >> okay. i think this is a similar topic to the last amendment. i think people know where they stand on this. it's been a good exchange. is this a motion to call the question? >> call the question. >> so moved. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded, the question called. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? okay, the question is called. the question is now on the amendment offered by mr. kerby. all in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> okay. 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, is now closed. and the subsequent section, defense of marriage, page 2,

line 17, is also completed and is now closed. the next section is on the budget. page 2, line 30. the first amendment 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 will 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 table 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 -- or, 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. kerby from nevada. >> hello again. [laughter] 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. kerby, and can i apologize, we have made new forms that make it a lot clearer where we have insert and delete, and this is still the old form. but what you are doing is on line 4 after operational efficiency, you're inserting or abusive power. >> correct. >> and it's all on the screen. does that look right on the screen, mr. kerby? it's been highlighted. >> absolutely correct. >> is there a second? >> second. >> is there discussion? >> i'll just discuss briefly -- >> go ahead. >> we've, we've all seen the, um, agency that did an armed raid on a dairy, ask that kind

of thing -- 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. >> call the point. >> all right. it's been moved and seconded that the question be 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. i think this is still this section, right? still federalism and the tenth amendment. paul henderson, north dakota. >> paul henderson, north dakota. thank 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 -- >> hold on, hold on. i'm sorry, mr. kerby. >> con 13. >> elise? >> hold on, please. is there a 12? >> raze your hand if -- raise

your hand if you do not have 13. >> 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 number. 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 governments, 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 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 one billion dollar 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 it in proper posture, is there a second? >> second. >> discussionsome -- discussion? all right. it's been moved and seconded that that amendment be agreed to. all in favor of adopting that amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? no. that amendment's agreed to. that is the last amendment i

have under or 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 from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as secretary of state of kansas k i believe that it is incredibly important to add this to our platform. this 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, with the 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 there 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 to 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 -- >> 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 -- >> yeah. >> -- stating more of a principle, you're not calling for any particular action, i don't think. >> well, just like the sentence that precedes it that expresses

support for state laws that require photo id, this expresses sport for states that require id at -- >> second. >> is there a second? >> yes, second. >> 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. >> be 39, to be exact. >> thank you, sir. [laughter] i know. i was in that committee. [laughter] and i would like to share with you that there are certain issues that are of the heart, certain issues of the head and some that are policy, 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 need 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 need to understand that. 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? >> mary suma from north carolina. i would ask mr. kobach if he would accept an amendment to

begin that paragraph or to begin that sentence 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 n. a state this 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? >> hold on. so that amendment to the original amendment for mr. kobach has been moved and seconded. now discussion on that? is. ..

from columbus ohio. i think the language we are 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 efforts in this regard must be sincere and that is to prevent voter fraud. any other message your

suggestion that the party or this platform is attempting to suppress votes for political gain and i don't think will hope hour much but i do think it is terrific we important that we have sincerity in this regard and highlight the fact that this is about voter fraud and not political gain. the amendment to substitute amendment for the second-degree amendment is largely clarifying to put it in a posture we support as opposed to statement of principal to the main issue in front of us why don't we act on this amendment of. is their anything on that technical amendment? hearing none, all in favor of the second-degree amendment, see aye. opposed the amendment is agreed to. now we are back to the amended amendment of mr. kobach on the issue of voter registration discussion.

>> mr. chairman, i would like to echo what the gentleman from ohio said, and also the democrats have wrongly asserted that we have political purposes and all we are trying to do this to protect voters integrity, and in our state we actually had an election overturned because of people voting in the names of the deceased, and so we understand that this is a problem, and i would urge the committee to pass anything that protect voters integrity. >> okay let me see some others. mr. lucas from west virginia. >> to simply echoed the statements i would like to come back for offering this as a state where this month alone we have three elected officials charged in voter fraud from the primary election that we held two years ago. this is a problem of preserving voter integrity cannot be underestimated as anything that

undermine democracy but i think them for introducing that. >> other discussion? >> ms. détente has moved the question be called. is there a second? the question to be called all in favor of calling into question in to the debate, aye. opposed, the question is called. the question is on the amendment offered by mr. kobach. all in favor of the amendment, aye. all opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. let me ask you your next one is page four, line nine is that the next section? >> that was withdrawn. that is before i realized -- >> heading to the voter integrity as i am withdrawing

that because i didn't realize the state -- >> the content is withdrawn therefore i believe that is -- with a minute. i'm sorry. hold on just a moment. >> okay. that is the last amendment that i see for the electoral college section. any other discussion on that section?

okay. that section is closed. we now go to the voter integrity sections on page four line nine. has the department looked at the institutions on line 13 it appears mr. kirby is broad and should be taken out first. i don't think they are in conflict. >> mr. chairman? >> we are going to go with the first point of order. mr. henderson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is very close to mr. kirby, and i would support his and withdraw mine.

>> okay. thank you. >> that's one vote this would continue on the voting integrity right after the generations on line 13, and it states we recognize paper ballots are the best way to ensure a fair election less ambitious counter envisioned as madison said when all parties have representatives of deserving the county of ballots in a transparent process integrity is assured we strongly suggest all electronic voting systems have a printed paper about what so that preliminary electronic results can be verified by a hard count of paper ballots.

>> the amendment be adopted and it is now on the screen. mr. kirby come to you have more to say? >> sure. i just believe that if a system can be corrupted, it will be, and i much -- i think we are a lot better off when each of us are looking over each other's shoulders are to the cabelas are counted than we are trusting in the voter machine ferry. thank you. >> mr. chairman -- >> i'm going to try to recognize a few people that haven't spoken that much. maryland, yes, ma'am. >> 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 have been fighting this, and the correct

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

>> it's a little redundant. probably put a period after the voters certified paper audit trail and then eliminate the redundancy. >> okay. >> thank you. >> to state the amendment then come on the third to the last line on the bottom we are going to strike a paper ballot and insert e-verified -- >> voter verified paper audit trail period. >> than paper co after the hard count? >> after the audit trail. islamic and that is on the screen, the amendment. is there a second to that substitute amendment? >> i will second of that. >> mr. kirby is in favor of that amendment? >> yes. >> some of the substitute motion to the gentleman from maryland

has been moved and seconded. the discussion on the second degree or substitute amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> while i can appreciate the sentiment of this amendment -- >> are you speaking to the substitute for the overall amendment? the amendment to mr. kirby are you speaking to that? >> not at this time. i will withhold. >> this is a technical or clarifying amendment to the main issue before. so are there any discussions on the language of the substitute. mr. kobach? >> i appreciate the amendment from the gentle lady from maryland. her language is correct in the second part which is where i believe she inserted in the last part of this amendment. the voter verify the paper audit trail is something that we are

trying to move towards a number of states not just in kansas but all across the country and the of the alternative which i think the first half of the amendment speaks to as we would be amending it using the paper ballots that you then put through an electronic scanner. either way with the paper ballots you have a paper record that that vote was passed and so i think as amended the amendment is better. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i would like to make two recommendations to the individuals that proposed the amendment. the first is when he read it he said strongly suggest. strongly suggest it says demand on the screen. i would suggest to keep it consistent with the rest of the platform we don't for a simple demanding human life amendment. we say we strongly support. so, rather than demanding -- >> if i can interrupt the question may be a discussion with the question right now is simply on the amendment that has

been made by the gentlelady. >> i thought we got through that. >> we are not there yet. are there any other questions on this substitute amendment to modify the amendment? hearing none, the motion is calling the question. all of those in favor say aye. huffpost? the question is called on the substitute amendment. all in favor of that amendment, aye. that amendment is adopted. back to the motion of the amendment itself by mr. kirby. you had a question now on another part of the amendment. >> i don't know if mr. kirby wants to use strongly suggest or demand that we use of the platform which we strongly support and the number two, i would recommend taking out -- i love james madison. i don't know that it adds much

to this and it's different than what we put in the rest of the platform. [laughter] >> it is the constitution section after all. >> mr. chairman, pat kirby from nevada. i made a technical error, and i put the demand instead of strongly suggest. so, i am saying that i have no problem going back to strongly suggest. that is how i read it but it was printed as demand one at a time. you have an issue with madison but you haven't offered any amendments. >> i would like to do this separately. i would strongly support and some like mr. kirby is an agreement with that so maybe we should do that first.

>> are you making of the motion then to now remove the demand and insert your original language to strongly suggest? >> i am moving that we would strongly support. >> is there a second to that motion? we moved in second. that is on the screen. one, two, three, four, five, six line down the word demand is struck and inserts' strongly support. that's been second. any discussion on the technical amendment? >> i am all for it. let's move to the second amendment to be agreed to. all in favor of that amendment, aye. a post, no. that amendment is adopted. we're back to the main amendment of the discussion. north carolina.

>> mr. chairman i serve on the county board of elections, the largest county of north carolina. what concerns me are the paper ballots, absentee ballots. we will have 20 to 30,000 absentee ballots, the people that filled them out are the ones that voted, so i would like to make the notion i'm all in favor of the voter integrity. i would like to make a motion to strike the first sentence about paper ballots because i have a lot more confidence on our machines and paper trail that we print that might even the paper ballett. >> it's been moved in the second. iturbi amendment be further amended to strike the first sentence through the words fair election, is that correct? >> i would strike it through the

process -- no, you can keep madison. vote, period voter integrity must be assured, period. strike everything, take medicine out. sorry. >> point of order. [laughter] >> st everything until you get to the word process, and then start the sentence voter integrity must be assured me and they go back and strongly support. just huddle and get -- >> that's where i was going with this. spend a fair amount of time on this. i think everybody knows what the

issue is here and that is balad integrity and whether or not we want to have paper ballots or backups. we still have more discussion on that. but you are now getting into some significant amendments, and rather than everybody to follow that along with substantive amendment and take that up at a later time. we still have another amendment mir and without objection we still have another amendment on the voter integrity section that i see and that is con14. mr. hoseman for mississippi. mr. hoseman, you want to discuss your amendment? >> yes, the state of mississippi, and sometimes reminded of the comment to say that you must understand a place

like mississippi to the electronic voting for overseas military i visited afghanistan, iraq, kuwait as well as the hospitals at the department of defense. the military today has interspersed everywhere all of the services are interspersed the navy's and the army and marines are all over coming and we have very difficult time getting mail to those people and they have an expedited voting process where they mark the ballots, but still military very rarely gets to vote in our country. the percentages are less than half of everyone else. mississippi allows the electronic voting to come back to the circuit works and the state at which time it has opened and placed in an envelope and placed in the precinct ballot box. we think that is critical. it is so difficult to find people on the sand dune any more that can receive mail.

i ask hundreds of servicemen and women whether or not leave like the process and whether they were concerned as to the security of the electronic voting each and every person in each and every one of the country's said they did not, they just wanted their ballot to count. therefore, i would propose to add to the end of that sentence the utilization of electronic voting where, that should be where. where allowed by the state law. >> that is a technical amendment doesn't need action where allowed by the state law. is there a second to the amendment? discussion? yes, sir. >> i went to see if the secretary of state of mississippi would accept the amendment i know exactly what he's getting at and i agree. what he meant to say is the electronic delivery of ballots people were calling for the voting at websites which are subject to security risk where we absolutely must allow the

electronic ballots. would he accept that amendment? >> he will come in yes, thank you. >> would you be kind enough to repeat it will look at the screen? >> mr. kobach? >> the word of voting should be struck and replaced with the delivery of ballots. >> answered after electronic delivery of ballots and it's on the screen. there's been a second to the secondary amendment. any discussion on that clarifying amendment? hearing none colin favor of the secondary amendment, aye. all opposed? that amendment is adopted we are now back to mr. hoseman's main amendment as adopted by mr. kobach. any suggestion on that amendment?

>> all right. it has already been second. all in favor of mr. hoseman's amendment as amended by mr. kobach, aye. opposed, know. that amendment is agreed to. and i believe there is anything else for the voter integrity section. okay. we are going to leave that section open. >> mr. chairman? >> we are going to leave that section open until -- 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 if we think we can change it to we recognize that having a physical verification of the voting process is the best way to ensure a fair election. >> please repeat that.

>> we recognize having a physical verification of the voting process is the best way to insure a fair election. >> what does that replace? >> that replaces -- it takes out paper ballots. a cynic and everything else stays in your original amendment? >> including madison. >> you are really angling for my vote, aren't you? >> yes, sir. >> is that now accurate on the screen? this is a secondary amendment to mr. kirby's primary amendment that he is offering on his own.

it's been second. now the discussion on the substitute or secondary amendment. >> right here from oklahoma. on that last change, having a physical verification of the voting process, is that what we want to do physical verification of the vote? >> we now have mr. kirby, going to give you one last shot at this and give you more time. she's, but now another idea. are you incorporating that now has a part of your amended -- >> i picked that as a friendly amendment. >> rather than having a third

amendment are you incorporating that is that your new amendment? >> restate your full amendment which is now on the screen. >> we recognize that having made -- we recognize having a full verification of the vote is the best way to ensure a fair election. >> second that. >> any discussion on that technical amendment? thank you mr. chairman. my question to the maker of the amendment would simply be this. who receives the physical verification of the vote? the voters themselves. if so, does that not enhance the possibility of the vote?

>> since everybody addresses their question through the chair i'm going to address that. did you or mr. kirby want to answer that question? >> it is answered in the second part. all part of the representatives of serving the county of the ballots that it's meant to obviously to go to whoever is counting the votes, whoever is verifying the count. ..

>> but i know 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 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 convey that it's a philosophical thing, and we're not trying to dictate procedure. it's the philosophical idea that we don't trust electronic voting without a physical backup. >> okay. all right. here's what we're going to -- all right, mr. kobach. secretary of state, you want to clear this issue up, see if we can act? >> i do. >> if not, we're going to pass

this by and give you one more shot at it, and then we're going to have to act. >> the vv pap machines roll a piece of paper under glass, and then 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. i don't think that's a real problem, and i would just ask that the staff collect -- correct a grammatical error in the final sentence. it shouldn't be we support that, it should be we support the policy that. 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] >> strongly support the policy, yes. that's -- >> 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 to making his substitute, second-degree amendment to con 17 as identified here on the screen, and that is the amendment that, the secondary amendment that we are now going to act on. is there any more discussion on that amendment? all right. question has been called. all in favor of calling the question aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. question has been called. the question is now on the adoption of the second-degree amendment that is on 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? and we have got to have just a few comments and act. mr. hoseman. >> yes, as secretary of state of mississippi, i support the amendment that we have a written, um, ballot. on our machines we do have paper ballots that verify. however, i would encourage mr. 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 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 stirs, 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. while i do agree we have paper and i support this amendment, i disagree with the philosophy that it is inaccurate in the machines. >> deliberations from earlier today at the republican national convention platform committee meeting. we're live right now in tampa, florida. state delegates here meeting to draft party positions on foreign policy, defense, health care, education and a number of other issues. coming up, we're expecting debate over the party's stance on abortion. cnn and a number of sources are reporting today that republicans will reaffirm their stance on abortion. and, again, we are inviting your tweets at hashtag c-span rnc. the chief's chaired by virginia

governor bob o'donnell. they were expected to start five minutes ago, and things should get upside way in just a couple of minutes. in the meantime, republicans are continuing with their convention preparations this week. our live coverage of the republican national convention will start next monday at 2 p.m. eastern. we'll cover every speech and highlight, and we've set up our convention hub where you can watch on demand in the convention library. you can see web exclusive video feeds from the convention sites and read tweets from convention delegates and viewers. go to c-span.org. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and once again we're showing you live pick which ares from the republican national convention platform committee meetings taking place in tampa, florida, also the site of their convention. while we wait for this session to get underway, we'll show you

some of the tweets coming in from viewers. also president obama's out on the road today. pictures of the president leaving for a two-day campaign swing through ohio and nevada, we had that for you earlier this afternoon. he is just about to start a speech in columbus which you can watch on c-span.org. and later tonight we'll have live coverage of his stop in reno, nevada. the president will be meeting supporters in truckee meadows community college. again, that will be live on c-span. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> okay, here we go. okay, ladies and gentlemen, please, take your seats, and we'll get started. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. we are making good progress. we are now officially only one-half an hour ahead.

so i hope you will give congresswoman blackburn the same attention that you gave us the last couple hours, and let's move smartly through these last couple sections. good, robust debate, respect for one another and keep to that one minute time commitment. congresswoman blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank each of you for your diligence in getting these amendments submitted for the government reform section. we currently have a total of 19 amendments. that have been submitted. so we are going to have to move quickly as we work through these amendments. i am going to ask that each of you notice we have the clock, and i am going to have to be the strict enforcer on the clock -- [applause] um, because there are many of our fellow members that have flights beginning at about 6:00

this evening, and we want to allow them the opportunity for the maximum amount of participation in this process. so enforcement will be made. i will say this about the temperature in this room, i am still in search of some global warming. [laughter] [applause] and, hopefully, we will see the fans off and the air-conditioning turned off. and if not, i think every woman in here is looking for a table cloth to wrap around them to warm up. okay, government reform. we stand for reducing the size, the scope and the reach of the federal government. what we are seeking to do is to make certain we have the smallest central government

possible and return that authority to the states and the localities. what we have seen happen in washington, d.c. over the last several decades has been the growth of this bureaucracy that really is a monument to liberalism and elitism. our goal is to right size, reform, reengineer government so that it is tending to the items that government should be tending to. we have had a great committee working on these efforts, and they were dill gent in their work -- diligent in their work. what we all hear from our neighbors and friends and constituents. we're tired of federal government using taxpayer money to pay for programs we don't

want and we can't afford. and at a time when we're borrowing 50 cents of every dollar that we spend, it is an imperative that we reform and reduce the size, the scope and the reach of the federal government to minimize its impact on our freedoms, our free enterprise and free people. we had great leadership on this committee, and i just want to say my thank you to lieutenant governor cawley and to rachel kemp who co-chaired this effort. and at this time i'm going to recognize governor cawley for his reheart attacks. >> thank you, madam chairman. before i begin to review the work of the subcommittee, i would like to offer my thanks to rachel kemp and to the members of the subcommittee for their hard work. in particular i'd also like to thank the subcommittee staff, volunteer professionals who were assigned to us, jonathan and

george. our work would not have gone as smoothly as it did without their hard work. madam chairman, we are the party of reform, the party that understands that the federal government has become bloated, antiquated and unresponsive. as such, we recognize that government reform requires constant vigilance and effort because we understand that left to its own devices, government, government would continue to expand both in size and scope. it is with that challenge in mind that the government reform subcommittee has outlined a comprehensive, true reform agenda which includes a fiscally-responsible solution to save medicare for our senior citizens, one that i'm particularly interested in is as a state official, block granting of medicaid to the states. we suggest common sense steps for the security of retirement funds. we outline meaningful regulatory

reform. we suggest a check on government interference with the innovation engine that is known as the internet. and call for an environment of growth for the internet to thrive. we reject any corporate entity that is, quote, too big to fail, unquote and call for a financial services system that does not allow for taxpayer bailouts of entities like fannie mae and freddie mac. we call for the appointment of constitutional jurists, judges who understand that it is their duty to interpret the law, not to create the law from the bench. we challenge the united states postal service to modernize and improve. we call for the reform and privatization of the transportation security administration. we call for a strong immigration policy that respects the rule of law. we recognize and wish to enhance the special relationship that

our government has with american indians. we challenge our nation's capital city, the district of columbia, to strike out on a true path of reform. we recognize that the 130-year-old civil service system needs to be modernized and brought into the 20th century. we recommit ourselves to the exploration of space, and we call for the restrengthening of ties and note the military sacrifice of our brothers and sisters in the u.s. territories. as i said, madam chairman, this is a comprehensive agenda for true government reform. it is my pleasure to present the work of this subcommittee, and i move for its adoption. thank you. i would respectfully request at this time that you recognize my wonderful co-chairman of the subchief, the delegate from the commonwealth of massachusetts, ms. kemp. >> thank you, governor. ms. kemp, you are recognized. >> thank you very much -- i

would also like to thank our professional volunteers that have made our lives very easy since the two days that we were on capitol hill. i would also like to thank the delegates from the states for their thoughtful submissions. because they are the grassroots who are helping to really frame what we are doing here. and also i'd like to say the government reform really was not a grab bag platform. because without government reform, what do we truly have? so i think this is one of the most important platforms that we have here, because we have an opportunity to make sure that everything comes together appropriately. thank you, madam chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. at this time we will turn our attention to section one of the government reform package, line 1, section one.

the heading, government reform. it is the first 27 lines. i am, i have the first amendment that we will go to. you should have it as gr6. the amendment is by mr. davitch from alaska. the gentleman is reck thesed for his amendment. >> thank you, madam chairman. this is in direct response to to the your charge at the opening of this hearing. one of the things that president reagan did which had an immediate and sobering effect on our cab net and subcabinet officials was the formation of what's come to be known as the grace commission. and i'm recommending either at lines 19 or at line 27, whichever ben decides to put it in, that we continue that effort. we call upon the president to establish a government reform commission. my suggestions for the

commission's agenda are; 1, all federal programs that are clearly within the enumerated powers of the constitution should be identified; the commission should craft a systematic program for the surveyance of all programs not within the enumerated powers to the states if they want them; 3, to include up to a five-year block grant to assist in this transition; 4, convey all federal lands not necessary for defense or border security to the states, again, with a block grant up to five years to assist in this transition; and, 5, this work be done within five years. >> the language is in front of you on the screen. is there a second to the amendment? the amendment is thousand open for discussion. -- is now open for discussion. >> madam chairman? >> yes. >> i'd just like to point out,

if we are seriously interested in structural reform, this is the way, i think, we get started at it. if these things are achieved, we heedly eliminate almost two handfuls of federal programs and federal agencies, i'm sorry. and we really begin to empower states. many states have been denied, and that's the second motion i'll bring up, the ability to fully recognize their economic potential because of limitations in their statehood compact. this would start realigning that relationship. >> thank the gentleman. mr. sterns. >> thank you very much. i'd like -- >> recognize yourself, please. >> oh, this is christopher sterns from virginia. oild like to make a recommendation to the gentleman from alaska that we take a look at this and see how we can incorporate this. because i think this is all great stuff that certainly belongs in the opening paragraphs of this, of this

portion of the platform. um, i just think we -- it might be a better idea to craft it so it's more amicable to the document itself in terms of read and the so forth. i yield back. >> any other comment? >> madam -- >> mr.-- [inaudible] >> thank you, brad dee, utah. >> i think with all due respect, i think we're finally getting to a point where we're looking at the unintended consequences of some of the things we do on a platform committee. and after reading this, and i've read several that deal with these, with these -- we are as a platform committee recommending to the full body of the delegates that we approve a new government organization to monitor what we do in the states. and then we ask them to also block grant to us that ability. i have a real concern that this can't be handled within a new administration without this

being in the platform organizing another committee to do something else to the states. >> okay. mr. cawley, did this come up in your committee? >> no, madam chairman, solely because mr. davidige had committed it, but he was not a member of our subcommittee and had no subcommittee sponsor, so it was not considered. >> so it was not considered because it had no sponsor? >> that's correct. >> okay. senator talent? >> thank you, madam chairman. i would agree with the sentence expressed that there's a lot in here that i think has a lot of potential and that i respond well to, but it's really so immense in its potential implications, it wasn't considered by the subcommittee, i just -- i'm uncomfortable adding it on the floor like this. if he can work with the subcommittee chairman and perhaps put pieces of it in, but as it is and without the time really to consider it, i'd have to oppose it. >> okay. all right.

from massachusetts, you're recognized. >> jay barrows, massachusetts. can i call for the question, please? >> yes. the question has been called for. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> okay. it is, we are call the question -- we will call the question now. the amendment is up for vote. all of those in favor of the amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the no have it, the amendment fails. we will now move to -- well, let's -- yes. we now hugh to gr11 -- move to gr11. this is an amendment that is offered by richard ford from rhode island. mr. ford, you're recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> richard ford from rhode island. thank you, guys.

if i could, um, just remove my first sentence and replace it with we're committed to saving social security, but and then start? unless congress seriously cuts spending, the american people won't even receive a fraction of what they paid into the system. our promise to our senior citizens will be broken. >> the gentleman has presented his amendment. is there a second to his amendment? is there a second? there is no second, the amendment fails for lack of a second. we are now completed with the first -- >> madam chairman, i did have one other amendment to the front page. it said gr19 -- >> okay, i do not have a copy of gr19. okay, mr. davidge, i have your amendment in front of me.

do you all have gr19? okay, everyone has gr19. you're recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> to request a meeting with every governor who is currently saddled with a statehood compact that restricts that state's ability from reaching the same economic stature as the original 13 states and the state of texas. this meeting is for the purpose of negotiating or renegotiating their compact to the effects of enabling that equality. >> is there a second to doctor davidge amendment? did i hear a second? okay. i'm sorry, i'm not finding the second. oh, okay, mr. erickson. thank you. the amendment has been seconded. is there a comment? >> madam chairman? >> yes. >> as the original 13 states did

not have a statehood compact per se, the state of texas did not either. but as we've moved across the western united states and we moved north, new states became more and more saddled with restrictions by the federal government and their efforts to become states. the state of nevada is a classic example where 85% of their property is owned by the federal government in a checkerboard pattern which absolutely denies them their economic independence. the state of alaska we're not allowed to sell subservice rights even though they're owned by the state, and there are many other limitations on the state of alaska in our statehood compact. this motion would effect probably seven states but would give for the first time an opportunity for governors to sit down with the president of the united states, which would have to be recodified by congress, to renegotiate their statehood compact and allow those states to achieve the economic independence that they should have similar to the other states. >> thank the yes han for the

explanation -- gentleman for the explanation nation. does anyone wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? >> [inaudible] >> the question has been called. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> opposition? question has been called. all of those in favor of the gentleman's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all of those opposed? >> no. >> the amendment fails. at this time government reform, lines 1-27, that section has been closed. the record will reflect 125, the section, has closed. we will now open for amendment the second section, a fiscally-responsible solution to save medicare for seniors. and, um, gentlelady from maryland is recognized for

amendment gr13. >> thank you, madam chair. gr13 is a simple amendment, um, stating what we all know. the republicans in congress and governor romney are resolved to keeping medicare available as it stands for americans 55 and older. i think it is very important that we state this clearly in our platform. this amendment will add the sentence after "billions of dollars every year," page 2, line 21, we will add: "we can do this without making any changes for those in or near retirement." thank you. >> i thank the gentlelady for the amendment, and, again, we are on page 2, line 21. the -- it has been added and highlighted on your screen. does the gentlelady have a second to her amendment? >> second.

>> the amendment has been seconded. is there discussion? mr. fagen? >> my amendment, which is next, is very similar to this one. or not similar, but i want to roll it into this one. >> so the gentleman would seek to withdraw his amendment and support this amendment? >> and put an addition in this one, a friendly amendment. um, right after "those," i would like to change it to "55 and older." that's the message of our, of mitt romney and paul ryan right now on the campaign trail. so -- it would read we can do this without making any changes for those 55 and older. >> okay. so, basically, you are saying remove the words "in or near retirement." >> correct. >> would you consider that a friendly amendment? >> i will consider that a friendly amendment because it's my understanding that governor

romney and his running mate, paul ryan, have been saying 55 and older. is that correct, congresswoman? >> that would be correct. so what we have before us is the gentleman from wisconsin has a second-degree amendment to the jend l-- gentlelady's amendment. so voting on inserting the words "55 and older" and removing "on or near retirement." i am calling for the ayes on this, all in fave? >> aye. >> all opposed? the second degree is accepted. is there any other discussion on the amended amendment? gr13 which is before you? >> call the question -- >> the question has been called. >> second. >> and seconded. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed?

now we will be voting on the amendment as amended. all in favor of the amendment -- >> aye. >> any opposition? the amendment has been accepted to line 2, page 2, line 21. that is the only amendment that i have for fiscally responsible solution to medicare for seniors. are there any other amendments? there are no other amendments to that section. we will now close that section of the government reform report, so the record will reflect that at 1:29 p.m., that section was closed, and we are moving to the third section. block granting medicaid to the states. do we have any amendments to this section? we have gr8. >> madam chairman, gr8 says page

3, it should be page 7. so that's not in this section. >> okay. we will, we will make that correction. i continue to call, any -- >> we have no -- >> we have no amendments. so we will turn to page 3, line 6. that is the end of block granting medicaid to the states. the record will reflect that at 1:30 p.m. that section was closed for amendment and approved. we now move to the retirement security section. lines 7-32. i have no amendments presented for this. are there think amendments to this section? hearing no request for amendment, we will have the record reflect that at 1:30 p.m. this section was opened and closed for amendment. moving to the bottom of the page, page 3, line 33 through

page 4, line 13. i have -- >> gr16. >> gr16. it is page 3, line 35. the gentleman from arizona. >> yes. kip kempton from arizona. i have a small business, we employ 49.5 people because we don't want to make it to 50 -- >> sir, could you, please, get closer to the hike? >> sure, sure. kip kempton from arizona saying we employ 49.5 people in a small business my brother and i have, we don't want to make it to 50, more taxes. my suggestion here is it, on line 35 at the end it says to avoid legal problems, that kind of implies subjectivity with and not partnership with the government. and i'd like to change that to augment the possibilities for

success within the confines of the law. if we could do that, please. >> the gentleman has presented his amendment. we're on page 3, we are on line 35, and his amendment would strike "to avoid legal problems" and replace it with language that would be "to augment the possibilities for success within the confines of the law." that is being displayed on your screen at this point. does the gentleman have a second on his amendment? >> second. >> the amendment is seconded. the amendment is now open for discussion. anyone wishing to comment? there is no comment. is there a call for the question? >> call the question. >> question has been called for. all of those in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> opposition, no? there is no opposition. the question has been called

for. before we -- mr. kempton, any other comment on your amendment? >> no, that is it. thank you. >> the gentleman has offered his amendment. all of those in favor say aye. >> are aye. >> opposition? >> no. >> the amendment passes and will be added to line -- page 3, line 35. now we move to page 4, line 3. mr. ford of rhode island, i have your amendment before me. you're recognized. >> richard ford of rhode island. all right, let me first start by saying we need some relief for our tax-paying citizens all across america. in rhode island i work in a detail shop, also a car wash, very average job, and, um, we just got hit with a 7% tax, my boss did, on our car wash

equipment. and it's having a huge effect. we got hit by water taxes last year. and we just need some relief for the american taxpayers that the democrats don't put forward, and we could have the opportunity to do so. and i recommend we should suspend the income tax as a relief to our tax-paying citizens for, i'm open to suggestion on how much time, one to three years, but thank you. >> the gentleman has spoken on his amendment. is there anyone seconds his amendment? is there a second? the gentleman does not receive a second on his amendment. the amendment is defeated because of lack of a second. are there any other amendments that are being presented for the section on regulatory reform? >> yes. gr17. >> okay. i am in possession of gr17.

>> [inaudible] >> hold on just a minute. does everyone have this amendment? >> yes. >> everybody's got the amendment? mr. kempton, you are recognized. >> kip kempton, again, from arizona. i would just like to add on line -- page number 4, line number 4, "or the epa and osha's overreaching regulation agenda" and give consideration to shah also. osha also. >> the gentleman's amendment has been read, and it has been seconded. and i think we could end up putting the alphabet soup in there, couldn't we? all righty. discussion on mr. kempton's amendment. no further discussion, no one seeking to comment? all right. is there a call for the question? >> call for the question. >> question has been called for. all of those in favor of calling the question -- >> aye. >> any opposition?

the question has been called for. we will now hold a vote on mr. kempton's amendment which is page 4, line 4. all of you who are for this amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the amendment is agreed to. is there any further amendment to regulatory reform? going once, going twice, we are sold on regulatory reform. all right. we will have the record reflect that at 1:36 we republicans agreed we are sold on regulatory reform. all right. we are move to page -- we will move to page 4, line 15 through 25. i am in possession of no amendments. are there any amendments to

internet freedom? there are no amendments to internet freedom? seeing none, we will close the section and at 1:36 we will close the section on internet freedom. we will now move to line 26, technology, communications and the internet. i do not possess any amendments to this section. are there think amendments? are there any amendments? no amendments? at this point we will close the section beginning on page 4, line 26 and ending on page 5, line 10, technology, communications and the internet. at 1:37 p.m., we are closing that section for consideration. we now move to page 5, line 11, financial services, no more too big to fail. okay. and down through line 30.

do we have any amendments to this section? >> [inaudible] >> okay. gr18. ms. weissman from kentucky, you are recognized for 60 seconds on your chairman. >> madam chairman, shirley wiseman, kentucky. on behalf of the 70 million homeowners in the united states, i submit this revised form. we have supported the mortgage interest deduction in some fashion for many years, and because affordable housing is in the national interest, any simplified tax system should continue to encourage home ownership recognizing the tremendous social value that the home mortgage interest deduction has had for decades. over, over 25% of our

constituents would stop filing a long form of income tax even though we passed the charitable deduction amendment, and they would not itemize if we did not support in some form the mortgage interest deduction. we have taken poll after poll, 80% of those voters, potential voters, said that they would not support a candidate that does not support the mortgage interest deduction. i tell you that the deduction goes to the middle income, middle class voters, and i submit we need that as our base to take back the white house. >> i thank the gentlelady from kentucky. i recognize the gentleman -- is there a second to her -- there is a second from ms. newlin. the gentleman from washington, d.c. is recognized.

>> thank you, madam chairwoman. i believe we discussed this yesterday and decided not to go down the rabbit hole of different deductions. um, so i move that we move on from this discussion. >> i thank the gentleman. ms. newlin is recognized for 60 seconds. >> april newlin, virgin islands. i know we had this discussion yesterday. um, i've gotten numerous e-mails from the national association of realtors representing 1.3 million realtors across the country. and, of course, representing homeowners, two-thirds of the nation have been or are currently homeowners in the united states. this issue speaks volumes about how the republican party feels about home ownership. we are in crisis in many areas with foreclosures and with people losing their homes. we are trying to retain home ownership and encourage home own home ownership across the united

states. if we do not include this in our platform and it is included in the other side's platform, i think that that will be sending a message loud and clear to the home ownership community that we don't care enough about this issue to include it in our platform. i urge you to, please, carefully consider this amendment. it is wide and broad. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> and i encourage you to, please, vote positively. >> from maryland, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i would like to speak on behalf and ask the body to support this. we had a measure in the maryland general assembly that would have removed the mortgage deduction for people who makeover $150,000 a year, and i can tell you the fiscal note was incredible. this will have a direct impact

on middle class families if there were to happen, god forbid nationwide. but in committee we did not have the beginning of this sentence, we strongly support tax reform, which we do. if in the event we do not achieve it, we must preserve the interest deduction on behalf of middle class americans and on behalf of our housing market. >> gentlelady yields back. mr. barrows? >> call for the question, please? >> the question has been called for. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed this. >> no. page 5re now on ms. wiseman'sed between line 30 and 31. the language is on the screen in front of you. we strongly support tax reform in the event we do not achieve this, we must preserve the mortgage interest deduction. at this time i will call for the vote on ms. wiseman's amendment.

all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it, the amendment is accepted. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> oh, yes, you may have it. okay. are there any other amendments? >> we have none. >> no other amendments? okay. at this point in time financial services, no more too big to fail. we will show that at 1:43 this section is closed. all right. we move to the judiciary. we are beginning online 31 of page a -- page 5. i have one amendment to this -- i have two amendments to this section. and at this time i will recognize mr. barton of texas for gr4.

mr. barton. >> in this section i recommend the removal of the phrase in egregious cases. there are six clauses of the constitution addressing impeachment, that adjective is used in none of them. the last two we've had were difficult, one was a sexual predator, it was hard to get an impeachment against him, he's now in jail. the second was a federal judge, it was tough to get an impeachment against him. we don't these egregious, the constitution set it is bar. >> it is now open for discussion. >> [inaudible] >> we are calling for the question. at this point all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called for. we are now on mr. barton's amendment. page 5, line 35, removing the word "egregious."

all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment has been adopted. we now move to page 6, line 5. mr. barton, you are recognized on your amendment. >> in this clause on line 5 recommend a couple changes, one is removal of the word "sovereign," states are only sovereign in unenumerated areas. there's 18 areas where they're not sovereign, so southern is an incomplete word constitutional, but the next clause they're attempting to assist the federal government. as i mentioned in texas, we have 21 lawsuits, the attorney general from georgia mentioned seven, so i'd recommend that we delete the clause that says "assisting the federal government." i recommend deletion of the clause "sovereign" in front of states. >> okay. the language is in front of you on the screen. so what we will do with this is

to remove "sovereign." that word will be struck -- >> madam chairman? >> we need a second. >> madam chairman? >> all right. >> can i inquire? >> yes, senator talent. >> what number is this? if you said it, i didn't hear it. >> gr3. it is on page 6, line 5. striking the word "sovereign." and then strike, also, "that are attempting to assist the federal government by. "and the new language will read, "stop suing states for exercising those powers reserved to the states." am i correct, mr. barton? >> that is correct, madam chairman. >> okay. it's been read, it's been seconded, it is open for discussion. be. >> [inaudible] >> call for the question. >> second. >> question has been called for. the question has been seconded. it's not debaten. debatable. all right.

all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it. mr. barton's amendment, gr3, on page 6, line 5. the language is before you. all in favor of this amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? mr. barton's amendment is adopted. that is all the amendments that i have for the section on the judiciary. >> madam chairman, could i get clarification? mr. kerby, you're saying line 6 -- i mean, page 6, line 8? >> yes, sir. um, what i want to do, i couldn't find a good place to put this, so between judiciary and u.s. postal system i'd like to put a segment called congress. and i have a couple of amendments.

and i'd actually like to do number 22 first. >> okay. mr. kerby, let me be sure i'm with you on this. so you are not adding, seeking to add this to the judiciary section? >> that is correct. it would be a new section in between judiciary and u.s. postal. >> all right. okay, so before i recognize you on your amendment, what we would need to do then since we have no further amendments to the judiciary section, what we would need to do is close that section. are there any other amendments or comments? there are not, so the record will reflect that at 1:48 we have now closed the judiciary section. at this time, mr. kerby, i recognize you for the addition of a new section in the form of an amendment. gentleman's recognized. >> thank you. um, so this next one would be

entitled congress, and the amendment is republicans will lead the way in government reform by seeking to adopt a system where any be new legislation will require adequate time before any vote can be taken to insure that there is time to read and debate new i bills. new bills. and we can take out that second "adequate" buzz that's bad -- because that's bad english. >> okay, the gentleman's amendment has been seconded. >> um -- >> okay. mr. kerby, hold on just a second. >> uh-huh. >> so the new section would be -- do we have -- and we've got it, oh, it's coming onto the screen now. republicans will lead the way in government reform by seeking to adopt a system where any new legislation will require adequate time before any vote can be taken to insure that

there is time to read and debate new bills. >> yes. so, um, yeah, i'm sorry for the -- so adequate time before any vote. you can take out the "to read" on the third line. there you go. before any vote can be taken to insure that there is time to read and debate new bills. that's correct. >> okay. reviewing the language, do we have the language correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> okay. is there any discussion on the gentleman's language? the gentleman from the virgin islands is recognized, and i apologize that i called the question before you got your light on. >> oh, that's all right. i'll get even with you. [laughter] thank you, congresswoman blackburn. i just wanted to say that the

rules of congress are created by congress. and for us to suggest that reforming congress without congress passing their own rules in which they conduct the orders of business in the house or the senate would be mostly ricketting them into -- restricting them into an area that they don't like to be restricted. i would -- the idea is good, but i just don't think it's appropriate in the platform. >> the gentleman is correct. congress does make their rules, and in the house we have a rule of the house that it has to be, the legislation has to be public 72 hours. i recognize my co-chair, senator hoeven, for comment. >> no, that's just what i was going to point out. right now the house has a rule of 72 hour posting the bill not only for the members to read, but for the public as well. there's not a similar rule in the senate, but the house does have a rule. >> but, obviously, anything has to pass both houses, so de facto

that requires 72 hours public notice. >> the gentleman from d.c. is recognized. >> yes, i just wanted to call the question. >> question has been called. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> are aye. >> all opposed? question has been called the for, and now i will call for the vote on mr. kerby's amendment, gr22. the language is in front of you on the screen. all in favor of mr. kerby's amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> the amendment fails. and, mr. kerby, i will come to you again. you have a second, gr21. >> that's correct. um, this would also fall under that category of congress, and

we can take out the "also," since that last one failed. we support congress moving to a one-law, one-vote system to streamline the process and prevent those huge bills with multiple laws included. >> the gentleman has read his amendment. is there a second on on the amendment? it has been seconded. the language is in front of you on the screen. is there comment or discussion on mr. kerby's bill? >> madam chairman? >> yes, mr. ward. >> i think the rules of congress, i know many state legislatures already have law or have internal rules in place that we can only have one subject matter per bill. what are the rules that you go by in congress? >> we do not have a rule that says only one subject matter per bill. what we seek to do is to limit it and narrow those bills as much as we possibly can because i think in the previous speaker

prior to speaker boehner there was great frustration with 2700-page bills and having to pass it to read it to find out what was in it. [laughter] >> thank you, madam chairman. >> [inaudible] >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> jay barrows. could we call until question, leads? >> question can be could. okay. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? >> [inaudible] >> question has been called for. mr. kerr -- kerby's amendment, gr21, the language highlighted and on the screen in front of you. all in favor of mr. kerby's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the amendment fails. at this time we move to page 6, line 8, the u.s. postal system.

we go through line 15. at this time i have no amendments to this section. is there anyone seeking to amend or discuss this section? we will let the record reflect that at 1:55 p.m. the this section was agreed to and closed for further amendment. moving to line 16, reforming the tsa, through line 22. i have no amendments. i think everybody agrees on reforming the tsa. anyone seeking to amend? at this time the record will reflect that at #u 55 -- 1:55 the section was agreed to and closed from further discussion and amendment. now we move to line 23 of page

6. immigration and the rule of law. i am in possession of several amendments for this section. and i recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. kobach, and i think we have your gr8 as the first amendment that is up. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> okay. i will now recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. kobach. we are on gr8, page 7, line 3. the gentleman is recognized for 60 seconds -- no, okay. wait just a minute. we have the front row down here does not have this amendment. >> it is gr8, government reform, chris kobach, kansas. anybody else not have it,

please, keep your hand up. the gentle lady from minnesota in the back over here. >> might i ask for a clarification on the page number and line number? >> page number 7, line number 3. >> i'm sorry. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. kobach, you're recognized. >> madam chairman, this amendment restores to our platform almost the exact same words that we had in the 2008 platform, a call for the national use of the e-verify program. four states have adopt canned it, arizona, mississippi, south carolina and alabama. the results are truly amazing. the arizona law went effect on january 1, 2008. over the three year period from '08-'11, illegal alien population in the united states dropped 1%, in arizona it dropped 36%. most people credit that to the

e-verify system which makes it very difficult for people to illegally get jobs. some return to their home country, but many went to bordering states where it is easy to the break federal law and displace american workers. this reinforces what governor romney has said repeatedly on the campaign trail, that we must have a national e-verify system. unlike the current president, we in the republican party are serious about jobs, we recognize that if you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today. that is the way to open up jobs very quickly citizen workers and lawfully-admitted alien workers, and i propose this amendment. >> gentleman has spoken on his amendment. is there a second? >> second. >> second. >> the amendment has been read and has been seconded. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for comments on the amendment. >> thank you, madam chair. kathy szeliga from maryland. i am a simple contractor from maryland, a small business, the

family business, the very backbone of this great nation. we are law-abiding job creators, and i am opposed to this amendment. i believe that it is almost insulting to me as a small business owner that we would ask businesses to e-verify their employees before welfare benefits are not e-verified. i encourage the government to mandatory e-verify section 8 vouchers and any entitlement program given to people in this country before you come to small businesses and ask us to do the same as a mandatory requirement. if a small business wallets to e-verify, have at it. my friend, jim the plumber, he e-verifies all of his employees. but don't make me do this before e-verified entitlements. thank you.

>> the gentlelady yields back. does anyone seek recognition for discussion on the amendment? .. presented here and it's submits us bloated government and hinders business success, and puts the law enforcement squarely on the shoulder of small businessmen. it's just an additional weight that i don't want to deal with as a businessman. i presented that in gr24 in

opposition to e verify. >> thank you the jet l lady from north carolina is recognized. >> i rise in support of the amendment. if we're serious about stopping illegal immigration in this country. behave a simple solution for that w, and that is to -- it's a simple way to keep employers or give employers the tools they need not to hire illegal aliens. >> i thank the gentlelady. the gentleman from mississippi? >> yes, ma'am, we went through the same problem, mississippi almost three years now since we adopted e-verify. we had the same identical concerns about small business women and men. we found that e-verify was able to be utilized in minutes by the employers, and our experience with it has been it has not been

a cost to small business and not a hindrance to the development of small business. in in fact it proved successful in our state. >> the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> steve from the state of illinois. i have a question to the maker of the amendment, and i think it might have been addressed. but i was wondering if this program would be a cost to the employer, or the cost burden would be by the government? >> mr. kobach? >> i'll answer the question and a couple of the answers. no, it's free. e verify check is free. it's been born by the federal government the cost. the gentlelady from maryland the welfare benefits are -- u.s. of the code already require federal welfare benefits respectively to be verified. for the gentleman arizona it

replaces the system. if federal law were to adopt. it you're required by the federal government to verify. the system is a joke. you fill out pieces of paper. it's done. e-verify replaces the time consuming process with a second three second check on the computer. 95% of the states that use it like it better. >> the jet gentleman from delaware. >> i'm counsel to a company that uses it for the employees. it is a help to us, and it is faster and certainly more accurate than the i . >> i'm going to subcommittee co-chair? >> madam chair i believe we had sufficient discussion on the matter. i'd like to call the question. >> question has been called. all of those in favor of calling the question? aye. >> all opposed? >> question has been called for. we are now on mr. kobach's

amendment. gr8. the language is on the screen in front of you. it affect page 7 line 3. all of those in favor of the gentleman's amendment will vote aye. >> aye. >> all of those opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. on gr24, you are recognized. does everyone have amendment gr24? >> madam chair in light of the last vote, i.d. like to retract. >> the amendment has been withdrawn. we now go to gr2. is everyone in possession of gr2? everybody got it? all right. we are now at page 7, line 6.

gentleman from texas, mr. barton. you are recognized for sixty seconds. >> thank you. i would recommend we define this into a strike and into a second part on the insertion. the first part in talking about the hiewsk trafficking comparing that to cattle, as a rancher and as a texan that is not nearly demeaning. i recommend we strike that language. if we want the meaning language, i would recommend inserting what you have done with your work in human trafficking and our pastor friend from minnesota something like this is a modern form of slavery or something that is demeaning. i would recommend striking the cattle and possibly inserting something that is demeaning. >> the gentleman has spoken on his amendment, we are seeking a second. >> second. >> there is a second on the amendment. amendment has now been read and has been seconded.

mr. dee. >> thank you. from utah. i appreciate the motion work with me an provide dwieding the particular motion. i applaud the efforts of what they're trying do. i think a period after "traffic in human beings" i agree we should remove the reference to cattle. i thing we should make no reference to slavery at this particular time. when people start comparing these people to era of the past slavery, i think that causes us a lot of concerns in this particular platform. i would suggest we leave the period there. i don't like cattle, but slavery doesn't work either. >> this is offered as a friendly amendment that does the gentleman from texas accept the amendment? >> are we going deal with it as one or two? if we deal with the strike one we can strike the second one and inserted something in the place. >> we can deal with it as two.

do i have a motion to divide the question? >> moved. >> all in favor of dividing the question? >> aye. >> okay. now we will take a vote on the strike language. removing the term "as if it they were cattle" is there agreement? do i have -- let me get the ayes on strike language. removing the words "as if they were cattle." all in favor? >> aye. >> all opposed? >> then the language has been struck. now the insertion language okay. placing them in slavery is on on the screen in front of you. that would be the insertion. so the divided amendment would be if you are putting that language would be it an aye vote. if you are against it and putting a period after the human

beings. it would be a no vote. everybody clear in all of those in favor of that insertion will say aye. all of those opposed will say no. >> no. >> [inaudible] >> the amendment will read as a traffic and human beings and there will be a period. the gentleman's amendment is adopted as amendment and agreed upon. now we move to line 23. [inaudible] wait 21. [inaudible conversations] okay. gr1 is the amendment that we're moving to. and -- that is on page 7, line 21. and mrs. sharky from colorado you are recognized on your amendment. >> thank you, chairwoman. my proposal in adding the sentence, i believe is what the

republican party stands for in limited government, and i believe we ought to be proposing a private sector management for a temporary guest worker program. this would provide increntdives for illegals that are in the u.s. to leave the country, apply for legal admission, and eliminated open border problem. private employment firms would run background checks, link specific workers to specific jobs, ensuring compliance with all u.s. laws, and streamline, the process it so it works for workers and employers. number of permits issued would be limited by the actual market. the solution does not require amnesty and it does not require citizenship. border security can be accomplished by a combination of technology, border guards and illegal guest worker program that actually works. the current program does not

work for two primary reasons: artificial quota on the number of workers imposed by government committees, and not based on any connection to the real market in implementation by obamacare that does is imcapable of hands of million of cases quickly or efficiently. we as republicans believe in entree enterprise. we know the private sector already works. in similar ways across the nation. and for these reasons, i support adding this text to this line. thank you. >> i thank the gentlelady. is this there a seconded? the amendment has been read, explained, and seconded. is there discussion? mr. koa back. >> some of the concepts in the amendment are desirable, i would say that it is contrary to the e verify amendment we passed. this suggests an alternative system. e verify is managed by the

government. we need the government to decide who has security clearance to come into the united states. who does not have a criminal record. we had horrible experience before 9/11 when the saudi arabia private companies were put in charge of issuing temporary nonimmigrant visa. the problem with the proposal there? 0 limits. at least the way it's described by the foundation. i just think that this is a whole another kettle of fish. it's contrary to what we passed which is a system we have right now and we can make put it into place right now by congressional action. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from massachusetts? >> call the question, please. >> the question has been called for. all of those in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? all right. on the amendment, page 7, line 21, all in favor say aye.

opposed? >> no. the amendment is defeated. we now move to amendment gr20. [inaudible conversations] take up 10 first. okay. [inaudible conversations] all right. our chairman says we need to take up 10 first. we will take up 10 first. this will be page 7, line 23, the amendment is gr10. does everyone have that in front of them? mr. kobach, you are recognized on gr10 for sixty seconds. >> thank you. this amendment restores three provisions that in the tbaightd plalt form. we must complete the border fence that was ordered by congress in '06 but never completed. we must end instate tuition for illegal aliens. sanction ware citizens. they have lulted in the death of

american citizens. i remitted the survivors in the family anthony, michael, and matthew were shot in cold blood. he was released on every equation. they are consistent with the romney campaign. as you remember, one of the primary reasons governor romney rose past perry when he was achieving first place in the poles was because of the opposition of instate tuition for the illegal aliens. i quote, romney will complete a high-tech fence and enhance bop. he must e little nate the magnets. as the governor he will end instate tuition benefits. we are party that recognizes ilg legal that is illegal. it is important we do not retreat from the elements that were in the 2008 plat form. >> the amendment has been read and seconded.

it is on the board in front of you. is there discussion? madam chair? >> i rise in sport of the amendment. if we're serious about stopping ill legal immigrants from coming across our border and terrorists from comes across the border. we need to construct the wall. second sanction ware cities. they need to comply with federal law. we need to end cant ware cities as far as instate tuition for illegal aliens, again we needed to eliminate magnets drawing people into the country illegally. >> thank you. the gentlelady yields back. is there further discussion? the question has been called for. all of those in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed?

question has been called for. we are now on gr10. the amendment as read and explained and discussed page 7, line 23, mr. koa back's amendment. all of those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment has been adopted. we move to gr20, same line of the text. >> appreciate your time. i lie to thank there -- for the huge problem for arizona. i recognize that. and hope he continues in the efforts. i i would just make a suggestion to the same area that we give consideration to those that are in this country illegally since

childhood due to no choice of their own and improper federal immigration enforcement we have experienced for decades. i would like to add a clause there that we recognize that this is a difficult situation that our country faces. thank you. >> thank you. is there a second to the amendment? there is a second. okay. mr. erickson. mr. dee? >> thank you. point of order, madam chair. >> yes. >> is there the amendment he is because his statement was different than the amendment. >> asking for clarification. >> that's what i'm asking. it. >> she's going get clarification for that. we are trying to put it on the screen. >> i would think he might want to modify the amendment. i think the statement was more clear. >> mr. cimpton, let's have you

work to see if we can clarify and set yours aside for a moment and move to gr25. do you all have that? >> madam chair? >> yes. >> just a suggestion while they're working an that. will you please define the word childhood? >> okay. mr. kimpton. did you get that? >> okay. >> good point. good catch. does everyone have gr25? >> no. >> okay we do not. okay in the -- in the interest of time. >> just admitted. >> let's set in section aside and move on. >> yes. >> until the interest of the time we will not close this section. we will come back to immigration in the rule of law. while we catch up with amendment, copy, and clarification, we will move on

to american indians page 7, line 30, and open that section for amendment. i have no amendments for that section. are there any amendments? [inaudible] i am seeing no amendments to that section. so the record will reflect that the section on american indians was opened and then closed at 2:18. district of columbia is now open. that is on page 9, -- page 9, line 4. [inaudible conversations] i have gr15 from mr. perkins in front of me for amending to this section. does everyone have gr15? mr. perkins' amendment is on page 9, line 19.

everybody got it? all right mr. perkins, you are recognize are for sixty seconds on the amendment. >> tony from louisiana. thank you, madam chair. as we seen in the recently the d.c. gun control law some of the most strig end in the country do not prevent criminals engaging in violent acts. as a former law enforcement officer and one who is an active supporter of the second amendment citizens should be able to protect themselves and what this amendment would do is insert on page 9, line 19, add these words "also to ensure protection of the fundamental right on the self-defense we call on the city council pass laws scintd with the supreme court decision with the heller and mcdonald cases" that's what the amendment seeks to do since the city has not come in compliance with the supreme court decision. >> the gentleman's motion has

been read, explained, and seconded. it is on the screen in front of you. is there discussion or comment? >> madam chair? >> david from new hampshire. i'd like to offer a friendly amendment. after the word "self-defense" add the words "where everyone has a legal right to be." that is general the standard for self-defense. >> let's see. [inaudible conversations]. >> clarification, i'm sorry. >> i'm suggesting we add the language after the word "defense" "everyone one has a legal right to be" that general the accepted standard for the self-defense doctrine. >> "has a legal right to be." so it would read "also to ensure protection of the fundamental

right to self-defense whenever one has a legal right to be" then the comma, okay. mr. perkins, would you consider that a friendly amendment. >> no. i would oppose that amendment. >> you would oppose that. >> okay. that would not considered to be -- okay. [inaudible conversations] okay. you're fine with that? mr. mingo? >> thank you madam chair. if i may for the understanding of this body, i'd like to call on the mr. perkinses to a two second overview of the cases. i want to make sure we understand the impact of the cases and just have at least a little bit of background as to how the effect this particular amendment. and one last question could be why the focus on city council. i just want to ensure that's the proper body to reference in the

document. >> the gentleman has been heard. mr. perkins, i'll come to you in a moment. ? >> madam chair. thank you. i have a point of order. i'm curious as to where the previous gentleman's amendment went. did he withdrawal it? whoever one . >> it was not accepted by the author. >> i understand that. did he introduce that as an amendment then. >> no. he offered . >> he's gone. okay. guess not. we can move on. if you wish to add to the amendment. if it was not accepted as friendly. he would have to write it. we would accept. >> thank you. >> mr. perkins? >> thank you madam chair. both of these deal with second amendment cases. the heller case specifically dealt with gun control in the district of columbia finding the right of citizens to possess firearms. the city of d.c., which as jux diction will be overcoming by up

with the proper procedures by which people can have and possess firearms has drug their feet in doing so making extremely difficult for law-abiding citizens within the district of columbia to possess firearms. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. ming go is that explanation. >> that sufficient fieses. thank you. it there further discussion? >> yes. >> from montana. i stand, of course, in favor of this. i would like to humbly say thank you to mr. perkins for the incredible job he has been representing the family research council standing up for all of us who know that hate crime can be represented by the left also. and being such an arctic late spokesman. i'm sorry the media didn't give you the coverage you deserved.

i personally would like to thank you. [applause] >> it is not applicable to the amendment, but point well made, mrs. hall. [laughter] >> yes. from the michigan. i'm worried about the language of mentioning the legal cases in the context where someone trying to read the platform is not going to understand the significance of those two cases. >> mr. perkins? do you have a response? >> well, both of those cases set the standard regarding implementation of second amendment rights of citizens. so i think it is applicable to policy makers whether it be at the state or federal level or local gorings dirks of the district of columbia. it lays out clearly the rights of citizens. so i do think that it is appropriate. >> were you seeking

recognition? >> i think what she is saying she'd like you to say -- summarize what the decisions say rather than just list the decisions. people reading who aren't attorneys may not know what you're referring to. and people will read it other than people from the city council, i assume. >> okay. mr. bar don. >> may offer a friendly amendment which uphold the rights of citizens to own and possess guns in washington, d.c., or something to that effect. tony, something that would explain that parenthetically. >> mr. perkins? >> knowing mr. barton's affection for firearms. i will accept that amendment. [laughter] can i suggest? >> yes. >> governor? >> i think we're talking about the second line. the fundment tal right is to keep and bear arms. we can put that in place of

self-defense. will that work? okay. >> yes. >> you want to make that amendment? >> i will make that as a part of my amendment. >> okay. the language for the "fundamental right to keep and bear arms." will be the new reading of the amendment. is there further discussion of the amendment? >> yes. >> to answer previous objections for mentioning the supreme court cases, would it not be better if "friendly amendment to say with the supreme court's decisions of law rather than mention heller and mcdonald? i'm not an attorney, but i believe they are settled law, aren't they? >> yes. madam chair. i'll like to call a question, please. >> okay. question has been called. all of those in favor? >> ask we add the language the gentleman in the front suggested and i think tony agreed to?

>> it is on the screen? >> it is on the screen in front of you. >> no that was the chairman's language. i was talking about the gentleman down here smiersing the casing. the the second amendment right to own and bear arms. >> hold on for a moment. >> [inaudible] be. >> i would need for you to remove he would remove to the call for the question. >> i remove my call. >> okay and i apologize. i thought that mr. perkins had settled it with the language to can "keep and bear arms." >> for just a moment and work on the language for a second. >> they are adding it. which upheld the second amendment of the constitution at the end. is that clear enough. would you like further clarification. >> probably better clarification. >> we will set this aside for one moment and allow the two of you to work.

the district of columbia section will be set aside while we work on the language for gr15, line -- page 9, line 19. with a we will do is move to line 22 of page 9. this is the federal civil service. i have no amendments to federal civil service. no amendments or discussion? that is line 2, -- line 22 of page 9 through line 2 of page 10 at 2:28, we will close the section on federal civil service. we go to the future of -- line 3 of page 10. down through line 18. the future of space. i have no amendments on this section. any amendment or discussion?

seeing none, we will consider this section presented and closed at 2:28 p.m. americans in the territories. that is line 19 on page 10. i have three amendments to this section. the first is gr7 ms. knew land you are recognized for sixty seconds. >> thank you. i have asked for an insert after "and" we call on our leadership in the united states congress to introduce a constitutional amendment to allow and then the same language continues the "full extension of the constitution with all rights and responsibilities it entails." this is a conversation that this is my fourth time on the platform that was discussed in

philadelphia's platform, new york's platform, minneapolis platform, and again in tampa. the right for territories to vote for the commander in chief and president of the united states is a critical issue for all the territories. we have many men and women that have fought in battle and are died for the rights that upheld by the constitution. their inability to vote for the president of the united states and for their commander in chief has been a sore point with the territory's for many, many years. i'm hoping that you will consider this the language that is inserted currently affirm their right, we do not have a congresswoman that can vote in the congress, we really have no avenue to push this forward, we need your help to finally resolve this issue of the disparity of serving our country and not being able to vote for

our commander in chief. and i urge you to please vote for this. thank you. >> is there a second in this amendment? >> second. >> the amendment has been read and has been seconded. bach. >> i oppose the amendment. there is a constitutionally protected mechanism by which people in the territories can achieve the right to vote for president and representatives and congress both at the senate and the house, and that is become states of the united states. it is a privilege only of states of the united states to be represented in a congress and except for the exception the district of columbia that has special status but is not a state, they -- they are entitled to vote under the constitutional amendment for president only states have that authority. we should not be deluding the

exceptional position that states have in our union by extending representation to people that does not live in duly instituted state for the united states. is there further discussion? >> yes lady is recognized to close on the amendment. >> yes, i would like to say that the -- it's an extraordinarily constitutional battle to try to become a state. this could be done by a simple amendment to allow the territories to finally vote. lylet me tell you that it is going to be discussed in the other platform and i can tell you that in the territory the reason we don't have more republican representation and more republican voters is because they feel that we do not

care about this issue. if we are in the forefront of this issue we have the ability as puerto rico has finally achieved a governor and legislature that is now republican in all the territories to make a statement and pick up a tremendous amount of voters because these areas are basically very conservative, catholic areas. if we keep on letting this go from one platform to the next platform on and on because the issue will not die, it will be brought up again and again, we don't get in the froar front of this and stand for what the republicans really believe in, then i'm afraid that the territories will feel that we have turned our back on them again. >> you were seeking recognition. >> simply madam chair you call the question. >> question has been called. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> question has been called on

gr7 page 10, line 22 presented to you. language is on the screen. all of those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? no. >> the amendment is not adopted. same section line 26, mr. smatter from american samoa you are recognized for sixty seconds on the amendment for gr23. does everyone have gr23? >> thank you. from american samoa. we would like to reinsert the platform had before it went to sub kyi. i changing the original language to "they" territories have the flex ability to determine the minimum wage has seriously restricted progress in the private sector as some of you know, the minimum wage issue

when it came up a couple of years ago calls for one of the canneries to close. we are in the process of getting somebody to move back in to that facility. if it goes up without some serious consideration, we may lose our other cannery. if that happens, we have to private sector jobs. which then entails the next's senate . >> okay mr. smart has presented his amendment to you. the language is being put on the screen. is there a second to his amendment? >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded. mr. colleague, you are recognized. >> thank you madam chair. the language the delegate was referred to was removed because we could not achieve consensus during the subcommittee process. subsequent to that in the discussion with the delegates from the other territory. it is agreeable language and as such they would have no problem with the inclusion.

>> okay. >> yes. thank you very much, congress. as i was the one that asked for the language to be removed because the minimum wage issue is something that bothered me. when delegate smart con convince me of the terrible -- that existed and this is specific to the pacific territories, i almost didn't get that out. i now in favor entirely in favor of their circumstances. >> okay. [inaudible conversations] the question has been called. there is a second. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment is before you. gr23, mr. smart's amendment, it deals with page 10, line 26, the language is on the screen. it follows the word "stability" you see the insertion. it's highlighted. all in favor say aye.

>> aye. >> all opposed? >> the ayes have. the amendment is adopted. you are recognized for gr9a page 10 line 27. >> thank you very much. i adjustmented to mention, so you have done a fantastic job. i think you should continue this to the conclusion and let the gentleman watch. [laughter] [applause] [laughter] [applause] it's amazing how you move things along. [laughter] i ask my colleagues here other delegates to understand in the united states virgin islands we must pay custom duties on god that are brought from the u.s. mainland. we are the only u.s. territory with the circumstances exists it is driving the price of goods

and certainly medicine and food. it is absolutely out of the question. and the middle class and the poor suffer the most. i've asked for the inclusion of this language that all unreasonably economic impediments must be removed including "unreasonable u.s. custom practices." i i would like to inserted" u.s. or custom. so that is clear. that is glebal. >> i thank the gentleman. the time is expired. is there a second. >> the amendment hash read, it has been seconded. the language is highlighted and on the screen in front of you. is there discussion? [inaudible conversations] question has been called. >> ask for one modification on the screen. >> the question has been called. it is not debatable. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. division.

all in favor of calling the question. show your hands. all opposed? [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]. >> point of order, madam chair. -- i suggested that the united states or u.s. be placed in front of customs to make it clear. it's a noncontroversial. >> we have called the question, and so now we're on the amendment. are we allowed to do the insertion? or do we need to retract? but i would seek unanimous consent to do the insertion. >> yes. >> consent is granted. is there any opposition? the action will take place, "u.s." will be inserted. is the language correct on the screen? >> yes, it is. united states or u.s. custom.

that's perfect. >> okay the language is presented on the screen. highlighted. gr9a. page 10, line 27. ununreasonable -- removed including unreasonable u.s. custom practices. all in favor of this addition as the amendment has been presented say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> the amendment is adopted. at this time, is there any further discussion or amendment to american territories? no further discussion or amendment. the record will reflect at 2:40 the section american territories has been closed. at this time, we will move back through -- we're going back to page 7.

[inaudible conversations] the gentlelady from maryland, you are recognized on the amendment. >> thank you. i an amended version of that. can you come back to me? it's probably on the way for distribution. >> it's on the screen. i'm sorry. >> okay. >> 25a. >> yes. we will highlight that. >> i didn't keep have a copy of it. i have to wait to see it come up there, i'm sorry. it would be line 7, page 7, line 1 after "encourage more law breaking "period. >> okay. you are recognized for the inserted language for explanation. >> okay. if i can get a copy of the language from somebody.

that would be helpful. [inaudible conversations] thank you. thank you very much. this amendment will -- as the body previously about the mandatory use of the eer verify program and i strongly supported making sure that the government would check on the lawful presence of those people here who are getting any type of state or federal entitlements, this amendment adds that language. "we support the mandatory use of the somatic alien for entitlement to save program and internet base system that verifies the lawful presence of the applicants prior to the granting of any state or federal government entitlements. i think i had the irs in there. do you see the irs in the version i gave you?

i don't know if any of you recall the report out of indianapolis, but there was a case where the irs sends checks of tenses of thousands of people who filed flaunt tax returns. i don't see the isr language up there. >> it is not in your amendment as was written and handed in. i have a copy of it in front of me. >> okay. >> what the amendment is now on the screen in front of you as written and submitted. >> if you would like to add a word -- please. >> prior to the granting of any state or federal government entitlement or irs refunds, please. after "entitlements." thank you. so be moved, please. >> the gentle lazy has presented

her amendment. is there a second? the amendment has been seconded. is there discussion? mr. kobach. >> i worked with the jentd gentlelady from marylanded. it is good language. some states are breaking federal law and the system has been developmented since the law went into place. it's a good reminder to the states we want you to be verifying the benefits and the federal government. the irs has been getting earned income tax credits to those illegal any the country. >> is there any opposition to the amendment? anyone speak in opposition? is there further discussion? >> i'd like to call the question. >> called for the question. seconded. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called. we are now on the amendment as

presented. the language is on the screen in front of you. it would come at the end of line 1, after the word "law breaking." all in favor of this amendment gr25a, please say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment has been adopted. okay mr. timpton on 28, page 7, line 23. you are now -- does everyone have . >> no. madam chair. i'm going to withdrawal to that due to the difficulty of the language. >> you're going withdraw that. okay. 28 has been withdrawn. okay. there are no further amendments to immigration in the rule of law. i have no further amendments.

is there further discussion or amendment? seeing none at 2:45, we have now approved the section. we go to page 9, district of columbia mr. perkins, you're recognized for cleanup language. >> thank you, madam chair. i think we have language that clarifies. this is how it would read page 9, line 19 insert "also to ensure protection of the fundament really a right to keep and bear arms we call on the governing authority should be on the district of columbia to pass laws consistent with the supreme court decision and the heller and mcdonalds causes which upheld the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. >> do we have the language on the screen? >> okay. they are adding it right now. as they add the language, the

amendment was previously seconded. we set it aside. is there further discussion? [inaudible] let's wait. if i can ask you to please hold, until we get the language so that everyone can see it and read it. mr. perkins,ly yield to you to reread it now that it is on the screen and highlighted. >> also to ensure protection to call on the city council to pass laws consistent with the supreme court decision in the heller and mcdonalds cases. which upheld the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. >> further discussion? the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. from connecticut. i agree with the clarification of the heller-mcdonald case. my only concern would be going

forward before the body meets again. there is another case that renders heller and mcdonald not the most updated case. how would we -- people be able to interpret that? >> we -- the case that is in the record now what we have before us would be the heller and mcdonalds cases. jentd l lady from delaware. >> yes respond together question. the previous question that you also responded to. the heller and health care doubled cases are the cases that are known throughout the community interest in things as the cases of the time? >> gentleman from d.c.? >> i'd like to state for the report that the d.c. delegation sports it and would like to move to question. >> one more point. >> question has been called. all in favor of calling the

question. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. the question has been called. we are on the amendment as amended. i governor, i recognize you. >> the written amendment actually says technical. that's no problem. for the propointed? >> okay. >> just to clarify. okay. >> the clarification has been made. the clarification is agreed to by the sponsor. we're in the posture of calling for the vote on the amendment as amended and presented. we are now in mr. perkins' amendment gr15 as amended and presented on the screen in front of you. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment is agreed to and is added. i have no -- one more for d.c.

okay. gr26. do you all have gr26? everybody's got it? okay. you are recognize for sixty quick seconds. >> thank you. with respect to my amendment, it is page 9 line 20 through 21, historically our republican platform has opposed state hood for the district of columbia and that plain statement is in the subordinate clause beginning at line 20; however, the remaining additions to that statement contain two propositions. one is, there quote, quote constructive alternative means to presentation that should be considered. i have no idea what is in my

mind there. if there are specific proposals, we should have them rather than endorse them in such a vague way that district of columbia does have a non-voting member of the u.s. house of representatives. so it has a representativation. and secondly calling for tax federal tax exemption for long-term residence. i'm a long-term residence of indiana. i'd like to have federal tax exemption. we're calling for some sort of tax break because people have lived awhile in d.c. you know, my view is that our party has been clear on the proposition and we have opposed state hood, the district already has representatives that is a republican party by and for the federal government. they have plenty of representation in congress. we could not dilute that by the

vague statements of the intent. >> the gentleman's amendment has been read, explained, seconded, and the language is on the screen in front of you. you will see that it is transacting on page 9, line 20, we strike the word "while" then you have "we oppose state hood for the district." then the balance of that phrasing has been struck. that is the amendment as presented. is -- is there any discussion on the amendment? >> in less being more than. i call the question. >> question has been called. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. all opposed? question has been called. we are now on the amendment as presented. all in favor of the amendment

say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment is agreed to and is added. i have no further amendments to the d.c. section. is there any further amendment or discussion? seeing none, the record will reflect at 2:53 we have closed this section. mr. chairman, that completes this section, and call on mr. for any closing comments on the section. >> madam chair, i would like to thank you for the expert way which you handledded the proceedings today. i would like to take a vow on behalf of the subcommittee for being the briefest of all the sections that we're . >> woo hoo! [applause] >> i here by call for the adoption of the government reform section of our resolutions committee. >> all if favor of the adopting

the section? >> aye. >> all? favor. mr. chairman, we have completed this. i'm a firm believer there have 3:00 chocolate attack every day. i think it's good for the soul. so i will yield back to you and hope you give us a break. [applause] >> we just did. [applause] [inaudible conversations] all right ten minutes. enjoy the chocolate! [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

and we continue bringing you live coverage as the republican national committee platform committee continues delegate meeting drafting the policy provisions for next week. they are taking a short break for ten minutes or so. we will continue with the live coverage when that happens. we have been watching your tweet at hashtag c-span rng. g.o.p. em place reform. what about same-sex unions. pass things ndaa and thing like patriot act. also on government reform we seek to have the smallest central government possible and return power to the states and local if i. and it's a shame but not surprise that libertarians don't have much of a voice in the republican platform. your tweets welcome at hashtag

c-span rng. we resume the coverage when they resume in tampa. in the meantime, republicans continue with their convention preparations this week. tests under way on the republican convention floor them there in tampa, florida. the floor forum that is normally used for ice hockey is the location where the convention is takes place. new jersey governor will be the keynote speaker. florida senator marco ruin bow will introduce mitt romney and other speaker louisiana governor, virginia governor, and ohio senator rob portman. it officially gets underway on august 27th. preparations continue president obama is out on the road today. he left earlier for a two-day campaign swing true ohio and nevada. we'll have coverage in the stop inform reno as he meets people

at the community college there. the coverage starts at 8 p.m. eastern. it will be on c-span. >> i know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities, and i do. because some issues just aren't all that simple. seeing there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq doesn't make it so so. saying we can fight a war doesn't make it so. and proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so. [applause] >> three days after september the 11th. i stood where americans died in the ruins of the begin towers. workers in hard hats were shouting to me, whatever it takes. a fellow grabbed me by the arm and 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 in defending america whatever it takes! [applause] >> c-span aired every minute of every major party convention since 1984 and count down to the conventions continue with the week to go until the live gavel to gavel coverage of the republican and democratic national convention live on c-span, c-span radio and streamed online. all started next monday with the g.o.p. convention and the new jersey governor keynote address. and the 2008 presidential nominee john mccain and florida governor jeb bush. it includes stan an -- first lady michelle obama and former president bill clinton. we will resume the live coverage of republican national committee platform committee meet. we go back to discussions on

home ownership and mortgage deductions. >> madam chair, kentucky. on behalf of the 70 million homeowners in the united states, i submit this revised form. we have supported the mortgage interest deduction in some fashion for many years, and because of the affordable house is in the national interest, any simplifying tax system should continue to encourage home ownership. recognizing the tremendous social value that the home mortgage interest deduction has -- has had for decades. over twenty 25 percent% of our constituents would stop filing a long form of income tax even though we pass the charitable

deduction amendment. they would not itemize if we did not support in some form the mortgage interest deduction. we have taken poll after polling with 80% of those voters potential voters said they would not support a candidate that does not support the mortgage interest deduction. .. >> so i move that we move on

from this discussion. >> i thank the gentleman. ms. newland is recognized for 60 seconds. >> april newland, virgin islands. i know we had this discussion yesterday. um, i've gotten numerous e-mails from the national association of realtors representing 1.3 million realtors across the country and, of course, representing homeowners. two-thirds of the nation have been or are currently homeowners in the united states. this issue speaks volumes about how the republican party feels about home ownership. we are in crisis in many areas with foreclosures and with people losing their homes. we are trying to retain home ownership and encourage home ownership across the united states. if we do not include this in our platform -- and it is included in the other side's platform -- i think that that will be sending a message loud and clear

to the home ownership community that we don't care enough about this issue to include it in our platform. i urge you to, please, carefully consider this amendment. it is wide and broad. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> and i encourage you to, please, vote positively. >> from maryland, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman, kathy szeliga from maryland, we had a measure in the maryland general assembly that would have removed the mortgage deduction for people who makeover $150,000 a year, and i can tell you the fiscal note was incredible. this will have a direct impact on middle class families if this were to happen. god forbid, nationwide. but in committee we did not have the beginning of this sentence, "we strongly support tax

reform," which we do. if in the event we do not achieve it, we must preserve the more gang interest deduction on behalf of middle class americans. >> jepped llady yields back. >> [inaudible] >> the question has been called for. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> question has been called for. we are now on ms. wiseman's amendment as presented. page 5 between line 30 and 31, the language is on the screen in front of you. we strongly support tax reform. in the event we do not achieve this, we must preserve the mortgage interest deduction. at this time i will call for the vote on ms. wiseman's amendment. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it, the amendment is accepted. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> oh, yes. you may have it. okay. are there any other amendments? >> we have none. >> no other amendments? okay. at this point in time financial services, no more too big to fail, we will show that at 1:43 this section is closed. all right. we will move to the judiciary. we are beginning on line 31 of page 5. i have one amendment to this -- i have two amendments to this sectionment and -- section. and at this time i will recognize mr. barton of texas for gr4. mr. barton. >> in this section i recommend the removal of the phrase "in e tbreej juice cases" there are six clauses addressing that

impeachment. it is itself a difficult process. i work very regularly with members of the u.s. house in impeep -- impeachment. one was a federal judge who was guilty of federal felonies, it was tough to get an impeachment on him. we don't need the word "egregious," the constitution sets the bar. >> the amendment has been read and seconded. it is now open for discussion. >> [inaudible] >> we are calling for the question. at this point all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called for. we are now on mr. barton's amendment. page 5, line 35, removing the word "egregious." all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment has been adopted.

we now move to page 6, line 5. mr. barton, you are recognized on your amendment. >> in this clause on line 5, recommend a couple changes. one is removal of the word "sovereign." there's 18 areas where they're not sovereign, so sovereign is an incomplete word constitutionally, but the next clause they're attempting to assist the federal goth. they're actually being sued for tenth amendment activities. in texas we have 21 lawsuits, the attorney general from georgia mentioned seven, so i'd recommend that we delete the clause that says "assisting the gal -- federal government." >> okay, the language is in front of you on the screen. so what we will do with this is to remove "sovereign." that word will be struck -- >> madam chairman? >> oh, we need a second. >> second. >> all right. >> madam chairman, could i inquire?

>> yes, senator talent. >> what amendment number is this? if you said it, i didn't hear it. >> gr3. >> okay, thank you. >> it is on page 6, line 5. striking the word "sovereign." and then strike also "that are attempting to assist the federal government by." and the new language will read, "stop suing states for exercising those powers reserved to the states." am i correct, mr. barton? >> >> that is correct, madam chairman. >> okay. it's been read, it's been seconded, it is open for discussion. >> [inaudible] >> call for the question? >> second. >> question has been called for, the question has been seconded. it's not debatable. all right. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it. mr. barton's amendment, gr3, on

page 6, line 5. the language is before you. all in favor of this amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? mr. barton's amendment is adopted. that is all the amendments that i have for the section on the judiciary. >> madam chairman, could i get clarification? mr. kerby, you're saying line 6 -- i mean, page 6, line 8? >> yes, sir. um, what i want to do i couldn't find a good place to put this, so between judiciary and u.s. postal system i'd like to put a segment called congress. and i have a couple of amendments, and i'd actually like to do number 22 first. >> okay, mr. kerby, let me be sure i'm with you on this.

so you are not adding, seeking to add this to the judiciary section. >> that is correct. it would be a new section in between judiciary and u.s. postal. >> be all right. okay, so before i recognize you on your amendment, what we would need to do then since we have no further amendments to the judiciary section, what we would need to do is close that section. are there any other amendments or comments? there are not, so the record will reflect that at 1:48 we have now closed the judiciary section. at this time, mr. kerby, i recognize you for the addition of a new section in the form of an amendment. gentleman's recognized. >> thank you. um, so this would be entitled congress, and the amendment is republicans will lead the way in government reform by seeking to adopt a system where any new legislation will require adequate time before any vote

can be taken to insure that there is time to read and, read and debate new bills. and we can take out that second adequate, because that's bad english. >> okay. the gentleman's amendment has been seconded. >> um -- >> okay, mr. kerby, hold on just a second. >> uh-huh. >> so the new section would be -- do we have -- and we've got it -- oh, it's coming on to the screen now. republicans will lead the way in government reform by seeking to adopt a system where any new legislation will require adequate time before any vote can be taken to insure that there is time to read and debate new bills. >> yes. so, um, yeah, i'm sorry for

the -- so adequate time before any vote, you can take out the "to read" on the third line. there you go. before any vote can be taken to insure that there is time to read and debate new bills. that's correct. >> okay. reviewing the language, do we have the language correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> okay. is there any discussion on the gentleman's language? the gentleman from the virgin islands is recognized, and i apologize that i called the question before -- >> oh, that's all right. >> you had your light on. >> i'll get even with you. [laughter] thank you, congresswoman blackburn. i just wanted to say that the rules of congress are created by congress. and for us to suggest reforming congress without congress passing their own rules in which

they conduct the orders of business in the house or the senate would be mostly restricting them into an area that they don't like to be restricted. i would -- the idea is good, but i just don't think it's appropriate in the platform. >> the gentleman is correct, congress does make their rules, and in the house we have a rule of the house that it has to be, the legislation has to be public 72 hours. i recognize my co-chair, senator hoeven, for comment? >> no, that was just what i was going to point out. right now the house has a rule that requires 72 hours posting the bill not on only for the members to read, but for the public as well. there's not a similar rule in the senate, but the house does have a rule. but, obviously, anything has to pass both houses, so de facto that requires 72 hours public notice. >> the gentleman from d.c. is recognized. >> yes, i just wanted to call the question.

>> question has been called. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? question has been called for, and now i will call for the vote on mr. kerby's amendment, gr22. the language is in front of you on the screen. all in favor of mr. kerby's amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> be the amendment fails. -- the amendment fails. and, mr. kerby, i will come to you again. you had a second, gr21. >> that's correct. um, this would also fall under that category of congress, um, and we could take out the "also" since that last one failed. um, we support congress moving to a one-law, one-vote system to

streamline the process and prevent those huge bills with multiple laws include. included. >> the gentleman has read his amendment. is there a second on the amendment? it has been seconded. the language is in front of you on the screen. is there comment or discussion on mr. kerby's bill? >> madam chairman? >> yes, mr. ward. >> i think the rules of congress, i know many state legislatures already have internal rules in place that we can only have one subject matter per bill. what are the rules that you go by in congress? >> we do not have a rule that says only one subject matter per bill. what we seek to do is to limit it and narrow those bills as much as we possibly can because i think in the previous speaker prior to speaker boehner there was, um, great frustration with 2700-page bills and having to pass it to read it to find out what was in it.

[laughter] >> thank you, madam chairman. >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> jay barrows, could we call question, please? >> question can be called, okay. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? >> [inaudible] >> question has been called for. mr. kerby's amendment, gr21, the language highlighted and on the screen in front of you. all in favor of mr. kerby's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the amendment fails. at this time we move to page 6, line 8, the u.s. postal system. we go through line 15. at this time i have no amendments to this section. is there anyone seeking to amend

or discuss this section? we will let the record reflect that at #u -- 1:55 p.m. this section was agreed to and closed for further amendment. moving to line 16, reforming the tsa, through line 22. i have no amendments. i think everybody agrees on reforming the tsa. anyone seeking to amend? at this time the record will reflect that at 1:55 the section was agreed to and closed from further discussion and amendment. now we move to line 23 of page 6, immigration and the rule of law. i am in possession of several amendments for this section.

and i recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. kobach, and i think we have your gr8 as the first amendment that is up. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> okay. i will now recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. kobach. we are on gr8, page 7, line 3. the gentleman is recognized for 60 seconds -- no, okay. wait just a minute. we have the front row down here does not have this amendment. >> it is gr8? government reform, chris kobach, kansas. anybody else not have it? please, keep your hand up. the gentlelady from minnesota in the back over here. >> might i ask for a clarification on the page number and line number? >> page number 7, line number 3. >> i'm sorry.

[inaudible conversations] >> mr. kobach, you're recognized. >> madam chairman, this amendment restores o our platform almost the exact same words we had in the 2008 platform, a call for the national use of the e-verify program. four states have adopted it, arizona, mississippi, south carolina and alabama. the results are truly amazing. the arizona law went into effect on january 1, 2008. over the three-year period from '08-'11, illegal alien population in the united states dropped 1%, in arizona it dropped 36%. most people credit that to the e-verify system which makes it very difficult for people to get illegally get jobs. some return to their home country, but many went to bordering states where it is easy to break federal law and

displace american workers. this amendment reinforces what governor romney has said repeatedly on the campaign trail, that we must have a national e-verify be system. unlike the current president, we in the republican party are serious about jobs, we recognize that if you really want to create a job today, you can remove an illegal alien today. that is the way to open up jobs very quickly for citizen workers and lawfully-admitted alien workers, and i propose this amendment. >> gentleman has spoken on his amendment. is there a second? >> second. >> second. >> the amendment has been read and has been seconded. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for comment. >> thank you, madam chair. kathy sdeliga from maryland. i am a simple general contract freres maryland, a small business, family business, the very backbone of this great nation. we are law-abiding, job creators, and i am opposed to this amendment.

i believe that it is almost insulting to me as a small business owner that we would ask businesses to e-verify their employees before welfare benefits are not e-verified. i encourage the government to mandatory e-verify section eight vouchers and any entitlement program given to people in this country before you come to small businesses and ask us to do the same as a mandatory requirement. if a small business wallets to e-verify, have at it. my friend, jim the plumber, he e-verifies all of his employees. but don't make me do this before you've e-verified entitlements. thank you. >> the gentlelady yields back. does anyone else seek recognition for discussion on the amendment? is -- >> madam chairman? >> yes.

the gentleman from arizona's recognized. >> yes, madam chairwoman, i presented gr24, and i'm in the same situation as our friend from maryland, and with all due respect to mr. kobach, e-verify in business as you've eloquently stated increases the size, scope and reach of government. it's an additional cost to business. it's a hidden tax as we've been presented here -- presented here, and it submits us to bloated government and hinders business success, and it puts the onus of law enforcement squarely on the shoulders of small businessmen. and it's just an additional weight that i don't want to deal with as a businessman. and i presented that in gr24 in opposition to e-verify. thank you. >> thank you. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you. i rise in support of this

amendment. if we're really serious about stopping illegal immigration in this country, we have a simple solution for that, um, and that is to, um, keep -- it's a simple way to keep employers or give employers the tools they need not to hire illegal aliens. >> i thank the gentlelady. the gentleman from mississippi? >> yes, ma'am. um, while we certainly appreciate, we went through this same problem in mississippi two years ago. i mean, it's almost three years now, since august the 1st, since we adopted e-verify. we had the same identical concerns about small businessmen and women. we found that e-verify was able to be utilized in only minutes by the employers, and our experience with it has been that it has not been a cost to small business and not a hindrance to the development of small business and, in fact, has proved successful in our state. >> the gentleman from illinois is recognized.

>> steve kemp from the state of illinois. i just simply have a question to the maker of this amendment, and i think it might have been addressed. but i was just wondering if this program would be a cost to the employer or the cost burden would be by the government. >> mr. kobach? is -- >> i'll answer this question and a couple of the others. the answer to the gentleman from i'll is, no, it's free. each e-verify check is free, it's borne by the federal government. the gentlelady from maryland said welfare benefits should be e-rified first. i would like to inform her they already are, u.s. code already requires federal welfare benefits and state welfare benefits effectively to be verified, and it replaces the i-9 system, so you would take one -- you're already required by the federal government to verify, except the i-9 system is

a joke. e-verify replaces that time-consuming process with a three-second check on a computer. that's why 95% of businesses who use it in the states that use it like it better. >> the gentleman from delaware. >> yes, i'm general counsel to a company that uses e-verify across the board for all of our employees. it actually is a help to us, and it is much faster and certainly much more accurate than the i-9. >> i'm going to the subcommittee co-chair, mr. cawley. >> madam chairman, i believe we've had sufficient discussion on this matter, i'd like to call the question. >> question has been could. all of those in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? question has been called for. we are now on mr. kobach's amendment, gr8. the language is on the screen in front of you. it effects page 7, line 3. all of those in favor of the

gentleman's amendment will vote aye. >> aye. >> all of those opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. >> mr. kempton on gr24, you are now recognized. does everyone have amendment gr24? >> madam chairwoman, in light of the last vote, i'd like to retract my -- >> the amendment has been withdrawn. we now go to gr2. is everyone in possession of gr2? everybody got it? all right. we are now at page 7, line 6. gentleman from texas, mr. barton, you are recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> madam chairman, thank you. i would recommend that we divide

this into a strike and into a second part on the insertion. the first part in talking about human trafficking, comparing that to cattle. as a rancher and as a texan, that is not nearly as demeaning tz it's intended to be, so i recommend we strike that language. [laughter] i would recommend in second place inserting something based on what you've done with all your extensive work in human trafficking, and a pastor friend from minnesota, something like this is a modern form of slavery or something that is actually demeaning. so i would recommend striking the cat and then possibly inserting something else that is demeaning. >> the gentleman has spoken on his amendment, and we are seeking a second. >> second. >> second. >> there is a second on the amendment. amendment has now been read and has been seconded. mr. dee? >> thank you. brad dee from utah. i appreciate the maker of the motion working with me on this one and dividing this particular motion. i applaud the efforts of what

they're trying to do. i think a period after or traffic in human beings. i agree we should remove the reference to call. i also -- to cattle. i also think we should make no reference to slavery at this particular time. when people start comparing -- >> and back live now to the republican national convention platform committee meetings. this is expected to be the last subcommittee report dealing with health care, education and crime. and once they finish with this committee, committee members will vote on the entire draft. session's about 90 minutes. >> we have one last section on healthy families, on education and on crime. and i'm going to turn it over to congresswoman blackburn for the last section. congresswoman? [applause] [laughter] >> all right! you got your chocolate, and now we're ready to rock and roll. and get through this last section and deliver to the

american people the best gop platform they have ever gotten ever. thanks! [cheers and applause] all right. let's go to the section on healthy families, great schools, safe neighborhoods. i just love talking about health and being healthy. and thinking about a healthy america with a healthy economy, with healthy people. i also am so pleased that in this section we talk about repealing obamacare and making certain that we reform health care. you know, one of the things we have heard all across the country is that the american people want us to just start over with a fresh slate. they want to see more choice and options, they want to see lower costs, they want to simplify the system. they want to make certain that we restore medicare, and they want to make certain that we

focus on health care tax free. and we've done some great work in this section. i've just really been pleased with the focus on health care, healthy families, safe neighborhoods, creating that environment where we want to grow up. we were ably led in this committee by general o wednesday out of finish owens out of georgia, ms. mclarty and mr. luna out of idaho. and at this time i'm going to reck these mr. luna to -- recognize mr. luna to give us a brief summary of the committee's work. mr. luna, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i think this is one example of truly saving the best for last because i think our work is stellar. i want to thank our co-chairs, sam owens who is the attorney general of georgia and carolyn

mclarty from oklahoma. also the members of our committee for their hard work and thoughtful work in preparing this document. we had over 50 amendments. we had passionate, spirited debate. but in the end we agreed unanimously to forward this document you now have before you. so let me briefly summarize our work. .. choice is the most powerful factor in health care reform.

we boldly state that obamacare was never about health care from the start. it was about power. the expansion of government control over one sixth of our economy and so we embraced mitt romney's commit on the first day in office he will use the legitimate authority under the law to halt the progress and sign the repeal. then the american people through the representatives can advance affordable and responsible health care reform that truly meets the needs and concerns of parents and providers. we believe a world class education is essential to pursuing and obtaining the american dream. we state clearly that parents parents are primarily responsible for the education of their children and parents are better in determining the educational needs of the children. without choice in education we will never have accountability in education, we therefore support home schooling, charter

schools, virtual schools, career and technical ed programs, vouchers and we demirror the efforts by congressional democrats and president obama to kill the successful dc opportunity scholarship for disadvantaged students in order to placate the leaders of the teachers union. we believe a child's ability to achieve in school must be based on his or her god given talent and motivation. not the zip code and in the document we also support the innovative education reform occurring across the country in many states. and we support the efforts around the country to expand the use of technology to better teach and engage 21st century learners and ensure all have children have equal access and opportunity.

we applaud the great teachers and believe they are no the the problem they are the solution. studies have shown once a child enters a school, the most important factor in the academic success is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. it's not how much you spend or the number of students in the classroom. those are important, but by far the most important factor is the quality of the teachers in the classroom. therefore we believe that every child must have a highly effect i have teacher every year in every classroom and so we call on removing the barriers to financial rewarding our great teachers through merit pay or pay for performance, and we call on the removal of barriers to dealing with ineffective teachers through tenure reform and ark -- in the world we live today we recognition -- postsecondary education and federal aid is only unsustainable trajectory and that student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt and considering the fact that 50% of

college graduates recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed we call on policy to advance the transparency needed to address the challenges. last but not least we state as americans we will never be fully free to pursue the american dream without first being free from fear and intimidation from the effects of crimed in the neighborhoods. this this document, we address the challenges and the solutions to obtaining safe neighborhoods build upon the principle of strong families and communities supported by excellent law enforcement. i respectfully submit our report and ask for the full support of the body. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman for the summation. it is any understanding that you are speaking for the three of you checkively in this the smears statement. i thank each of the co-chairs for their contribution to the

kyi the summary state. the section healthy families is open for amendment. we are on page 1, line 1 through line 8. the initial statement, i have one amendment to this section. it is health number 12. health number 12. it is by mr. barton of texas. it is on page 1, line 4. is everyone holding that amendment? mr. barton, you are recognize for sixty seconds on the amendment. >> i commend the committee for an excellent job in particularly in recognizing individualism recognizing the family, and the open statement i really like what they said about the foundation of the society, the family, and the first level of self-government. i'm unclear about what it means for the family of school and democracy every family i know doesn't matter how many kids are in the family or how they vote. the parents always win. i'm not sure what the school democracy means in the family.

[laughter] [applause] >> second! >> the motion has been heard and it has been seconded. and it is open for discussion. is there any discussion on the amendment? >> i'd like to take this opportunity to state this country is a republican form of government, not a democracy and i would like to go ahead and affirm mr. barton's comments and say we should be a school of republicanism. >> thank you for the comments. i would remind everyone when you are recognized, please identify yourself. by name and state when you begin to speak. the language in mr. barton's amendment is reflected on the screen it is striking the word "school of democracy" is there any further discussion? gentleman from massachusetts is

recognized. >> [inaudible] >> question is called. all in favor? >> aye. >> we are now on the amendment. the amendment from mr. barton page 1, line 4. is there any further discussion? all right. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment is disagreed -- agreed to. we now move to health amendment number 11. well no with, first of all we are going to do this. is there any further discussion or amendment to the section? no further discussion or amendment to the section. the record will reflect at 3:37 the opening paragraph healthy families great schools, safe

neighborhood has been closed. we move to lines 9 through 21. i have two amendments for this. mr. barton has the first amendment to the section, it is health amendment number 11. does everyone have health amendment number 11? it is page 1, line 13 and 14. mr. barton, you are recognized for. >> i need to apologize but a i don't know the scope or jurisdiction of the editors. but in the clues talking about the benefits of children from intact families and marriages. we use the same phrase three times. i would loo tee delee two of these. the phrase would lead, "they are less likely to use drugs and alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside marriage." >> the amendment for cleaning up that language has been

submitted, and you have heard it. is there a second to the amendment? >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded. it is highlighted on your screen. is there any discussion? question has been called. all of those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> we are on on the amendment as presented. mr. barton's health amendment number 11 all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> the amendment is now adopted. we move to mr. kerby. it is health amendment number 8. does everyone have health amendment number 7. there mr. kerby for nevada from you are recognized for page 1, line 20, the section on marriage. mr. kerby for sixty seconds. >> thank you, madam chair. path kerby from nevada. i really like -- i commend the -- everyone for the great

rendition of how much we appreciate the family and marriage, but continuing the discussion that i believe that republicans should promote that everyone is treated equally under the law, i would like to strike the ?ts "and promote through laws governing marriage." >> okay the eamght i have. okay. yes. there is a difference in the language reflected in your written amendment as opposed to the language. >> i just -- there was add a comma, stand form, coma, and encourage a period and promote through marriage laws. >> as re?reblghted on the screen, your amendment is correct. >> i would take out the "and" you don't have to. "stand for, coma, and

encourage." that's correct. >> there is a grat mat call error in there. you adopt need the commas around and. >> correct. >> that is okay. is there a second to mr. kerby's amendment? >> second. >> the amendment has been read and seconded. the language is in front of you on the screen. is there discussion on the amendment, mr. perkins, you are recognized? >> thank you, madam chair. mr. perkins from louisiana. the language specifically relating to "through the law" is a reference through the federal defense of marriage act the republican leadership is defending in an ab sense of a president that will defend the law. the reason the is we have thirty states that have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage in the own states as the union of a man and woman, without doma the senate constitutional amendment which is most of the states in here have would fall.

>> thank you. >> i am speaking in opposition to the amendment. >> in opposition to the amendment. you are recognized. >> madam chair, thank you. i wasn't in the subcommittee. i am opposed to this amendment because laws governing marriage also involve no fault divorce, we have seen nationally the crisis we're facing with no-fault divorce leaving mothers and children destitute. and i read this as also including we need to encourage and promote laws governing marriage to encompass divorce laws. i ride in open -- rise in opposition to the men. >> thank you. >> i too oppose the amendment. there are a ton of laws that the governor marriages both the religious constitution and the

civil law constitution, and if we stand for the proposal of marriage one man and women with have to reflect the law governing marriage. it would be meaningless we stand for in the abstract but don't want to put it in the law. >> is there further questions? question has been called. the question -- health amendment number 8, page 1, line 20. the language of delusion. all of those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed will say no. >> no. the amendment is not agreed to. we have no other amendments to that section. the section on marriage, lines 9 through 21, the record will reflect that we have closed that section for consideration at 4:33 p.m. we now move to family beyond

poverty. that is online 22, of page 1. is there any amendments to this section? okay. i don't have those. i am holding any amendments to the section.

i three amendments to this srks. page 3, line 5. the decision of obamacare. the first amendment is page 3, line 8. mr. kennedy from nevada, you are recognized for sixty seconds on your amendment. thank you, madam chair. i just simply want to add after the phrase over one sixth of the economy, actually, i should start from the beginning. let me remind everyone it's health nine. that's the amendment we're on. >> the start it was about power. the expansion of government

control over one sixth of our economy and the further erosion of our constitution by requiring that all u.s. citizens purchase health insurance. that is the edition i want to that line. to add the phrase "end further erosion of the constitution by requiring that all u.s. citizens purchase health insurance." >> mrs. kennedy, the language is on the screen.is presented. is there a second? >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded. is there discussion on the amendment? mr. bach? >> thank you. i don't think is grammatically correct. i think if we added off the and, resulted in and so read and resulted in further erosion. i think it would be grammatically correct.

so i'd like to make that secondary amendment. >> okay, mr. bach. okay ms. kennedy do you consider? [inaudible] >> okay. >> understand when you pull the microphone, the wires grab the base, please. >> so the suggested language which is which mrs. kennedy accepts is a friendly amendment. would be "and resulted from a further erosion of our constitution by requiring that all u.s. citizens purchase health insurance." >> yes, that is correct. >> okay. >> okay. so technical point? we won that issue.

and the supreme court on the commerce clause and i wonder if it ought to say a threat to our constitution rather than a further erosion because the attorneys general actually won on that point and the commerce clause can't be used for that issue and as people look at it further erosion, gives the impression we lost on it. and we won on it. on that issue. so it's technical. [inaudible] he is of course, correct that one of the alternate grounds on striking the mandate we won on but we lost on the other. so the effect of the decision is that u.s. citizens are required to purchase health insurance. so i think this is an accurate

reflection of the decision of the court. which was to uphold that provision that we believe is a further erosion of our constitution. i agree with the gentleman's argument. >> which gentleman? [laughter] >> the last one. >> you're agreeing with and not accepting the technical correction that is coming from general -- that was my understanding also of the supreme court decision. i have had many discussions about people obamacare. particularly friends who are democrats. >> all right. okay. mr. barton? >> mr. barton, i'm sorry. >> it's a friendly motion ordered do we need to take care of the other motion? >> is the secondary in order now in. >> yes. >> i would suggest activeactive

pch it's no an erosion of. it's an attack on the constitution. >> i would agree to that terminology as well. [inaudible] and now rein the posture of resulted in an attack on the our constitution. so we actually have -- let's see mr. apartmenttarian we would need to do it as an amendment which would be and resulted in an attack on the constitution by requiring that all u.s. citizens purchase health insurance. that would be the elimination of your originaloriginnal mission of a "further erosion of our constitution." >> yes, madam chair.

>> okay. let's go to the second degree amendment. the language is offered by mr. barton. is there a second to his language? >> second. >> okay. all in favor of accepting mr. barton's lang wog to amendment mrs. kennedy's amendment? say aye. >> aye. all opposed? we are now in the posture of the amended amendment. is there further comment on the amended amendment. >> miami madam chair? >> david from new hampshire. i just i'm not troubled by the idea of concept of the amendment. i'm concerned is it accurate to say that it requires all citizens to purchase health insurance as is than an accurate statement? i guess somebody could clarify that for me? >> general?

>> it doesn't require all citizens. it requires the vast margety of citizens. there's a whole set of folks based open, income level that are specifically excluded where the governor give it is a new entitlement. so -- i didn't word my first commented well. it's not all citizens. >> miami chair? >> okay. madam chair. >> nichole? >> from montana. encourage people to please accept the word, the amendment, the amendment to the amendment, i understand this is a grassroots document. i appreciate legally. but sometimes i think we just have to standby what the american people are telling us we don't want to be forced into health care, and eventually the way it's designed it will force everybody into it. please stand for this. we can pick it to death on legal points.

>> mrs. kennedy, you're recognized on the amendment. >> yes, thank you. i understand all people will not be able to afford to be required to purchase health insurance. but there's circumstance could change. people economic change throughout the life. if that is the case, at some point most people in the country who are u.s. citizens will be required to purchase health insurance. and so i would like to let my wording stand as it is. >> [inaudible] i would suggest get the wording right. the real -- what happened here was the health care wasn't attacked on the constitution. it went to the supreme court. the attack was successful. it resulted in an erosion of our rights, and it allowed government to require that all citizens purchase even though the government hand required it could under the taxing power require that citizens purchase. i think there's a way to say this that's accurate and does exactly what she likes. i think you need to take five minutes and somebody work with

her to get the language correct. >> mrs. joss lynn. >> from alaska. i thought if we just took out the word "all" i think we can all agree we don't want any u.s. citizens to be forced to buy health insurance. if we take out the word "all." it's accurate and makes a profound statement. >> would you accept that amendment? >> the effort to move along at this time, i would. >> we would be on the amendment an amendment to the amendment as presented by which would be trikstriking the word "all." all in favor the amendment to trike the word "all" say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the word walk struck. the language is on the screen in front of you. mr. barry. you are recognized. >> [inaudible] the suggestion to the question that . >> question has been called on mrs. kennedy's amended

amendment. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called. we are now on health amendment number nine. mrs. kennedy of nevada page 3, line 8. all in favor say aye. >> aye. it. >> lose? >> the amendment has been adopted. we now move to health 18. mr. earneddersonerson north dakota. you are anemic recognized. >> okay. thank you madam chair. i agree that we need to get rid of obamacare on page 3, line 18. health care we read "american people, comma, i would like to strike "their roapt and add the phase "three the free market" and i want to do that because the people in my district they

want to let the free market work, and as we know the free market is the best system we have going forward. >> okay. i thank the gentleman. is there a second to his amendment? the amendment has been read and secked. we are now on the discussion. health 18, page 3, line 18. after the word "through" you would strike "their representatives" you would insert "free market" the language is highlighted an the screen in front of you. is there discussion on the amendment? yes, you're recognized. >> thank you. i back up. wisconsin. i'd like to back up that the amendment. what i hear in my area is they want the free market to governor the health care. this is a good move and i courage the body to pass the

amendment. >> thank you. from oklahoma. i believe this sentence was referring to legislative reform, and that's why we referred to the representatives there. >> further discussion? seeing no further discussion. is there a call for the question? so move. all those in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the question han called. we are now on mr. earnedson's amendment. health 18, page 3, line 18. all in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> let's call for a division. all those in favor raise your hands, please. hands high, please. we need to see them.

all of those opposed? >> hands high, please.

the amendment is agreed to. 44 aye. 40 nay. the amendment is adopted. ..

>> ms. langenstein, you are recognized for your amendment for 60 seconds. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. cherie land langenstein from illinois. i did not offer this language in chief, i'd originally planned on offering it in another section of our platform but ultimately reconsidered and decided that it's better here. ladies and gentlemen, i am the mother of six daughters. i am sick and tired of being told that because i am an unapologetic woman in favor of pro-life that i am somehow excluded from being pro-woman. our republican party is the pro-woman party because we are pro-life. my amendment asserts our pro-woman stance as matter of policy, and i encourage you to support it. thank you. >> is there a second to the gentlelady's amendment? >> second. >> second. >> it has been seconded. is there discussion? ms.-- [inaudible] >> madam chairman, i support

this amendment. we need to recognize there are studies that abortion endangers the health and wellbeing of women so i, therefore, support this amendment. >> mr. boarton? >> -- barton? >> a report was just released from five separate decades, all of which documented harm to women through abortions. results have been the same in five decades, so i think there's plenty of substantial evidence for this statement. >> the language is on the screen in front of you. is there further discussion? >> [inaudible] >> question has been called. there's a second to the call of the question. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> there's agreement to call the question. we are on the gentlelady's amendment, page 3, line 19. the language is on the screen in front of you. all of those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to.

i have no further amendments to the obamacare section. ms. sandstrom? >> madam chair, thank you. i'm heather sandstrom from arizona, and i just wanted to thank so much, i served on this subchief, all those who have helped to craft it and all those -- you -- who have helped, also, to have very powerful and strong language in repealing obamacare. three years ago i went paralyzed on the left side of my face, and went in for an mri and a cat scan immediately, and within an hour they had diagnosed me with a meth -- metastatic brain tumor, and they wondered if it had spread from there. anyway, i had surgery within 24 hours of being diagnosed, and i know it was because of the great quality health care that we have here in the united states that it preserved my life.

[applause] >> we thank the gentlelady for those comments. and i think we can let the record reflect that at 4:03 p.m. or 4:04 it is telling me now that we agreed that we want to repeal and replace obamacare. [applause] okay. we now move to line 20 of page 3, building a health care system of higher quality and lower cost. i have no amendments to this section. it goes through line 14 of page 4. is there any amendment to this section? the record will reflect that at 4:04 p.m. we closed this section for consideration. we now move to insuring consumer choice in health care, line 15 through 28.

page 4. line 15 through 28 of page 4. i have no amendment to this section. there are no amendments to this section. the record will reflect that at 4:05 we considered and closed this section. we move to line 29, federal health care research and development. line 29 of page 4 through the end of the page, line 38. i have three amendments to this section. mr. cochran from vermont, you are recognized for health amendment number 20. does everyone have health amendment 20? language is on the screen. you are recognized, mr. cochran. >> madam chair, rick cochran from vermont. i've spent 30 years in health care in and around delivery systems on our board of cooperators for our local

hospital. i think one of the things obamacare does is it really undercuts development looking at better and more cost effective, high-quality delivery systems. i think that's one of the main changes. i applaud the committee on what they've done in terms of supporting some federal investment in other aspects of research, but my recommendation is that we also begin that statement by supporting investment into the delivery systems creating other solutions, innovative means to provide greater, more cost effective access to high-quality health care and then continue by saying "we also." thank you so much. >> second. >> the amendment has been read and has been seconded. the language is being put on your screen. it will be highlighted. is there discussion on the gentleman's amendment? yes, sir, you are recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. john siegler, delaware. i'm general counsel for a company that provides

community-based mental health services, and i can tell you in the 20 years of having represent that company, i've come to recognize one of the weaknesses in our health care system is in the delivery systems as they currently exist. i support this amendment, i think it is the right way to proceed and the right way for americans to eventually have a health care system that is both cost effective, high quality and innovative. and i support mr. cochran's attempts to amend this document so as to reflect that. >> is there further discussion? the question has been called. all in favor of calling the question, please, say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? there is no opposition. the question is called. we are on mr. cochran's amendment. you are looking at the inserted language, it is on the screen in front of you. it would read "we support federal investment in health

care delivery systems and solutions creating innovative means to provide greater, more cost effective access to high quality health care. then we also support federal investment continuing through the paragraph as previously stated. is that, is that stated correctly, mr. cochran? >> that is stated correctly, thank you. >> all in favor of mr. cochran's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed will say no. >> no. >> the amendment is agreed to. ms. suma of north carolina, you're recognized for health amendment number 1. health amendment number 1, ms. suma of north carolina, you are on page 4, line 38. >> madam chairman, in 2000 the fda approved the abortion pill, a drug called ru-486 in europe and the united states. this drug and drugs like them

used to terminate life after conception should not receive, fda approval. this amendment basically says we oppose approval of these drugs and similar drugs that term feint innocent human life after conception. man is made in the image of the likeness of god. the creator has given man the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. these are foundational principles of america, and as archbishop has called them the soul of american freedom. if we want to remain free, we cannot stand idly by while our government aids and abets the assault of this most fundamental of inherent rights. this party was born out of a belief that every human life is precious, and with this amendment we state it once again by opposing approval of drugs that terminate innocent human life after conception. >> the gentlelady yields back.

is there a second to her amendment? >> second. >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded. is there discussion? the gentlelady is recognized. >> thanks madam chair. i'm jackie curtis from alabama, and i just have a question about the amendment. does this language also include the morning after pill? called plan b? >> ms. summa? >> it includes any drug that terminates human life after conception. >> [inaudible] >> if we believe as a party that life begins -- >> ms. assume ma -- >> sorry, madam chair. >> you're recognized, ms. curtis, for your follow up. >> in light of the latest comments by congressman todd aiken in an attempt to reaffirm to the american people the party's sensitivity on the subject of rape, i believe we should not support an amendment that supports approval of a

method that's been proven and effective in preventing the pregnancy of rape victims. i agree with a lot of the amendment, but i wish we could narrow that wording to take out the plan b pill. >> the gentlelady has been heard. is there further comment? you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. from connecticut. just for clarification, and i'm familiar with this because we went through it, um, in connecticut. the morning after pill is not considered an abortion pill because it is only given if conception has not occurred, so i'd assume it would not be part of this amendment. >> mr. cawley? >> madam chairman, jim cawley, pennsylvania. i'd like to call the question. >> the question has been called. there is a second. all of those in fair of calling the question say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called. we are on ms. summa's amendment.

it is health amendment number 1, page 4, line 38. all of those in favor of the amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all of those opposed will say no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. let's see. now we have no further -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. governor, you're recognized. >> i just had a parliamentary inquirement for mr. bush. he's got health 21. this is identical to what we've already included in the constitution section on page 6, line 31 of the constitution section. so, i guess, just a procedural question was why if there was a reason we needed to add it here. it's the same language. >> mr. chairman, i'll withdraw the amendment given that it is in the constitution section. i just didn't go back and see it

there, and it was in this section last time. >> okay. >> so i'll withdraw the amendment. >> okay, thank you. >> are there any further additions to this section? federal health care research and development? yes, doctor, you're recognized. >> madam chair, j.r -- [inaudible] from new mexico. just a couple of clarifications, grammatical. on line 32, parkinson's -- and the staff's going to take care of this -- it would be parkinson's disease. and then on 38 because it's duplicative, they're going to take out "should be restored," the last "should be restored" because we always start out we support restoring. and then up on line 5, abortion is spelled incorrectly. just points of clarification. >> i thank the gentleman for the technical corrections. we will direct those to the staff.

>> madam chairman? >> yes. >> ward from alabama. >> yes. >> i know this seems very technical to a lot of people, but as the parent of a child on the autism spectrum, it's commonly discussed these days that autism is not a disease, it's a disorder. and i know that seems like it's splitting hairs for a lot of people in here, but for a lot of us in the autism advocacy community it's not, so i would like either a little time to just, you know, get a technical amendment to address that on the issue of autism? i'm sorry i didn't do it sooner, i didn't catch it. >> what i will do is leave this section move on and allow you the moment to -- >> that'd be great. it'll be a very simple amendment. thank you, ma'am. >> that section will stay open. okay. now we will move to page 5, line 1. we have two amendments to this section. we're going to be lines 1 through 9, protecting individual conscience in health care.

you will first have health amendment number 2. ms. summa of north carolina, you are recognized on your amendment. >> madam chairman, this amendment incorporates a lot of the language in the current draft with two exceptions. with the rise of living wills and health care powers of attorney, we have situations in my state and others where a patient can request the withdrawal of food and water and antibiotics under certain terminal conditions. it varies from state to state in the terms of the conditions under which food and water and antibiotics can be withdrawn. this poses the freedom of conscience to refuse to participate in abortions have hs been a longstanding law in this country, but with the enactment of these new health care powers of attorney and living wills, there's a new ethical column ha for the health care professionals. for many professionals hastening death by withholding and

withdrawing from a patient certain medical care including food and water and antibiotics is in violation of their conscience, and we must stand shoulder to shoulder with these individuals and support their right to refuse to participate in the hastening of the death of the patient. through withdrawal of nutrition and hydration and other humane, humane treatment in violation of conscience. a new phenomenon is occurring in medicine where doctors are refusing to provide desired, needed care for their patients because these doctors believe that the patient's life -- >> ms. summa, please, wrap up your comments. >> okay. this simply adds two things. we're going to allow doctors to refuse to withdraw care in violation of conscience, but this does not mean that we should allow health care professionals, um, to withdraw treatment in the event because they believe that life is not worth living. >> ms. summa has read and

explained her amendment. we are seeking to o get it onto the screen. -- onto the screen. is there a second? >> yes. second, ma madam chairman. madam chairman? >> yes, sir. >> tony -- [inaudible] from oklahoma. i speak in support of this amendment. this is becoming an increasing problem, unfortunately, with the medical literature increasingly reflecting the view that patients who according to the subjective view of some have a poor quality of life are not deserving of life-sustaining care and should not be provided care or even food and water. the at tiewld that some -- attitude that some lives are not worthy to be lived is one that we need to oppose, and sometimes it is in direct contravention of the expressed desire of a patient or the patient's family that life-sustaining care is

discontinued. and for either an institution or a professional to the use conscience as the basis for causing the death of a patient should be opposed by this body. >> i thank the gentleman. ms. lehman, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to stand in favor of this amendment. when i worked at iowa right to life, i received many calls from family members that did not want their family member to lose the ability to have just basic needs like food and water, and they were overridden against their will by the medical group. and so i just, i think this is very important that we stand in favor of this amendment. >> further discussion? you're recognized. >> um, i just have a question. >> [inaudible] >> oh, andrea baker from louisiana. and i just wanted to know if the family, if you have a, like, a

grandfather who is terminally ill, and he is in extreme pain like with bone cancer -- >> that is not directed toward -- >> no, but i just need to know -- >> well, but we're on the amendment. >> does it include families who, does it include families who have -- want their, want, wish to have it withdrawn so that they can proceed because he is -- >> the author, would you respond to this? >> yes, it does. >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> okay. i could not hear what she was saying. okay -- >> i'm not -- >> did someone call the question? question has been called. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> the question has been could. called. we are on ms. summa's amendment. >> [inaudible] >> okay.

we're going to scroll through it so that you can see what has been deleted. and follow this on your paper as to where. so when you get into the first line, after the word "for" you are striking everything down through "communities." and then you go to the word " withhold or refer for a medical service against their conscience. this is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of america's health care, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities. we do not believe, however, that health care providers should be allowed to withhold services because the health care provider believes the patient's life is not worth living." ms. summa, is this correctly reflected on the screen? >> yes, madam chairman.

i'm -- yes. again, i added just a few words, but in -- >> well, we're not able to have discussion at this point. we are on the vote. i'm just making certain that what we have in front of us is correct. >> yes, madam chairman. >> it is correct. >> -- okay, we will now call for, the question has been called for, we're calling for the vote. all in favor of ms. summa's amendment, say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? >> no. >> we will have a division show of hands. all of those in favor raise your hands. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. it is passed. there are 57 aye votes. the amendment is agreed to. we now move to line 5 of page 5. it is health amendment number 3. ms. summa, you are recognized on your amendment. health amendment number 3. >> i'm sorry, madam chairman, i'm hurrying. this is simply a parental rights issue for me. parental rights are the brick and mortar of the wall that protects the family from government intrusion. many state laws are now denying parents the right to consent to all sorts of medical treatment for their children. and this amendment says that we

oppose those sorts of, those sorts of laws and that parents -- not the government -- know what is best for the well being of their children. ask that's what the amendment -- and that's what the amendment says. >> okay. ms. summa has presented and explained her amendment. is there a second to her amendment? >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded. is there discussion on her amendment? yes, you're recognized. >> i'm phil hallri conscientious from hawaii. i'm a practicing physician. i am supportive of the rights of parents, but let me tell you how it's like in the trenches. when 16 and 17-year-olds come into your office with a sexually-transmitted disease who would not come into your office if they had to let their parents know about it. and the hawaii state and other states allow us to treat venereal disease without parental consent because the patients would not come in, would suffer difficult and desperate issues, would spread

the disease to others, and there are situations like this where teenagers have to have some privilege of confidentiality with physicians in order to treat, to deal with these kinds of problems. i only have 60 seconds, so i can't go into a whole litany, but this is a very -- horrible physicians to deny them the ability to treat those kinds of patients. >> is there further discussion? yes, sir. >> yes, j.r. damerin from new mexico. i would like to also echo what dr. hellreich was saying with regard to those type of individuals n. a healthy environment, i agree with this. but there's a lot of unhealthy environments out there. such as abusive family situation whether it's drug related or alcohol or physical abuse. these individuals would not come in to the emergency room or seek

medical help. so, and as phil said, there's sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, incest, all these situations happen. so i have some heartburn and concern about this particular -- >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. please remember to turn your microphone off after you have spoken. ms. jocelyn? >> debbie jocelyn from alaska. i'm the mother of three daughters, and i would like to think that in this country things aren't so bad yet that healthy families and good parents are the rule, not the exception. and i think we need to err on the side of trusting parents to know what's going on in their children's lives and give approval for it. >> further comment or discussion? you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to speak in favor of this amendment. we already have laws in place that in a life-threatening kind of situation physicians can treat the children without the consent of their parents.

that's not what this amendment is about. this amendment is those non-life threatening situations where we have parents getting -- or children getting treatment without their parents' consent, and i find the notion that my daughters would go in and receive, you know, contraception and things like that without my ever knowing about it to be appalling, and that is why i'm in favor of this amendment. >> further discussion? gentlelady from idaho. >> -- [inaudible] i am supportive of this. i believe that it's time that parents are able to be in the driver's seat not only in the health care decisions of their children, but also in education. and, um, while i respect the opinion of the two good doctors that served on the committee with me, i do support parents being able to make -- >> thank the gentlelady. >> question has been called and seconded. all in favor of calling the question say aye. >> with aye. >> all opposed, no. >> question has been called. we are on house amendment number

3, ms. summa's amendment to page 5, line 5. all in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed will say no. >> no. >> we will have a division -- we would ask for a show of hands, those that are voting aye raise their hands. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, 47 ayes. the nays?

[inaudible conversations] >> the amendment is adopted. that is the last amendment that i have to protecting individual conscience in health care. is there any further amendment to this amendment in -- to this amendment? we will let the record reflect that at 4:28 we closed consideration on the section of the platform. we will now return to page 4, line 31, um, for the federal health care research and development, the section mr. ward had asked for clarity

and for an opportunity to redefine and insert some language. sir, you're recognized on your amendment. and you're going to see this on the screen. >> yes. >> so, mr. ward, for clarification. >> thank you, madam chairman. i just wanted to recognize what is commonly seen throughout the country for those who deal with the autism spectrum is autism is not just another disease, it is actually classified as a disorder. that's important to the millions of families around the country that are affected by this every day, so i just added "or disorders." >> the amendment has now been read, displayed and seconded. is there further discussion? hearing no further discussion, is there a call for the question? >> [inaudible] >> question has been called. all in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called. we are on mr. ward's amendment.

health amendment number 22. it is to page 4, line 31. it inserts the word "disorder." all in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. are there any further amendments to this section? the record will reflect that at 4:30 we have closed the federal health care research and development section. we now move to page 5, line 10, reforming the fda. i have one, one amendment. to this section. it is health amendment number 19, it is mr. henderson from north dakota. you are recognized, sir, for 60 seconds. >> thank you, madam chairman. after line 22 i want to put a new sentence in there stating that we oppose the fda's attempt to target raw milk producers,

cheese makers and small farmers. i am an abuser of raw milk. of. [laughter] and it's produced on my farm. i buy it from my two sons. and i am, i'm just tired of overregulation. and, again, i would ask ask that we would let the free market work in this situation. i yield back my time. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. his amendment has been stated. is there a second to his amendment? >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded. mr. whitfield from kentucky, congressman, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair. and i certainly understand mr. henderson's sentiments about the government being overzealous in many areas, particularly in energy as well as in other areas. we actually had a discussion about this amendment in, when we took up the agriculture part of this platform.

and i think all of us recognize that we're very fortunate to live in a country that we probably have the safest food supply in the world because of the fda. and i believe that this amendment is rather vague in it says attempts to target raw milk producers, cheese makers and small farmers. fda does have the responsibility to insure that our food chain is healthy in all respects. and for that reason i would respectfully oppose mr. henderson's amendment because i think the negatives of it would outweigh any benefits that he might receive. thank you. >> i thank mr. whitfield for the explanation. the gentleman from d.c. is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairwoman.

i also stand in opposition, and i call the question. >> second. >> i thank the gentleman. ms. bean from maine, you're recognized. ms. bean? you're recognized. >> thank you. with respect to mr. whitfield's remarks, i'd like to point out we're talking more about the noncommercial field of raw milk. >> i'm sorry, point of order? i called the question, and it was seconded. >> yes. >> point of order. >> [inaudible] >> point of order, madam chairman? >> okay. mr. baker? you were asking something? >> no. mr. newton from d.c. madam chairwoman, just a point of order. i called the question, and it was seconded. >> oh, i'm sorry, i did not hear you call the question. >> no problem. >> okay. so ri. we didn't -- sorry. we didn't hear, we didn't hear that. >> no problem.

>> so the question has been called, i thank you for the clarification. and there is a second. who seconded the call? mr. cawley seconded the call for the question. all in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> aye. [laughter] >> when i've got the gavel, if you're for it, it's a yes. if you're against it, it's a no. [laughter] all right. okay. the question has been called. we are now on the amendment. >> point of order? >> point of order? >> madam chairman? >> yes. >> i believe that, um, to call to question takes a two-thirds majority s that not correct? >> correct. >> it does? i would say that from the way it sounded if everybody had their chocolate, got their energy, we will do it by division if that's the will of the group. all of those in favor of calling

the question, raise your hands. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> there are 59 for calling the question, the question will be called. we are now on mr. henderson's amendment, health 19, page 5, line 22. all of those in favor --

>> madam chairman? >> a two-thirds majority might still not be achieved with 59 votes. >> i think that we're there, but we'll -- all those for no, put your hands up then. we'll do that. >> madam chairman, point of order? is it two-thirds of those voting or two-thirds of the body? >> two-thirds present. present and voting. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> 59 to 18, two-thirds. we are on the amendment as presented. mr. henderson's amendment, health amendment number 19, page

5, line 22. all of those in favor of the amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all of those opposed will say no. >> no. >> we will do this by division again. hands for it. all those that are for it, please, raise your hands. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> there are 29 for, hands down. all those opposed, hands up. [inaudible conversations] the amendment is not agreed to. i have no further amendments to the section on reforming the fda. is there further discussion? if not, the record will reflect at 4:38 that we closed that section for consideration. we are now on the section beginning on line 23, tort reform. i have one amendment to that section. mr. damron, you are recognized on your amendment which is health amendment number 5. does everybody have the health amendment number 5? [inaudible conversations] >> thank you.

>> the amendment is already on the screen. mr. damron, you are recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. j.r. damron, new mexico, land of enchantment. this sentence has to do with rural america work force shortages and access to care. we're talking about high-risk individuals here in our rural areas. we've already talked about obstetricians, surgeons. what i'm just recommending is we take out high-risk so that it broadens the category for health care providers which could be physicians of any type, nurses, nurse practitioners and pas. thank you. >> the amendment has been read, it has been seconded. is there discussion? the amendment is the elimination of the term "high-risk," so that it broadens for health care providers. yes, doctor, you're recognized.

>> it is the high-risk, the orthopedic surgeons, trauma surgeons, anesthesiologists who are sued the most, the ones most likely to leave, leave their practices or leave rural areas. and i think that's why that term was put in there, so i oppose that amendment. >> thank the gentleman. you're recognized, ms. langenstein. >> shah' langenstein from illinois, thank you. as an attorney who lives in one of the most litigious areas in illinois, this is known for very high jury verdicts, and in my area we particularly have lost our neurologists. i still stand in favor of the amendment, and i would hope that it would be supported. >> mr. damron, further comment on your amendment? >> a correction. this should be line 28, not line 26. my apologies. >> okay. >> line 28, not line 26.

the high-risk in line 28. >> it is -- okay. so it would read "rural america is hurt especially hard as obstetricians, surgeons and other health care providers are moving to urban settings." i'm reading that correctly, sir? >> correct. >> it is reflected properly on the screen in front of you? mr. barton? >> that was part of my question, since there's two references to high-risk, does one remove the other, or for consistency do we need them both out? >> no, we just removed the one referring to -- >> just one. >> yes. okay. yes, attorney general owens. >> call to question. >> the question has been called and seconded. all in favor of calling the question will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the question has been called. we are on the amendment by mr. damron, health amendment number 5, page 5, line 28 for

clarification, deleting the words "high risk." all in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? >> no. >> the amendment carries and has been adopted. there are no further amendments that i have to the tort reform section. any further discussion? the record will reflect that work was completed on this section at 4:42, and the section is now closed. we go to line 32, education, a choice for every child. this section goes through page 6, line 11. i have no amendments to this section. the record will reflect that the section was considered and was closed for consideration at 4:42 p.m.. we move to attaining academic excellence for all, line 12, and going through the end of page 7,

line 39. i have, let's see, i think i've got two amendments, three amendments to this section. we -- six amendments to this section. okay. >> [inaudible] >> okay. we will begin with health 7. >> [inaudible] >> ms. caylee from kansas, you are recognized for your amendment which is health amendment number 7. it will be on page 6 at line 23. ms. caylee. >> okay. um, i believe to insure a strong republic for generations to come it's of vital importance to instill national pride in the miracle of this great and free nation. students need to learn about the sacrifices and the character of the founding fathers through a study of their own words in the original documents. and that's why i'm asking for renewed focus on the united states constitution and the

writings of the founding fathers and an accurate account of american history that celebrates the birth of this great nation. >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded, and the language is reflected on your screen. i think it is, actually, line 25. where your amendment comes in. instead of line 23. >> [inaudible] >> it is shown on the screen. is there discussion on the amendment? yes, mr. luna, you're recognized. >> madam chairman, we discussed a similar, um, amendment in our committee, and it was not successful. i do believe that there is, um, another amendment coming before us right after this one that i think if the submitter of this would look at, i think it's an

acceptable, um, way to address her concern, and that would be the amendment, number 14. so our committee looked at similar language to this, and it did not get approved in our committee. however, in a moment you'll see an amendment that i think we can support that addresses this same concern. >> madam chairman? i still wish to go with my amendment and call it to the committee. >> okay. mr. barton, you're recognized. >> i would speak in favor of this version over the subsequent version. this does emphasize the renewed emphasis on the united states constitution. i'll point out that in 2004 congress did pass a law requiring every public school on constitution day to spend a full day studying the constitution, 90% still don't. states are now passing celebrate freedom laws that set aside an entire week to study the constitution, bill of rights, declaration, etc. i think this is consistent with

where the people want to head. >> thank the gentleman. mr. smart from american samoa. >> brandon smart, american show ya. as a public schoolteacher, i have a problem with this. one, we are getting very specific. it's already stated that we have history that's mention inside this, in this platform. if we get this specific, what i worry about is it says an accurate account of american history. we are assuming that our history teachers are not teaching that, and i would not in a situation in a time where public schoolteachers feel that they're under attack from the republican party, i would not put this language in there because it assumes that our teachers are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. >> any further discussion? >> [inaudible] >> question has been called and seconded. >> point of order if i could? this sentence is already eight lines long, and it looks like a run-on sentence, so i just would say -- >> we are, yes, ma'am. we are on the point of -- we are on the calling the question.

at this point. all in favor of calling the question? >> aye. >> all opposed? in no. >> the question will be called. we are on ms. caley's amendment. it begins on line 25 of page 6. after "geography" and the semicolon that is there, you insert "renewed focus on the u.s. constitution and the writings on the founding fathers and an accurate account of american history that celebrates the birth of this great nation. all in favor of the amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. we now are on page 6.

>> [inaudible] >> yes. that was accepted. we are on 6 after line 36. that's the next one i have. is that -- >> yes, ma'am. >> it would be help -- 14. that is correct. okay, we will go to amendment health 14, it is by ms. dayton of utah. ms. dayton, you are recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> thank you, madam chair. um, history is the narrative of our common heritage, and it certainly illustrates american exceptionalism. i was anxious that we include something about that in our document. i actually would prefer this amendment to the one that we just passed, but since we just passed one, i will withdraw mine and appreciate the fact that we are having a focus on our history. >> ms. dayton withdraws her amendment. we will now move to line 38 at

the bottom of the page. the this will be health and i can't make out the number, but it is by mr. walker of oregon. it is page 6, line 38. mr. walker, you are recognized on your amendment. >> madam chair, i withdraw my amendment. >> this amendment has been withdrawn. we now go to page 7, same section, attaining academic excellence for all. page 7, line -- no, let's see, line 3. mr. bopp of oregon, you have an amendment? >> i haven't moved, madam chair, i'm mr. bopp from indiana. >> oh, i am so sorry. [laughter] i need to get myself some more chocolate. [laughter] >> thank you, madam chairman. for recognizing me for this amendment.

this sentence that i'm seeking to amend lists the options which we support for learning. and as we know, children are different, each child is different, each child can vary in the context in which they can be most successfully educated. and there are many of those options available through charter schools, open enrollment, virtual schools, etc. once we list those options, we then say, quote, that they are, quote: especially important for but not limited to families with children trapped in failing schools. i think the emphasis there is wrong. i think every child could benefit from having those options available, and i recognize that we should note

especially children in failing schools. so my amendment is to strike the words "especially important for but not limited to" changing the emphasis to say, quote: important for all children, especially for families in failing schools. >> second. >> second. >> second. >> the amendment has been -- and has been seconded, and the language is highlighted and reflected on your screen. is there further discussion on this amendment? mr. page, you're recognized. >> randy page, south carolina. as someone who is working diligently to expand school choice options in south carolina on a daily basis, i'm pleased to support mr. bopp's amendment and would call the question. >> the question has been called and seconded. all in favor of calling the question will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. we will call the question. we are now on mr. bopp's

amendment. mr. bopp of indiana. [laughter] and it is on page 7, line 3. all in favor of mr. bopp's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. the next one that i have is health number 10. it is on line 11 of page 7. >> yes, ma'am. >> that is correct? okay. we are going to mr. barton of texas, health amendment number 10. does everyone have the amendment? everyone stating they have the amendment? mr. barton, you're recognized for 60 seconds. >> this amendment would remove the equivocation that is there regarding spending in public education. we know from every other form of education that we're educating kids with better results for less money. in our state of texas, as in so many other states, we try to do a dollars classroom math where we wanted 65 cents out of every dollar spent in the classroom. it was opposed because we found

in large districts there was one administerrer to one teacher. less money, better results. so the proposal i would make is to remove the equivocation, say in sum: on the one hand, enormous amounts of money are being spent for k-12 -- with overall results that do not justify that spending. >> second. >> okay. the amendment has been read, explains and seconded, and we're waiting for it to get on the screen. clarification to this as you are working through, strike the word "which," which follows result. the first world of that line. strike "which" and strike "seem to." results do not -- and it would change to "overall results that do not justify the spending. so it is a rewrite of that first portion. we strike "which," we strike

"seem to," and we change it so that it would read "overall results that do not justify the spending." am i stating that correctly, mr. barton? it is stated. is there further discussion? >> [inaudible] >> question has been called. all in favor of calling the question will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed say now. no. the question has been called. we are now on the amendment of mr. barton, health amendment number 10. mr. barton of texas with the amendment on page 7, line 11. i would ask you, sir, if it is reflected appropriately on the screen. [inaudible conversations]

>> it is appropriate and proper as in front of you. all in favor of mr. barton's amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed say no. the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. barton, if i could just ask just for clarification, if we need to leave the "which in," only because it seems results which do not justify. >> [inaudible] >> that. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, we just needed to word it -- okay. thank you, sir. >> we now move to health amendment number 4. >> madam chairman? >> hold on just one moment, please. am i correct that that's the next one? health amendment number 4, does everyone have that one? it is on page 7, line 25. ms. summa of north carolina, you're recognized for 60 seconds. >> madam chairman, this language just strengthens our commitment to abstinence education.

it is identical language that we had in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 platform, and i move it adoption. >> the amendment has been read, explained and moved. the language is going in on your screen at this point. is there discussion on the amendment? gentlelady from alabama? >> thank you, madam chair. while i appreciate and respect the views of the delegate from north carolina, i disagree with this amendment. the reality is that a large majority of our teenagers and young adults are having sex before marriage. it is our responsibility to educate our teenagers about contraception and std preventions while also placing a very large emphasis on abstinence. over three quarters of americans support -- three-quarters of americans support this policy in america, and i encourage everyone to support the language adopted by the subcommittee yesterday morning. thank you.

>> i thank the gentlelady. is there further discussion? ms. kennedy? >> cynthia kennedy, nevada. i, too, support the former -- the comment that was just made. >> thank the gentlelady. mr. luna, any comment from the subcommittee? >> madam chairman, i will tell you that we had discussions similar to this in our committee, and it did not come out of the committee. um, that's the committee's work, but there was extensive discussion. so i'm speaking for the committee not necessarily myself, and i assume that's what you were asking. >> yes, that is what i was saying. asking. okay, ms. langenstein? >> i was also on that committee. i proposed similar language. i withdrew it. it was not -- it did not actually fail, i withdrew it after extensive debate. so i just wanted to make sure that was, that had been clarified, so i do support the amendment. >> i thank the gentlelady.

mr. barrow? >> call the question, please? >> question has been called. we're on the call of the question. all in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the question has been called. all of those, we're on ms. summa's amendment, health amendment number 4, page 7, line 25. the language as reflected on your screen. those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed will say no. >> no. >> we will have a division, show of hands. hands up for those that say aye. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> those opposed? now, herb, one hand at a time. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] ..