merely an example to drive it home. pragmatic manner. save billions of dollars in the economy and complying with agency regulations cost businesses more than $7,640 per employee and families more than $14,600 per year or one fourth of the annual income. >> is there a second? discussion? dl gatt from california? >> there are a lot of studies out there. where did this come from? maybe just have the staff verify the numbers. because there's a lot of back and forth on. this i've seen a lot of studies. some of them have been very, very poorly done and understate the impact. some have been very poorly done and grossly overstated. i don't recall the numbers. but somebody from the staff should verify that we're putting accurate information in here. >> delegate from texas. >> i can say this was a published book that george barn and i did last year. i went through all the publication houses. they were confident in the

numbers that they withstanding the attack against the publication house. it's been through that level of scrutiny. >> would it be possible to give us the title of that? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> additional discussion? hearing none. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> oppose ney. ? the amendment is adopted. next have the delegate fromriry with the amendment on page 6, line 27. >> mr. chairman, this amendment is respectfully withdrawn. >> the amendment is withdrawn. next is the amendment from the delegate from alaska. on page 7 and 8. it recognizes this time the delegate from alaska. >> this is in honor and relationships with the american indian. and it's not that i do not want to honor that relationship, it's just once again that i felt -- feel that it's the points can be made in shorter text and not

become a position paper. so on page seven, what i would like to do is the first paragraph which xblanz what we're talking about here. keep that whole entire pages from lines 19 to 24 and then i believe the rest of the thing just has to do with policy or what should be done. it is very lengthy. then remove everything on page 8 up to 19 through 25. and keep that entire paragraph in. so i just feel like that what needs to be said about honoring relationship with american indians can be done in the first paragraph and last paragraph, removing everything in the middle. just to shorten is. >> is there a second? discussion? >> mr. chairman? >> yes, delegate from massachusetts. >> i served on the subcommittee

with the gentle lady. she offered this amendment and subcommittee. we had a robust discussion of it. it was defeated the reason being that this language was carefully crafted to honor a relationship with our native-americans and we felt it was important to keep the existing text in the platform. i urge its defeat. >> delegate from kansas. >> thank you, i also served on the committee. we did reject this proposed amendment. the 2012 platform said quite a bit about this very important relationship between the united states and the indian tribes and so we think that shortening it so drastically would not be the right thing to do. those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> opposed, ney? the amendment fails.

this will be for the final plafrpg of the platform. please put these under the pile that we're considering now. the ones you have in your hand are the final traunch of this subcommittee's deliberations. and what is being handed out now will be the first trunch r traunch of the flank r plafrpg that we get to on the constitution when we get back from a break after we finish this section. so if you can just put that underneath. that is the first group of amendments coming out with regard to the constitution. with that, let's led to the delegate from oregon on government reform. >> mr. chairman, there is a administrative fix. this language was in the original language and when we shortened the language on this section of our subcommittee work, we left out, i think an important component. the national relations act is an act in congress in 1935 to ensure that fair labor practices

excluded federal and state government employees from federal labor practices. tribal governments recovered under that until 2004. since then, they have not been treated the same and what we're asking is for this language to be added in as an amendment, the tribal governments have the choice whether to allow their employees to unionize or not. and not to have to rely on the national labor relations board for that decision. i urge a yes vote on this. >> okay. for clarification, we need to type in the word relations -- labor relations. good, now it's correct. okay. second? aye?

>> ney? it is adopted. >> i recognize the represent frif the virgin islands. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> on page 8, responsibilities -- [ inaudible ] >> it's important that all residents become fully integrated into the dream that is america. to that point, we specifically request that the federal laws concerning health care are changed to include full inclusion of the virgin islands and the territories into the patient protection and affordable care act. parody with americans living in

the united states couldn't nenltal united states in medicare and medicaid funding including social security index, funding for full scale veteran health facilities to care for virgin island soldiers and territorial and commonwealth soldiers to serve this con trihonorably and without regard for their own well-being. and i urge you to accept this amendment. >> point of clarification before i get to the delegate from alabama. the amendment sheet says line 27. it looks to me from what is in our book that wire referring to line 36. the word rights is on page 36. and what will be reflected now on the screen it says 46. scroll down a little bit and see where that fits in. it is included in your amendment. the delegate from alabama. >> there somewhat of a, i guess, a question out of the sky.

how many dollars are we talking about here and this is something that should be vetted in washington, d.c., before we here in this committee start committing the united states for this kind of financial liability. >> additional discussion? delegate from the virgin islands? >> yeah, mr. chairman, we're asking for the same rights that every single american citizen is afforded. we are only asking for a quality in parody for every american in the united states. we are not second class citizens. we are equal to every single person that's sitting at this table. and we should be afforded the same amendment of privileges that everyone else has. there is no reason to be treated as sub-human, non-american, something less than anyone else that's sitting in this group. so all we're asking for is

parody and equality as american citizens. that's all we're asking for. >> delegate from guam. >> thank you, chairman. i would just like to maybe provide some clarity here so that our neighbors understand. when you're on an island, you can't get in a car and drive across the border to a accredited hospital that specializes in the services you might require. and in particular, in my situation, our folks who have paid into social security and are entitled to medicare have to travel a minimum of 4,000 miles to go to hawaii, 6,000 to the mainland. i think that most of us knowing our parents, our elders would understand that these type of hardships were not intended when

they signed on to contribute to these programs. we're not asking -- i can understand where the lovely lady from the virgin islands has brought this up. it is a serious, serious consideration. and for those of us that are limited by borders that you can't simply cross easily with cars and moving. to travel with someone who is ill and incapacitated and to get them on a plane and to be subjected to all of that, as you know, traveling is no longer a fun adventure. but i just want to lend my support. that's -- and so that you have a better understanding where this does originate from. >> thank you. delegate from north carolina. >> yes, mr. chairman. do our territories pay taxes?

>> delegate from vermont, if you're ready to answer on that. no, you want to address that separately. delegate from virgin islands? on the point of information. >> yes, we all pay full federal income tax. to the united states of america. >> delegate from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ben marky from maryland. i move the question. >> the question has been moved. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those in favor about it amendment, please signify by saying aye. oppose, ney. >> ney. >> the neys have it. the amendment is defeated. the next is from the delegate from guam. page 8, line 36 with insertion. >> thank you. thank you very much. i would just suggest that we

recognize and support the rights of our u.s. citizens and nationals living in the u.s. territories to full self-determination through political publicite. we'll be having one november through approval through the president's office. and our people will be making that determination for self governing. this is something that there's only a few of us left. it's a step towards decolonization and i ask for the support of all of us here to recognize the rights of american citizens to determine whether -- most of us here belong to states that originated as colonies or territories. and have had that right. and your folks have voted.

and we're just asking for the same rights. thank you. >> discussion? delegate from maine? >> is this a point of information co. someone define for me publicit snechlt. >> publicite is the ability of an indigenous people to make a determination tooz how they wish to be governed whether they wish to be part of a colony, the way we are now, to be independent state or be a 51st state. delegate from michigan. >> isn't this really about them trying to become states and is the platform really the place? are we really the people that are deciding whether or not the islands or the territories become states? >> dole gaelegate from kansas? >> i think it is problematic. does it leave it open ended as

if it suggesting that whatever that territory decides is what the u.s. congress would decide. it's, of course, congress' prerogative to admit new states. and it would be their prerogative to respect or not respect the result of the publicite. >> the committeeman from guam and then the committee lady from guam. >> yes. first of all, it is a voest the people that the u.s. citizens that reside in guam. and it's just for them to feel that they have the authority to hold their own elections and decide our own future. you wouldn't believe it. but there are people that actually don't believe that we have that authority. and under a democracy, that's how we all rule ourselves. and all we want is to reflect that. that everybody in the united states has the right to self-determination.

the territory of guam has never voted. we don't even have an constitution. we survive under an organic act of congress. if we want to increase the size of our supreme court or remove the number of senators in our united states, we have to go to congress and have our nonvoting member elected for that. so just for us to be able to hold self-determination is not federally mandated. it is not binding. >> thank you. another thought that i would like to share with you is that right now we have people in congress and in the senate that are openly calling what is happening ludicrous the fact that a u.s. citizen living in guam cannot vote for the presidentst united states. however, if you move to california or arizona or

oklahoma and declare residency, you're an automatic voter. and if you take a job in ire land or italy, you can still vote. so it took elizabeth warren to knock this out of the park saying how ludicrous this was. i was just hoping that this conservative body would recognize the same if not even before then that american citizens should have the right to at least determine for themselves what they would choose. we are still subject to the u.s. congress. >> delegate from new york? delegate from new york called the question. all those in favor of voting immediately signify by saying aye. oppose, ney? we vote immediately. those in favor of the amendment, please signify aye. oppose, ney. >> okay. the amendment fails.

the next amendment is from kentucky. >> what happened? the delegate from the virgin islands has an additional amendment? >> yes. >> all right. let's go to that one, page 14. i apologize to the delegate. it's page 8, line 37. >> actually, it would go into -- it would become a new paragraph. come under line 41. citizens of the territories and american simoa commonwealth as americans should have full voting privileges, specifically the right to vote for the president of the united states

and their delegates. full voting privileges in congress. i'd like to speak to the motion, mr. chairman. >> please do. >> introduce this amendment today because it is the right thing to do. it is the right for every territory and commonwealth to have the opportunity for the first time in their life to vote for the president of the united states. on a per capita basis, more territorial and commonwealth citizens have served and died fighting for the rights of this country than most states in the united states. yet, these soldiers who defend our right to freely exercise their right to vote have never, ever been able to vote for their commander in chief. if we are truly a party of inclusi inclusion, then we should not exclude any american citizen from this right. this amendment was introduced in

2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 without success. it is my hope today in 2016 that we can finally recognize that we are full american citizens. i understand the difficulties of amending the constitution. but it is not impossible. if it was, then women and afro americans would not be voting as of today. as stated in the case, we were cat goegorized as second class citizens. we're not lesser humans than anyone else here. and should never be treated as such. i ask you to vote favorably for this amendment. it is the right thing to do. and in your heart, i know that you know that it's true.

we are asking for -- a quality for all and may i remind you that alexander hamilton is from the virgin islands. one of our great americans. thank you, mr. chairman. >> discussion, delegate from tennessee. >> question. the way the amendment is worded is puerto rico in effect left out? because puerto rico is a commonwealth. it only refers to the american simoa commonwealth. and territories, puerto rico is not a territory. it's a commonwealth of puerto rico. so if we adopt this we're letting everyone except the citizens of puerto rico have the benefits? is that the intent or is it an omission? >> mr. chairman, the delegates from puerto rico have corrected me and have told me that in recent case that they are now considered territory and only american simoa is now

commonwealth. >> the delegate from puerto rico wants to be recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that is correct. puerto rico swreshwe have two r supreme court case that's say that puerto rico is a territory subject to the full authority of the congress and under the u.s. constitution. the name commonwealth was a convenient political name that was adopted not officially but rather politically on island. but it is nothing akin to or similar to the likes of the commonwealth of virginia or else. it is a territory little and so been confirmed by the supreme court again in the last 30 days. >> delegate from indiana. >> thank you. jim bob from indiana. i it this problem with this amendment is it upsets the constitutional order. the constitution provides that conference -- the way for the territories to obtain full rights to vote for the president and have representative in

congress is to become a state. and, of course, we have had numerous territories of the united states. the vast majority of states were former territories of the united states who have achieved the status as a state in the united states. that is the proper way for the territories to seek the representation in congress and vote for the president of the united states. it is not wrong for a country to maintain territories that do not have full -- the full rights of a part of the country. this is a normal governmental arrangement and is the form of our constitution. and we should continue to respect it. >> delegate from minnesota? >> once again, i just -- we're getting into the weeds. we're getting into a lot of detail that does not belong in our party's platform. >> additional discussion? delegate from connecticut.

delegate from connecticut called question. all of those in favor of voting immediately, aye. we'll vote immediately. those in favor of the amendment on the floor. signify by saying aye. oppose, ney. the amendment fails. now to julie adams from kentucky. >> it's inappropriate to include the jones act as this is a issue of national security. the jones act is a foundational law for american meritime industry. it is funneled. al to our national security. by requiring that all water born cargo moving between two points in the united states be

transported on american ves he wills. they need to be u.s. zoned, u.s. crude and u.s. built. the jones act makes america secure. aej if a foreign flag vessel was allowed to navigate the ohio or the mississippi river. the jones act is crucial to national security and strongly supported by the department of defense, the u.s. and a halfy and the united states coast guard. the u.s. military relies on a strong commercial maritime structure. the jones act protects america's borders and prevents illegal immigration with 96,000 miles of american water born coastline, far longer than our land borders and 23,000 miles of inland commercial water ways, the requirement that american vessels and sailors operate in full in accordance with u.s. laws and with the consistent oversight of the u.s. government enhances america's homeland

security. they would face the task of monitoring, regulatesing, overseeing and bringing enforce mentes against foreign crude vessels moving freely throughout america's coast and america's heartland. so these reasons, for national security and homeland security reasons, i recommend that we eliminate the reference to the jones act. >> discussion. delegate from hawaii? >> i can't speak strongly enough against this because this directly affects hawaii and i take great exception with all my due respect to my colleague whom i like very much. but this is -- the jones act needs amending. it directly affects shipping to hawaii and puerto rico. now i understand the defense

argument, but that's only part of it. the act needs amending because right now a boat can go from china. it won't come to hawaii. it thooz go to l.a. and then back to hawaii. it raises the cost of shipping to hawaii, causes a monopoly and causes a problem in puerto rico. and the jones act had to be suspended when we had the gulf oil spill. because they had to bring in ships from i think it was denmark or something to help clean up the spill. and take the stuff away. and so they had to make exception for it. so to just wholesale say let's take it out of there is not the answer to this. i mean, it needs amending and very conservative groups in hawaii have been fighting to amend this for years. so i'm pleading with you, most passionately as you know i do, to not take this out for the state of hawaii.

my state would be extremely disappointed if this was just taken out for that reason. >> delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose the amendment. and here's why. if you want to send a bunch of oranges by truck from florida to baltimore, no one cares who made the truck. or if you want to fly computer chips across the country, it's fine if the plane is made in france. but if you want to send cargo by ship, this law -- the laws that the ship has to be made in america. and here's where -- here's an actual real live example that affect smfd our states including maine and where the jones act got in the way. so in 2014, there were so many winter storms in new jersey that the state nearly ran out of the salt used to melt snow and ice on the roads. now state officials thought they found a solution when they discovered and extra 40,000 tons of rock salt for sale in maine. state bought the salt but ran

into problems getting it to new jersey despite the fact that there was an enormous empty cargo ship heading to newark. the problem was the ship wasn't made in america. and so these are the problems we create by ourselves. this is government bureaucracy run amok. and i oppose the -- i oppose the passage of this amendment. >> delegate from oregon. >> mr. chairman, we addressed this in our committee to some length. it is important for the territories. this is important issue for the territories and the commonwealths. it has created an economic hardship for the communities. and i urge that we oppose this amendment and leave that flang. there it does need to be amended. >> delegate from guam. >> thank you, chairman. just some clarification and to back up the lovely lady from hawaii. the jones act was initiated in 1920.

it was for security. today, there are over 38,000 ships crossing the pacific. only 90 -- 90 of those ships qualify. all 90 are over 40 years old. the last three ships purchased by our u.s. navy was from south korea. cl is the number one ship builder in the world. the u.s. is no longer a ship builder. >> delegate from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. although i was on the committee, we did not specifically deliberate the jones act. i think is a conversation worth having. i'm hearing some very valid criticisms of the jones act. the jones act fundamental purpose is still very important and that is giving preference to american flag vessels. i don't think we should take a position that we want to create loopholes to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the jones act and saying create a loophole

for this territory that, territory, this territory. let's let congress perhaps we want to include something saying we believe the jones act should be reconsidered, amended, updated. i don't think we want to start blowing loopholes in it just on shooting from the hip here at the platform committee. >> delegate from south carolina. question has been called. amendment before us. all those in favor of voting immediately say aye. aye. oppose, ney. we'll vote immediately. those in favor of the amendment on the floor. aye? oppose? ney. the embarrassment the amendment is defeated. the next amendment is from the delegate from alaska. >> i'd like the balance budget amendment. i'd like to remove. that. >> okay. that one has been withdrawn. >> thank you. >> and then we have one other amendment from you regarding page 9, line 21 to 24?

>> yes. even though this is different than what we decided in the committee yesterday, there has been much discussion. i have spoken with the -- two of my friends from puerto rico and they agreed that there seemed to be a little bit of confusion exactly and understanding of the last sentence that says recovery from the present physical crisis in the territory are a tax for medicare and medicaid requires full equality and benefits and eligibility for the same income tax credit deductions available in all of the statesst union. very similar to the one we just talked about in the territories. like i said, we spent a lot of time. it is extremely confusing what is correct and what was not correct in our beliefs. so we just ask that that last sentence be removed but the remainder stay. >> call to question? >> second. >> was there a second on the amendment. there say second on the amendment. >> second. second is on the amendment.

the delegate from vermont had her microphone on. she would like to call the question. the question is called. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> oppose, ney. it is adopted. at the bottom of the pile there is an amendment. there is no name on the amendment. would anybody like to claim and call up this amendment? delegate from louisiana. >> which one is it? >> what is it? >> it has the language, just not a name of a delegate thant deuced it. >> i don't think it's been passed out. but do people have an amendment that has no name on it? >> no. >> okay. in the haste to make the cutoff, i fail to put my name on it. i didn't do well in second grade. what this seeks to do is to restore what was in the draft platform regarding the district

of colombia. as you'll notice in the committee -- subcommittee report, the district of columbia has been completely removed which was in the original draft. article one section 8 of the u.s. constitution clearly states that the congress has exclusive legislative rights over the district of colombia in all cases. 38% of d.c.'s budgets comes directly from the federal government. that's according to the tax foundation. even more revenue is generated from the many governmental agencies operating within the district. the district has adopted policies that have been inconsistent with federal law including two years ago they passed legislation in direct conflict with congressional or with federal law that would

spend federal tax dollars on abortions. lastd year they passed the none description act which seeks to force all organizations including pro-life organizations to hire people who are opposed to the pro-life view. this simply restates the initial language putting it back in that says congress has the oversight of the district of clom yachlt it also addresses in the original platform the heller amendment, the case in which the district of colombia continues to be outside the supreme court decision on the second amendment. and so this simply seeks to reinsert the language that was in the draft platform when we arrived here this week. >> discussion? >> delegate from the district of colombia? >> thank you, mr. chairman. we had a good discussion of whether or not to include the district of colombia section in

our government reform meeting yesterday. i was heartened that a colleague of mine from another state, i'll let him speak for himself, came up with the motion to actually question really in the spirit of delegate matheson from utah's opening remarks yesterday morning which really sent us into our morning session of the government reform subcommittee with compelling thoughts about what the platform should really be about. we're going to go to the voters the next several months asking for trust and for their faith that we're going to be focusing on the issues across the country. i guarantee you, having a dc section in the platform is not going to be particularly helpful come lection time. and so in the spirit of delegate matheson's wise remarks yesterday morning, we decided as a group that there really didn't need to be a d.c. section in the nation's platform. we don't have sections on other

cities. and the language is unfortunate that we're just seeing it now. it's a lot of language. didn't have name on it. but there is a question whether this is even in order. but i will just want my colleagues to know that our bottom line what we settled on and the subcommittee yesterday was the u.s. constitution speaks very clearly to the role of d.c. within our federal system. in article one, section eight, paragraph 17, congress reserves the right to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district as may become the seat of the government of the united states of america. i think the framers put a lot of thought into this. they moved the capital around several times before they settled on the district. they want to make darn sure that nothing significant napd that district without congress having a final word. i don't think we need to sur plant congress's role here.

it's crystal clear. our framers were crystal clear. and i would urge my colleagues to let the good work of the subcommittee stand and let us move on to real issues of national significance that the voters in november are going to really care about. >> delegate from can zplan. >> i was on the subcommittee. it was far from unanimous. sharply divided vote. i believe we need to keep the language on the district of colombia in the platform, especially the part about the second amendment. i mean, goodness, the district of colombia has done so much to undernine the second amendment rights of the united states citizens living in the district of colombia. we need to speak out against that. also the efforts of democrats in congress to impede efforts by republicans in congress to bring things like school choice to the district of colombia. again, need to be pointed out. and need to be pointed out to people in the district of colombia let alone to the rest of the country. so we've had this language in past platforms. i think it is a mistake by the

subcommittee to drop it. and the notion that we're doing this in the name of brevity is silly. we don't have to spend two or three paragraphs talking about the district of colombia doesn't make sense to me. i think we should support this amendment. >> delegate from missouri? >> i also want to say i support the amendment. i know what it would do, it would save a life. anything i can do to save a baby life, i want to do. >> additional discussion on the amendment? delegate from the state of va va. >> thank you. tommy valentine from va va i don't think there is a conflict between what the delegate from d.c. says versus what this amendment would try to do if i'm understanding correctly. i think all this amendment is saying, it doesn't call for changes in the constitution. the constitutional role, the district of clom yachlt gist

talking about current issues that affect d.c. and things that congress should do to address those issues. as someone who lives 15 miles from d.c. in northern virginia, i'm a nationals fan but i'm not a fan of the city council. i've seen the rampant corruption. it seems that every member of the city council is under investigation. this amendment is good language to call on congress to take action to resort, to try to reassert control over the district of colombia and restore order there. >> delegate from new york? >> mr. chairman, i call a question. >> question to call all those ready to vote. oppose, ney. ? >> we're ready to vote immediately. those in favor of the amendment proposed about it delegate from louisiana signify by saying aye. oppose, ney? >> ney. >> the amendment is adopted. this time i'd like to turn back to the chairman of this subcommittee, the delegate from

wisconsin to offer a motion to adopt the entire subcommittee response. >> mr. chairman, i urge that we adopt this section as amended. >> we have a motion s there a second? >> it's been moved and seconded to adopt this fifth plank of the platform to be accepted. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> oppose, ney. ney. >> the plafrpg nk is adopted. >> we're going to go right into constitution. and we're going to take a break. ben k. you bring us up to date on the schedulscheduling? >> we're going into the introduction of the constitution plank. there are a lot of amendments. we'll take a break later this afternoon. so be us with. we're near the end. thank you very much.

>> i think this is over 40 amendments. we have a lot of work to do and i appreciate everybody's patience. >> all right. we're going to give the girls a chance now. we start with the delegate from georgia. will you give us your opening remarks? first of all, i like to say i think the constitution group was a robust discussion. with these amendments, madam chairman that, brings us to 130

amendments on 8 1/2 pages. so i want the delegates to be aware of what we're dealing with. hopefully there are relevant points that we'll all be interested n thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. also ask our other co-chair from wisconsin. she has opening comments. >> thank you, madam chairman. it was an honor for me to serve on this committee. it was a first time that i have served on a convention committee. we had very, very good discussion on the entire section. it was obvious with 89 amendments that there was great interest from the entire body on

our constitution. i would like to make a special thank you to leslie, our leader. so i thank them all and i thank the body. >> thank you very much. and then our other co-chair, a.g. of arkansas. >> thank you, madam chairman. it was an honor to be the chair of the subcommittee and constitution of the platform and to serve alongside kathy and rena. i thought the committee did an excellent job of working through very difficult issues as noted many times. we had nearly 90 amendments filed with the committee. i do want to thank rob porter and stephen higgins were the policy staff that worked with the constitution subcommittee. it is very important these issues that we address in this

plank of the platform as a republican attorney general, i have worked with republican ags across the country to push back against this sort of overreach that we have seen from this administration. we must lekt a republican president to fill any voidz in our supreme court as we have seen from rouge bader ginsburg who stated recently she could not imagine the court with donald trump as president. we simply did not have those sort of liberal activist judges. we addressed limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty and the rule of law. it is important that as the republican party we defend our first amendment religious liberty, protective speech, our second amendment right to keep and bear arms, protect property, protect right to life and to protect states' rights. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. i appreciate all the co-chairs' opening comments. we move on to our amendments.

and the first amendment we have up right now is from our ag from arkansas. you'll start with your first amendment, please. page 5, line 18. >> okay. yes, i would move to strike the word rogue simply because we don't want to eliminate any responsibility by this administration. first few amendment that's we have, madam chair, are quite simply technical amendments and it's important that we discuss for the full body to understand that we discussed these thoroughly in our subcommittee and this is a reflection, these first couple of amendments are a reflection of what we agreed upon in the subcommittee. >> okay. any questions? second?

move discussion? no discussion here. yes, sir? please identify yourself? >> tommy valentine from virginia. i was on the constitution subcommittee and i just want to further clarify my understanding after reading these first couple amendments is that these are amendments -- this is language that we adopted and the constitution subcommittee and that was in the committee report. but for whatever reason, it is not in your binder. so these are not really substantive amendments. they're just making sure everybody has the language. >> we have a motion and second. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say ney? the motion carries. thank you very much.

the second amendment will be by the attorney general again. it will be on page 8, line 21 and 22. attorney general? >> yes, ma'am, thank you, madam chair. move to strike the language as you see on the screen where it says beginning with the constitution after the text or to the people, strike that entire sentence and to replace it with the constitution gives the federal government very few powers and they're enumerated. states retain authority over all unenumerated powers. any discussion? yes, ma'am? please identify yourself.

>> yes. i'm from virginia. i would state that it makes the language less accurate constitutionally because very few powers is much less specific than specifically enumerated powers which, in fact, is what the constitution is. it is a document of enumerated powers. those powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government were in, fact, clearly reserved to the states and the people. and part of what we're suffering in terms of the tenth amendment being abridged is there is this vague using, you know, generic few whatever. i don't think this language is more accurate. i think it is less accurate. i'm trying to remember because i sat on this committee. whether there was an actual motion that changed it. i know that there was even some discussion about even talking about the specific numbers of

enumerated powers. so i don't think this reflects what was done in the subcommittee nor i do think it is more accurate constitutional language. >> the delegate from texas. >> if i can speak to that. i introduced this amendment in committee. and what it is, we specifically said in committee there are 17 specifically enumerated powers. it depends on which law professor. some will divide clauses and sml say there are s. 20, 15, whatever. it's like the declaration. how do you break it? so this is language we worked with staff on to say that there are very few. the number had been used yesterday to make sure that people didn't think there were 80 or 100, 200 delegated powers. there are only very few. that's why we settled on this language with staff. that was the purpose was to get away from 17 but still make it very close to just a handful of numbers. >> delegate from west virginia has a comment? >> thank you, madam chairman. i strongly support it.

i think it's -- i think for us nonlawyers, it reads significantly easier. makes it much more understandable and exactly what we're trying to get at in the platform. i strongly support the amendment of the attorney >> any further discussion? yes, ma'am? >> yes, from delaware, i would suggest that the final phrase where it says the 2 states retain authority, should it be the states and the people retain authority all over other unenumerated powers. >> if i could ask the lady from arkansas if you accept that amendment. >> i will. >> okay. our delegate from delaware, would you repeat that again? >> just inserting the words "and the people." the states and the people retain

authority over all unenumerated powers. it's consistent with the lines previous as well. >> if i could ask the lady from arkansas, is that the language as you understand it? >> yes, madam chairman. >> delegate from georgia? >> call the question. >> thank you very much. we have a motion to call the question. all in favor of the question say aye. all those opposed say nay. motion carries. we're back to the question on the original amendment. any further discussion? seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay. motion carries. thank you very much. all right. next amendment is also from the

lady from arkansas, page 6, line 32 through 36. >> thank you, madam chair. i would in making this motion to strike the language that you have before you, i would ask the committee to -- to note that much of that language is stated above. and so this was in an effort to not be -- to not duplicate what we have said in the paragraph or in the lines immediately above that. so we would strike the language and insert "we support state and federal efforts against the cruellest forms of abortion, especially dismemberment abortion procedures in which unborn babies are literally torn apart limb from limb." >> second.

>> the motion is seconded. is there any discussion, any comment? yes, ma'am? >> from california, noelle irwin henshall. but we took out that we support funding for ultra sounds and adoption assistance, but that was agreed in the subcommittee. >> actually, that was my amendment. and the encouraging of laws to be enacted because of looking at the texas and austin, the john paul center there. they said the biggest -- what's helped the most for women to make the decision against abortion is the ultrasounds and adoption assistance. >> attorney general, do you have a comment? >> yes, madam chair.

this, we had three amendments in the subcommittee, and this reflects this amendment reflects all of those in the discussion that we had in the subcommittee. . >> california? >> it doesn't reflect what was agreed to, that we would include what was in the previous language. so i don't understand why it's left out. is there a friendly -- can i do a friendly motion for that to be left in, that language that we all agreed to? about the ultrasound and adoption assistance. >> i think it is the opinion of the committee members that it was not accepted during the subcommittee. but if you'd like to make a motion, a friendly motion to her amendment, you may make that. >> it was -- >> it was accepted, right? >> well, i think, madam chair,

that there is some confusion. i believe we have another member of the subcommittee that also has similar language that was part of one of the amendments that was filed. and i would ask that -- that that might be speak. >> delegate from virginia? >> thank you, madam chair. there was some discussion with staff regarding, again, some errors between what the committee actually did and what actually got printed. my understanding from discussions with staff was that were simply the cruellest form of abortion sentence didn't make it into the paper copy. so this amendment is supposed to reinsert what the committee already did. and the committee already put in we support funding or ultrasounds and adoption assistance. so i would propose a friendly amendment to reinsert we support

funding for ultra sounds and adoption. because i think there was miscommunication with staff and ms. rutledge on what had already been adopted and what made it into the paper copy. so we support funding for ultrasounds and adoptions should be in there. >> madam chairwoman, staff is assuring us it's already in there. so we're going to pull it up, the reference. >> i would accept that as friendly, if that will clear this issue up. >> you want to make sure we get this right. so we're going the sit this aside so the staff has time to pull up the right language, and we'll come right back to it.

all right. we'll move on to our next amendment. it is from the delegate from kansas. and it will be page 1, lines 5 through 6. >> thank you, madam chair. this is just a short wordsmithing amendment there is a phrase in the opening paragraph that is kind of ambiguous, and indeed you could read the current wording as an invitation to activist judges to make up rights as they see fit. this i believe reflects the intent of what that phrase is attempting to do, just clarifies what the meaning is. >> do i have a second? i have a second. delegate from texas. >> yes, ma'am. if i can ask chris on a friendly amendment on this. chris, could we put in what you have there? because that's a correct statement. but the intent of the other amendment was two weeks ago, three of the biggest litigating groups on the left side announced that they were going to take a position that when

these two rights come into conflict, they're going to argue against ununalienable rights. seven of the cases that came to the supreme court this year involved inalienable rights versus government rights. we didn't do well in those. this is a statement reflecting when those two come in conflict, we choose inalienable rights over government stated rights. if we could say that man made laws must be consistent with god-given national rights, and that if god given national rights come in conflict with whatever, the other trumps. so could we combine these two as a friendly amendment? >> yeah, i think that's -- i think that's fine. i'm trying to work through my head if that is an invitation for a court to invent something out of thin air, like they like to do. >> any other comments? the delegate from virginia? >> yes. i don't know if there was, like, already a friendly motion and they could change it. my concern, i understand the

concerns presented by mr. kovac. my only question is in trying to clean up the language where i says at the very beginning of the sentence, "in conflict with." and then it says "be consistent with" that's kind of an illogical juxtaposition. so it would almost have to be as though the language must be modified to be made consistent with god-given natural rights for it to even logically flow. and i don't know that that makes it any better than the prevailing language. >> do you agree with mr. martin? can we ask mr. martin to repeat his language. delegate martin? >> can we get audio help with mr. barton, please?

i'll go with this one for a moment. it would say we have in there now "those inalienable rights." and the new part at the bottom would slip to the top. so the next statement would say take that, cut it, move it to the top of that. and then the x'd out pardon would be and that if god-given inalienable rights, that next part would be reinstated. it would go down to the semi-colon. so also the next seven or eight words.

>> delegate martin, if you wouldn't mind looking at this language and make sure we get it right to what you're proposing. >> yes, ma'am, i think that's it. if that's okay with chris and cynthia. >> yes, that's fine with me. >> okay. any further comments? see no further comments. all those in favor -- we got one more here? yes, yes, ma'am? >> yes, i'd like to speak in support of this amendment. >> okay, please. by the way, i like your jacket. >> oh, thank you. yours too. >> all right. that's my statement. all right. those in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay. the amendment is accepted. thank you very much.

>> what point of order was that, the vote on the amendment to the amendment or was that the amendment? >> that was the amendment to the amendment. >> okay. >> now we need to vote on the amendment. all right. thank you very much. so all those in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed to the amendment say nay. the amendment is accepted. thank you very much. all right. we're going to move on to our next amendment to the delegate from florida, cindy grays. it will be page 1, line 9. >> yes, ma'am. in the interests of time, i am going to yield to attorney general rutledge. she covered this pretty much when she made her opening statement. i know that we all know there are five supreme court justices possibly and we need to be ever

vigilant in our voting and in our campaign activities. thank you. >> thank you. attorney general rutledge? >> well, thank you. and we would ask that this sentence be inserted after ever written just to reinforce the need to elect an individual who will appoint republican or rather to elect a republican president will point justices and judges who adhere to the rule of law. >> is there a second? i have a second. any discussion? delegate from texas? >> madam chairman, if i could, and if the general is willing, later on we covered the importance of republican president appointing the right kind of judges. in the first three or four paragraphs here, all we do is lay out document principle, and we get into policies and application a little later on.

could we move this into the seconds over the president appointing judges as opposed to up-front where we talk about constitution and declaration? >> madam chair, i'm certainly amenable to that as the adopted parent of this amendment. >> all right. >> may i ask the delegate from texas to make a specific location so our staff can determine that and bring it to us? that would be tremendous. >> i will work with staff on that. >> all right. >> so now we have to vote on it. >> okay. we'll determine where it goes. so all those in favor of the amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay. the motion and the amendment is adopted. thank you very much. >> a point of order. i did have my hand up. this is the delegate from minnesota. we already say that we're going to have a president that is going to appoint constitutionally minded judges in the platform. this is a very redundant thing. sorry. back here. >> oh, there you are. way back there. thank you.

i didn't see you. >> yeah, if you go to page 2, it's around line 11 or 12, i think it was. >> all right. thank you very much. we appreciate that. now we're moving on to our next amendment will be attorney general rutledge from arkansas, page 1, line 20. >> thank you, madam chair. and this amendment is quite simply to make the statement accurate that federal agencies, regulatory agencies do not pass laws, rather they have requirements that are imposed. so this is just to make clear to the country that we understand that agencies do not make laws, that congress and state state legislators make laws and that regulatory agencies make requirements that are imposed.

>> i have a second? any discussion? seeing no discussion, al those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay. the amendment is adopted. thank you very much. next amendment is from our delegate from new mexico. page -- oh, i apologize. missed one here. still got one more. okay. that right? okay. sorry. we have one more from the attorney general. it be page 1, line 37. >> madam chair, this amendment is to strike the word "intended" and to replace it with "understood" by its framers. i'm making this motion to amend because as many of us refer to the late justice scalia as the supreme court justice who the conservative movement will miss most, justice scalia was an

originalist. and the word "intended" reflects what the -- those folks thought when should it be the original words and what those words meant. that would be what justice scalia would want us, i believe, to have in our platform and not the word "intended." >> we have a second? okay. we have open discussion. gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. jim bob from indiana. i support this amendment. the idea of originalism is to -- is that the constitution is written in words. those words were understood to mean something at the time the constitution was adopted. that is what the people consented to is what those words meant at the time. not necessarily what was intended. the intention may actually diverge from the actual words. but it's the words, not the

intent that is adopted. so i think this is a much more accurate and i support the amendment. >> thank you very much. any further debate? delegate from new jersey. >> andrea moore from new mexico. >> new mexico, sorry. >> i call the question. >> okay. we have a call the question. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay. the amendment is adopted. oh, i'm sorry. excuse me. >> now we vote on it. >> all in favor of this amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay. now it's adopted. thank you very much. all right. now we're going to go to our delegate from new mexico, jonathan gardner. it will be page 1, line 37 through 38. >> jonathan gardner from new mexico, madam chairman, members of the committee, this amendment is offered in the same spirit of the discussion we've just been having. it further clarifies that all regulation and official actions

must conform to the constitution's requirements as originally understood at the time the constitutional language was adopted as opposed to understood by its framers which makes clear what matters is what the general public understood the language to mean at the particular time that language was adopted. this is to be consistent with language we have further down in the section on the judiciary about interpreting laws according to their original meaning. similar spirit there. and i also believe that this is the motive, originalist interpretation that is being used now and in fact was used in district of columbia versus heller. so with that i urge the amendment's adoption. >> delegate from indiana? >> i support this amendment. this is even better. because it is true that the meaning of these words need to be with respect to those that the people who consented to their adoption, what did they understand them to mean. excellent addition. >> any other comments?

attorney general, you have another comment? >> yes. i would -- because we just adopted that previous language, we would need to -- the gentleman would accept a friendly amendment to put in because -- does that make sense? we have adopted something that has changed this amendment. so we'll need to change this amendment to reflect that, i believe. or if staff can work that out, i would be amen to believe that if the gentleman would also. >> chairman, if you would allow, we'll work that out and make sure the language reflects it. but we'll reflect the intention if it's called and approved. >> okay. all right. any further discussion? all right. call the question. all right.

all those -- have a second? all those in favor in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those oppose said nay? all right. now vote on the motion. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay. all right. thank you very much. all right. we have another motion from the delegate from new mexico. page 2, line 14 through 15. >> jonathan gardner from new mexico, madam chairman, members of the committee. this amendment pertains to the text between the dash on lines on 14 and 15 of page 2. it currently is referring to a lon line of activist decisions from rah oe to thebergerfell cases. i would submit to this committee the court's activism goes way earlier than roe versus wade.

>> don't have a discussion but i have a second. okay. discussion up at the top, please. >> thank you, madam chairman. i just want to really quickly say that i know i'm in the minority here, but i think obergfell is a correct statement and that 32 states had already signed off on marriage equality. so it was well on its way to having state ratification. so thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you very much. any further discussion? seeing none. all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay? amendment carries. thank you very much. all right. now we're going to go back to the attorney general. has some more amendments. attorney general rutledge, page 2, line 18 through 20. >> thank you, madam chair. on page 2 after the text, we

intended the judiciary to be -- so we want to strike the weakest branch and strike that sentence following and simply have the judiciary to be the least dangerous branch. i believe -- >> sorry. >> i believe that it is unwise to call on congress to impeach judges. we must be mindful that this -- we have many great judges on the bench right now. that congress and the other hands could be very dangerous to encourage such actions. and so while there may be some that we do not agree at all with their decisions, we must be mindful that we have some tremendous conservative judges serving right now on both the

supreme court and the federal bench across the country. >> i have a second? okay. the gentleman from -- colorado. >> thank you, madam chair. we actually had a long discussion about this in committee. and all due respect to the attorney general, it was pretty heavily favored by the committee that we wanted this article 1 powers enumerated here in our platform. so it's a little shocking to me that the attorney general is looking to remove this, especially after there was so much support for that in our committee. >> i have a lot of people wanting to make a comment. we have the delegate from georgia. >> i rise in support of this. reina casey from georgia. i was one of the co-chairs there was discussion on this. but i think in the hands of the other party, we will be very sorry if we pass this. i urge the delegates' support.

>> delegate from texas? >> yes, ma'am. i would oppose the amendment for a couple of reasons. one actually federalist 78 uses the actual language "the weakest branch." i also says it's the least dangerous branch in the federal 78. but in addition to, that i've been working with house judiciary for at least 20 years on judicial impeachments. and in the last 20 years we've already had a coupe of impeachments. so as you look back, i think we've had 101 impeachment investigations of federal judges. some 15 impeachments i recall at the last final number. this is an article 1 clause -- excuse me, this is an article 1 power belonging to congress. and significantly, the impeachment clause appears six times in the constitution there is no other clause mentioned, the word mentioned as many times in the constitution. it is a constitutional tool. alexander hamilton called it a constitutional arm of self-defense.

and we do specify in this amendment that it's for those who usurp article 1 powers whether it be a judge or legislator. we're not talking about impeaching good judges. this is those who usurp the power. so i would oppose this amendment as not being consistent even with the federalist papers commentary or the language of the constitution itself. >> call the question. >> point of order. >> yes, sir. >> does someone have to be recognized in order to call the question. >> yes. >> was he recognized? >> no, not yet. i actually have a long list of people still to go through. okay. delegate from virginia. >> yes. i actually was the delegate on the constitution platform that brought this forward because this is a very clear check on the judiciary that the founders

intended. and there is a lot of ignorance. and i don't say that in any kind of pejorative. i say that in the truth in the lack of knowledge. at the time of the drafting of the constitution and ratifying, the federalist papers were written to clarify the powers of the three branches. and alexander hamilton did say it was the weakest. he said there was neither force nor will. he said to allow them to have the power which we're witnessing in the supreme court today which would be both unprecedented and dangerous -- he also went on to clearly say the only way the supreme court could become the most powerful would be if it wrongfully usurped legislative authority article 1 power which he said they will never do, because they will never dare offending the very branch who has the responsibility for impeaching them for such an act. this is very clear language about it's not just generally politically going after judges.

it is about the responsibility and authority of article 1 power versus the power of article 3 power there is a lot of confusion about this. and we sit here in fear of the power of the supreme court, which they do not currently possess. we need congress to be reminded that this is their constitutional authority under article 1. and we are just encouraging them to use it as they deem appropriate. >> thank you very much. gentleman from new jersey? >> thank you, madam chairman. although i am in agreement with the last sentence and the flavor of the amendment, i do take exception to both what was crossed out "weakest branch" and "least dangerous." some of russ not attorneys. we have not studied the founding fathers in depth like many in this room, believe in plain language, and we grew up with the language that all three branchs of government are coequal branches. as a matter of fact, there are a lot of talk in washington right now how the executive branch has usurped its power, thinking by inference it has more power than

the other two branches. so i would ask -- actually draw it out for consideration whether or not we just want to put the coequal and amend it by putting coequal and getting rid of "least dangerous." >> okay. attorney general, are you open to an amendment? >> i would consider that a hostile amendment. >> next one is delegate from minnesota. >> this is another perfect example of us arguing things at this committee and litigating things at this committee that is not going to win us anything. we're -- previously we said that we hope that judges don't read our platform and interpret that into law. come on, judges aren't going to read our platform. and now we're talking about not putting something in our platform that is going to offend a judge. that's not what this is for this. is for what we as a party believe on, the principles.

i support any type of language that's going to reinforce the constitution and remind people of the constitution. but we're getting so far down in the weeds into the details that we're losing it. in minnesota, we used to do this, as i said. it's at this part of the process at the end of a convention or end of a meeting, you start passing everything just to put it to bed. this has been fleshed out in committee. i think it's perfectly fine where it is. i would encourage you to oppose the amendment. >> the delegate from south carolina. is there a second? >> second. >> we have a motion second for the question. >> we need two-thirds vote. all those in favor say aye. in just a few moments, you're going to hear from the man who is going to save your country. [ cheering ]