>> other discussion? yes? >> kim, from iowa. the drafters and the people know what they are talking about, a point of order here. it is leaving a bit too fast for me. i do noti would like to have thd to look like -- at before we had the opportunity to vote. >> because you are moving faster than the mechanical process, i want to maximize discussion, but if somebody needs time to look at something, we will make sure you have that time, and i appreciate you raising the point of order. yes, sir? >> i will speak against the

amendment, and i agree with what the delegate from all ascap said. we do not make this caveat with the respect to keystone or the other natural energy resources we're talking about using. it raises the inference there is some special problem with drilling with anwr, so i will vote against it. >> i think from an environmental standpoint, i think it benefits to make it explicit. anwr is one of the most beautiful places in the world. with many of our national parks and a lot of our conservation going the other way, we need to make this strong that if we are going to make this concession that if we are going to drill and one of the most beautiful places in the world, we want the

people doing it to hold them to a bigger it ethical standard than they had before, so it helps to make it explicit. >> yes, ma'am? >> with all due respect to the delegate from rhode island, i would say most of the people in this room and in america have never seen what looks like. most of the pictures and video you have seen, they are not showing you the real place. although it is beautiful, it is nothing like the pictures you see, and we are conscientious about taking care about our great state, and we want to take about -- we want to take care of alaska. we feel we are being set aside as if we are not as responsible as other states, and that is just not true.

>> another comment? ad of the amendment, and i would look at the makers of the amendment, some out there is a consideration that this would apply only to anwr, and that is not the way i read that because the semicolon preceding that, all federally controlled land. it is my interpretation, and i would look to the makers of the amendment, that this support of development with applicable environmental health and safety laws and regulations would be applied across the board to all federally owned and held land. is that correct? >> because it has been moved, you are right.

>> i call the question. >> the question has been called. have to have these in writing, and i do not know if that has been to ship it. we have to get people the opportunity to look at the amendment. i do not believe calling the question is in order until you have the amendment. do you have it? >> senator, you have to recognize the person before the question is called. >> from mantegna -- from montana, and i appreciated. we have -- we love our land. week drill. we take care of the land. i resent anybody implying we do not. i agree with the gentleman who said this is setting up, to me, saying that we will set the

highest standards on a federal level, which, if alaska has chosen to have a higher level, then that should be forced on montana, because everything about in the paragraph above. if it does apply to everett the above, that has to be clarified, and i am still against it because i know alaska has done a wonderful job. >> governor macdonell? >> i think we are over thinking this. this whole section is about will and natural gas, not just anwr, also offshore. i look at as the concluding sentence applied to all of a lot of oil and gas and all we're saying is when we drill, we will follow the law. i hope that is a simple statement to declare the existing practice. the whole point of the section is we want more development

everywhere, offshore and anwr, on federal lands, and he will follow the law, and that is what we have to do anyway. i hope we do not get to bog down. >> thank you, governor. >> we have two from georgia holding their hands. she did a good job. >> if you look at page one, line 30, that is the all of the above, which is what governor mcdonnell was just referencing, it says as well as environmentally sound. which is what everyone is trying to do. it is already in the document. >> right it is on page one.

>> i was a member of the committee, i want to point out to the full committee, page five, line 36, we have a discussion there under private stewardship of the environment. this is language we have already closed. it's as republicans support appoint officials to federal agencies that properly and correctly apply environmental laws and regulations in support of economic development, job creation, and american prosperity and leadership. agencies charged with enforcing laws must stop regulating beyond their authority. i want to point out in this document we also expressed a willingness to follow what the law is, and that is what the amendment is about. i would speak in favor of the

ban it because i do not believe the amendment is an admission or a statement suggesting is anything but what we all agree meets the happen, is we need to follow the law, and we're not making a statement that that is not happening right now. that would be my reading of the amendment and why i would be in favor of that in light of the other language and the context of which this amendment is being offered. >> thank you. i would go back to governor mcdonnell's net. you have pointed out we have environmentally sound in there, and it shows that people were paying a lot of attention in the subcommittee, both of them addressing the issue. thank you for your comment. >> have been participating in the bp oil spill. this needs to be the position of our party. it applies to everything to me

as i read it and not one specific its stance. it is important for us to stand on this language. >> yes, sir? >> microphone. but turner mike on, sir. >> can i call the question on this. >> yes, it is in order now. you do not have the amended yet? -- the amendment yet? >> i do. >> page two, line 23. >> do you have the written amendment, because calling the question is in order only if you have the written amendment and had a chance to look at it. >> we have it, senator. >> there seems to be confusion.

show of hands -- how many have the written amendment and have had a chance to look at it? there are still a few who did not make it. we want to make sure that people had a chance to see it and feel comfortable of the process. if you do not have the amendment, raise your hand. >> are we talking about in r2b? just want to make sure. >> i can tell you if you were a school superintendent, making sure we have our homework done right. i do not want to put anybody on the spot, but does everybody have the amendment? if not, raise your hand.

the question has been called, so i'm going to ask for it. all those in favor of the amendment, certified by saying aye. opposed? we better have a show of hands. all in favor -- you've got to raise your hands. all in favor of the amendment raise your hand.

i am sorry, but you got to keep that up until we are finished counting. the official counter has to say they got it because we want to get it right. i want to make sure you got two people with the same number. [unintelligible] all opposed? ok, raise your head.

-- ok, raise your hand. the ayes have it, 53-45. yes, sir? >> this is on the next line --

>> you have to tell them where you are starting. north dakota? >> that is correct, born in fargo, raised in jamestown. >> we find the climate roughly similar. >> is really not good for human habitation, you know. [applause] maybe there goes my suggestion, but -- online 24, i read this. this will be published, it will go to school libraries, and six months from now the president will be mitt romney, and my suggestion is if we want to be pejorative, which should be and say the republicans oppose the president personally stopping one of the most important energy

jobs. then there is no question we're referring to someone other than that romney. >> specifically? >> line 24. oil and natural gas, right below the anwr section. revised draft. president personally stopped one of the most important energy jobs. we should say either the democrat president or the republicans opposed the president stopping of -- this so there is no question in anybody's mind when they read this in the classroom or a library or online that we are referring to the person be defeated. >> i think you would need to submit that in writing if you are offering it. >> could it be done by silent drafting? >> the rules are clear. you would have to submit that in writing.

>> i am out of time because it is too late and we want to close that out. >> we had a similar discussion in our subcommittee, and the recommendation for the styles and the editing group would be that essentially all references to the president would be either this administration or the current administration so that it is clear that we're talking in time and space about the existing administration and any future reference to president romney would not be conflicted. >> along the lines of what we said before, without objection, we will make it clear in the final editing that we're talking about the current president, administration, and i think that will be very clear. for this session -- >> further discussion? is there anything else in the

oil and natural gas section? hearing none, that section will be closed, and our remaining section is -- >> does everyone have the amendment, page five, line 30? please raise your hand if you do not have it. do you have it? they do not have it in the middle. >> anyone who does that have this amendment, please raise your hand and we will have somebody bring it up to you.

please keep your hand up if you do not have it. they are bringing it up, and i will ask ms. kane organ to again make any comments she wishes on the mend it. >> there was a time when timber was the main industry in court and, and it was a thriving community of support of the school system. there were very little taxes taken out. we had banned equipment. we had everything you could imagine, and it did not come out of the pockets of the people. we target through timber. i really think we can do the same thing once again, and we need to use this renewable resource, but again had a thriving pacific northwest. i am thinking especially josephine, jackson, douglas

counties, which douglas county was once the timber capital of the world. [unintelligible] >> do you want to try to stand at project? >> is working. i do not know how much of that you caught, but we should use our renewable resources. we should not let them go to waste. why should we get timber from other countries when we have it

right here? we have learned a lot since the 1950's, and i think we ought to go back to using those resources, back to becoming a prosperous country again instead of a country in need. >> it has been moved and seconded. just so we are certain, this would fit in which line? >> online 30, right after private ownership. >> right. ok. yes, ma'am? >> delegate from nevada. a former president of the santa cruz mountains in california. i have worked with wildlife biologists, and i would like at two boards between four and harvesting, if possible, for environmentally conscious harvesting.

>> i will have to ask the parliamentarian did. will that require a written amendment? >> will need that written. >> i will gladly do that. will i need to rewrite fell whole amendment? >> will be a second-degree amendment to the current amendment. >> be adding the following word, just say after the word -- in environmentally -- whenever you would like. >> gladly. >> first, is there a second? there is a second. yes, sir? >> mr. chairman, i want to rise in support of the original motion as it was made and as it was stated. alabama has a balanced economic energy policy, based upon were nobles, well, guess, and be honest with you, the forest

industry in this country has taken a beating over the years due to subsidies offered by other countries. we should explore ways to for the developm the timber resources we have. i terminology of environmentally safe, i am not sure what environmentally or the environmental resource, what does it bring to this amendment, i guess, because i am not sure what that brings to change this amendment. if the lady who has offered the amendment, using the word environmentally conscious, could explain the amendment, that would be great. >> i would like to know what this amendment to the amendment, what it is for? why do we need it? >> ok, what this brings is the fact that i have been around logging a bit to my life, and i have seen clear cutting that has harmed the inherent biology of

an area, and also water quality. i know logging can be done in an environmentally responsible manner, and i would like to see that language and circuit in there so that people are aware that we do not want to go in and clear-cut an area to the detriment of native wildlife and water quality. i am not talking spotted owl here. i'm talking practical measures for dealing with a land, that there is a happy medium. >> gentleman from utah? >> i am surprised that the maker of the motion would accept that particular part of the amendment that stretches at a great deal. i was in support of the original motion, with these last words added 10. i am more confused than ever about what that definition might be. i think we open it up dramatically if we start adding

things like this to it, that we are not sure what they mean. having dealt with the forced in the western united states in utah, i understand what two words can mean to the federal government. those two words cannot make any sense to me when it comes to allowing them to do more our own timber. i would be opposed to the amendment, now, as i was entertaining it before. >> mr. walker from oregon? >> state of oregon. if i could speak, i oppose the amendment. all the harvesting in oregon today is done environmentally friendly. this is done to the highest standards required by law. a lot of our harvesting is done by helicopter and other ways.

i would say i think that confuses people. i think it also can be interpreted like the man from utah said in a lot of different ways, that unfortunately could create more problems for us. i stand in opposition to the amendment and in support of the original amendment. >> the gentleman from wisconsin? >> support the original amendment due to the fact that it's as renewable resource which meets after they harvest it they will plant more trees there. that is the way it is implied to me and that is the way i would like to see it done. i support the original amendment for that purpose. >> the gentleman from west virginia? >> i support the original and not be amended version. in the preamble for this action we say the support the white development of resources that keeps in mind the sacrifices of

past generations to preserve it for future generations. that is an emphatic implication of good stewardship. >> let me ask for a call on the next individual for further discussion. has this been distributed yet? do you have the amendment? you do not. all right. >> from idaho, a state over 60% owned by the federal government, and i can tell you the only environmentally unfriendly activity going on is on federal lands. today as we speak, they are burning because they are not managed and kept well by the federal government. the states and private industry are an example of environmentally friendly harvesting that, to the federal government should follow. i support the original amendment and not the amendment to the

amendment. >> mr. attorney general from the state of georgia? >> we had a comment -- thank you very much. we have a comment from the journal but from texas. texas has over a dozen lawsuits with the epa at the present. high and a miniature player there. i only have five. we are in the supreme court as we speak, numerous states, along with the department of justice, opposing the epa, believe it or not, on an issue which logging roads and whether they need permits for timberlands. when folks use the language such as those added two words, it means something entirely different than the epa -- to the epa that it does to common-sense people. , i totally oppose the change. we need to appreciate what we

are dealing with with the epa and that words matter. >> mr. chairman, if i could just interject something. we are still missing the amendment. if ms. kennedy wants to submit, i recommend we each take our sheet of paper and let us direct -- and let her direct us writing it. >> let me recognize you. let me ask parliamentarians if we can do that. >> no, let me speak first. [laughter] >> i can see where this is going, so i withdraw the amendment. >> thank you. appreciate it. we could not vote on the amendment until we dispose of the secondary amend it. >> call the question, please.

>> the only means and we have a u.s. department of agriculture and the department of forestry is because the federal government holds those lands. this is directly inconsistent with the intentions of the founders, who said all these should belong to the states and in the private sector. it is the same case for a number of agencies within the department of interior. i would suggest this group thinks seriously about looking hard at the reconveyance of forestry lands. you will get better economic development, and you will create a lot of jobs. originalon the amendment, and are we ready to call the question? if somebody wants to speak, raise your hand and i will acknowledge you. >> thank you. i have discussed this, and i

understand the impulse behind this, having the mark twain national forest in the state of missouri. i think -- and i will have to get this distributed -- to make it consistent with the language we already have on page 4, it should read, lands managed by the forced service available for harvesting, because there are lands that are managed by the park service. they have no capacity to let timber contracts or anything like that. that is the amendment i would like to see, and i am happy to write it up and distribute it. >> my understanding is it would have to be written up and present it, but i will ask the parliamentarian. all right, if you want to direct the writing, everybody

can write on their sheet the wording as you have it, senator. >> online five of the amendment, the sentence that says all efforts should be made to the federal lands available for harvesting. the amendment would add the words managed by the for service after federal lands. that conforms it to the earlier sections in the draft. the sponsor has no problem with it. otherwise we will get into lands management, the parks service, and all kinds of issues with that. this conforms with the intent of the amendment. >> give us the specific wording change. >> in line 5 of the amendment, it's as be made to make federal lands managed by the forest service. >> after the word plants, which are saying managed by the four service. >> i would point out on page

four, there is powerful language about the forest service and the lands it controls, and everything relates to lands controlled by the forest service. i am trying to conform with this amendment. >> is there a second? >> second. >> now we have a second amendment to the amendment. is there a discussion? yes, sir? >> mr. chairman, with that in mind, drawing attention to lines 19 and 20 on page four, why do we need this amendment at all? >> that was actually the point quite some time ago -- [laughter] you have raised the point. is there other discussion before we call the vote on the second

amendment be amended? is there any other discussion? i will call the question. all in favor of the second amendment, saying aye. a post, same sign. motion carries. the amendment has now been amendment with the words managed by the forest service. we're back on the amendment. is there further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor of the bennett supplied by saying aye. those opposed, same sign. the motion carries. the section is amended to. are there any other amendments for that subsection? >> thank you. i have and an additional amendment that is written and will be distributed soon that will deal with federal policy to treating in the forest --

contributing to forest fires. before we close that section, i would like to address this further now that we have amended its. was not want to submit it, until the amendment was made. now it has been made. >> it is being discredited now. >> mr. chairman? i would like to draw the committee's attention to page 4, where we discussed the forest service. on line 22, the sentence starts on the second half of line 21, in order to secure one of the country's most important natural resources, which will review the way the forest service -- and that to have read forced service -- handles wildfires. and the discussion in regards to that issue was that currently,

the way that firefighting is funded, it encourages small forest service entrepreneurs to make extra money in the summer during wildfire season if the wild fires are allowed to burn. and so we need to review that policy and remove the incentive, the financial incentive, to summer workers. >> i think she is making the point is included there. did you have further comment? >> if you put forest in there, i was not planning to submit this until we passed last amendment, and it seems like this is the appropriate place to acknowledge the responsible harvesting

helping to control wildfires. >> i would suggest that that is an oversight from the committee. we will add in the forest services. that is more typographical than a real editing. i will refer to the chairs. >> your reaction to that? >> i am glad that is going to be put in. my amendment would go at the end of the amendment we just passed. i do not think it is unnecessary, but i will yield to your suggestion. >> does that address your concern? >> part of it. >> morris is relative to controlling wildfires, and that is what's yours is relative to controlling wild fires. >> efforts should be made to make federal lands available for harvesting. i am trying to strengthen that.

this particular year when we have had so many -- >> but we will add by the forest service, and we have the language saying they need to address controlling wild fires. unless you have strenuous objection, i will go with the suggestion that we will add that wording and cover your point. >> i will be glad to withdraw my motion. >> thank you, ok, when fat is there anything else than four that subsection on private stewardship of the environment? hearing none, i will again ask if the subject any less if the subcommittee as a motion on the entire section? >> i would say that i think the culmination of this section will give our candidate a wonderful platform to run on.

it will address the concerns that all of us hear from people about almost every day, and so i would urge that we adopt this in its entirety and submit for final editorial review. >> i second the motion. >> it has been moved and seconded to approve the entire section, entitled energy, agriculture, and the environment. all those for, say aye. the motion carry straight [applause] -- the motion carries. [applause] thank you to our chairs and all of you for your great input and discussion. and the great spirit of the discussion. mr. chairman? >> while those amendments took

longer than i thought, i would rather have us work later tonight than tomorrow. i know some members have to actually leave earlier tomorrow. here is what we will do. 45.will adjourn until 6:0 reviewed the foreign-policy section. prepare any amendments that you would like to prepare, and we will reconvene at 6:05 and work until 7:00. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the republican platform committee finishing work on the energy, agriculture, and environment section of the platform. live coverage will continue after the break in a little less than 30 minutes from now. for more discussion of the party's policy position heading into the national commission -- convention next week. we'll have live coverage starting 2:00 p.m. monday, and a week later we will be in north carolina for the democratic convention, also live on c-span. you can continue to send us your tweets about this meeting. president obama made an appearance at the white house briefing today on a number of issues, including syria.

on syria, this is a tough issue. i have indicated that assad needs to step down. so far, he has not gotten the message, and has doubled down in violence on his own people. the international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war, he should move in the direction of the political transition, but at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant. what we have said is, number one, we want to make sure we are providing humanitarian assistance, and we have done that to the tune of $82 million, and we will do more to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing

the may and that they do not end up creating -- or being in a terrible situation, or also destabilizing some of syria's neighbors. the second thing we have done is we said we would provide, in consultation with the international community, some assistance to the opposition in thinking about how would a political transition take place. what are the principles that should be upheld in terms of looking out for minority rights. that consultation is taking place. i have at this point not ordered military engagement in this situation, but the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. that is an issue that is not just concerns area. it concerns our close allies in

the region, including israel. it concerns us. we cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. we have been very clear to the assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. that would change my calculus, my equations. >> if so how -- >> in a situation this fall, i would not say that i am absolutely confident. i am saying we are monitoring that situation very carefully. we have put together a range of contingency plans. we have communicated in no uncertain terms which every player in the region that that is a red line for us, and that

there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing a movement on the chemical weapons fronts, or the use of chemical weapons. that would change my calculations significantly. that you all, everybody. >> was part of what president obama said at today's white house briefing. you can see all his remarks tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. we will be back here when the republican platform committee resumes their meeting, expected in about 20 minutes from now. when the committee returns, they will debate the party's position on foreign policy issues. bill kriston was on this morning's "washington journal." host: 20 us this morning, thank you for coming in.

for peace today, why ryan matters. -- your piece today, "why ryan matters." guest: more because of what they said about the presidential nominee. reagan, when he took president bush in 1980, it was a sign of strength and confidence on reagan's part. when the clinton picked gore in 1992, that reinforced the message that it was a new kind of democrat. in this pick, romney showed strength, that he wanted to present the voters with a clear choice and picked someone young. the republican ticket is john byrd then the obama ticket, and now it looks more like a cause

that a campaign. before it was a tough campaign with a couple people in boston helping romney to get over the hump. if you are a moderate or independent who wants a different vision, you may not agree with everything they are for, there is a positive for it- looking at agenda there, not just we're sick of president obama. i have thought the problem with the romney campaign was that it was to negative, they were counting too much on disillusionment with president obama. host: you were vice-president dan quayle's chief of staff. what did you learn from that experience.

guest: i've watched it. no one knew who dan quayle was. he had done a good job in the senate. suddenly he gets introduced as vice-president. the bush campaign was not prepared to explain his achievements or parts of his record that could be challenged. i do not know if dan quayle had a lot of time prepare for this. i think he did not handle everything as well as he showed. ryan is almost exactly the same age in this case, they made the

case more than two weeks before the convention. they did it in a good rollout. dan quayle probably did not should have. a lot of it was the campaign not being ready. with romney there is a very differen process. 42. this choice was made more than two weeks before the convention. romney and his team had been able to prepare. there's no question about things. they had the biography ready to go and they did it with a good rollout. i liked and respected dan quayle and i like and respect paul ryan. but what strikes me about the picks and the management about the picks is how much better mitt romney personally and team romney did than the bush team in 1988. host: here are the numbers to call if you would like to talk with bill kristol. as you mentioned, paul ryan's potential youth appeal. this in the washington post --

the other issue that has come up as medicare and his stance on medicare. let's take a look at an obama tv spot, one of the aspects taking him to task and criticizing. [video clip] >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. >> now mitt romney is attacking the president on medicare. aarp says obamacare crackdown on medicare fraud, waste, and abuse, and strengthens guaranteed benefits. the ryan plan, a r p says it would undermine medicare and could lead to higher costs for seniors. experts say paul ryan's voucher plan could lead to future retirees paying over $6,000. guest: that is an amazing ad of the president defending himself against the ryan plan. how many times has that happened?

the vice presidential nominee, his plan becoming the center of gravity of the campaign. i don't know if that is an attack and on the ryan plan. you can just say the ryan plan and democrats will attack. having the debate is good for romney. it shows the strength of the ryan ticket. the vice-presidential nominee, his agenda being the center of the obama campaign. many people in the media have a simple-minded view of seniors, that they are narrow minded and care about keeping every benefit they can, the maximum level, but they don't care about

their kids off or grandchildren. that's not the way people 65 and older are. they want to make sure benefits are there. but ryan drops it. if you say the word medicare, seniors will throw up their arms in panic, not true. as far as the youth aspect, there are not as many individuals in the. -- in the electorate 18-35. the electric president obama won 18-30 by 2-1. obama won by seven points. six of those seven came from people aged 18 to 30.

if romney-ryan can minimize president obama's edge among young voters, it can make a big difference. those are the most changeable voters. you voted fewer times for one party or another, are less said in your political views, young people being more changeable. a lot of swing voters 58 or 68 are not up in the air. the voters 25 or younger really could move. they may not agree with paul ryan in everything, but he's not your grandfather's republican party. the republican party has nominated a lot of older candidates in the last 20 years.

there was ronald reagan, bush, john mccain, bob dole. people in their 60s and early '70s. and i liked many of them. mitt romney is a vigorous kind. it changes the image of the party. when they highlight marco rubio and chris christie and others at the republican convention, and the convention does not matter much, but if you turn on the tv and see chris christie one night and marco rubio one night and paul ryan one night and susana martinez and kelly ayotte and others, that's a different looking republican party from bush, dole, mccain and it will resonate with younger voters. host: jack is a republican in manhattan. one last time. moving on to ricky in baltimore.

caller: good morning. the first thing i want to say is i'm a 57-year-old african american. i probably have seen more racism, bigotry, and discrimination in the first 30 years of my life then you'll probably go through in your whole life. the thing that really stands out about the republican party that people just hate is the fact that they are a party of no diversity. 88% to 90% of the republican party is quite. -- is white. you are not going to get this 70% or 75% of hispanic voters will vote democratic. at least 90% of african american vote will be democratic. 75% of the jewish vote will go there. the asian vote is the same.

diversity is what kills this party. do you think that people don't understand what they mean? every time we see a republican, where ever romney goes, you never see any people of color. you might see a handful. maybe just a handful of people that our minorities. you don't see them. guest: i wish more african- americans voted republican. it's a free country and most african-americans feel the democrats present their interests better. i am jewish. i know how long historical allegiances can last. i don't think the republican party will look like the republican party from previous years. 44% of hispanics voted for george w. bush in 2004. and there are swing voters. with marco rubio, the senator

from florida, and susana martinez of mexico, brines and of all of nevada, plenty of young hispanic leaders in the republican party. i think there are some good young african americans in the republican party. tim scott, the republican from south carolina is a very interesting guy. i think they will win in florida. i wish more of my fellow jews would vote republican. but at some point you have to present your ideas and arguments. you can make the case they are good for the different communities people belong to, and what's good for one community is mostly good for others. if you really believe less government and more pro-growth policies and stronger foreign policy is good for the country, i think eventually some of these old barriers will break down.

host: portland, maine. >> caller: good morning. you talk about the need for less government, but we are aware of the new american century that you found it and the general growth in empire you -- how deep you think it will affect the ryan-romney chances when seniors see they are closely aligned not with cutting spending on the empire, and that we are in league with al qaeda in syria? can you talk about the outcry that-syria connection and whether romney and ryan will be affected when young people realize -- guest: i have my views. i think we should have been

the best way to shape events in syria it is not to sit back and let al qaeda establish some connections against those fighting against assad. we get help to shape the government we get in syria and it will be a messy process. they deserve better than assad. in terms of defense spending, we're not an empire. the obama administration has entirely pulled out of iraq. in germany, to help stabilize the situation and that worked out well for them. defense spending is low, much lower than it was and we're in -- and make no apologies of being for a strong defense.

it is a dangerous world. maybe people think we can hide from it. host: you have called for mitt romney to release his taxes. [video clip] >> 23 million people are out of work. iran about to become nuclear. one out of six americans is in poverty. i did go back and look to my taxes and never paid less than 13%. i paid taxes every year.

i'm waiting for harry reid to put up who he said told him. i've paid 13%. the number is above 20% when you add the amount that went to charity. host: what do you make about his not releasing his tax returns? guest: he will release his 2011 tax returns. we'll see 2011 and 2010. i personally do not care. when i just released five of the years and get it over with? he doesn't want to and it doesn't bother me much.

we may be passed the ability of the obama campaign to gin up that issue. he is done everything legally and paid a relatively low tax rate because of the tax code. i would encourage him to be stronger in his tax reform message. i think he's for it much simpler tax code which would have been pay more taxes and he should make that clear and make a little more of it in terms of tax reform. host: "usa today" has a piece about how the candidates compared to the average american's tax situation. it has what americans buy large pay. a typical family has a rate of

16.7 %. guest: a huge amount has been in capital gains and carried interest, which i did not defend and think should be changed in the tax code. there is a question of whether there should be a capital gains tax. i was a supporter of the reagan tax rate which tried to simplify it to one set of rates. maybe a lot of this was the silliness of summer. i do not think people think mitt romney is some kind of a tax cheat. president obama has been president for four years and had total control of congress for a first two and where is his tax

reform proposal? is that his idea before tax reform? that's the case for mitt romney and paul ryan can be the more forward-looking ticket. they have the chance to be the ticket for folks in change. president obama is defending the status quo and defending his record. he is saying mitt romney and paul ryan want to change medicare. romney and ryan can be the forward-looking ticket.

caller: he is trying to do a good job this morning. political is nothing but a democratic -- that is all the callers were trying to make and you were siding with them. host: we were just listening to your comments charles. caller: this leak in the white house is big and we need to get to the bottom of this. on the platform for the democratic party, will this be the first homosexual that they will have a platform and say at a party in north carolina, the homosexual platform?

my last comment is, i am sick and tired of people calling in to c-span and knocking the military. there has been a lot of wrong decisions, maybe some wrong decisions but america is so good. america is great. god bless america and our military. i'm sick of these people knocking our military. damn it. god bless you, bill. guest: a huge majority of americans have a huge appreciation for our military. the military does say a spectacular job. we have the drawdown now by the defense cuts that president obama has ordered and that now loom ahead with the sequester.

i am friends with politico and i would defend them. no one really is perfectly unbiased and they have their own blinders from conventional wisdom. i encourage people to look at different new sites and read different newspapers. there is some good reporting @ politico. host: this is from the web page at politico, the headline. guest: this seems to be some good reporting, not happy with vice-president biden. that would not be hard to discover. a big fight with david axelrod

that is inside baseball. there is room for that kind of fighting. they have good reporters trying to get the inside dope. host: let's look at a piece you recently did an "the weekly standard." this is from last week. host: do you think that impact on the outcome of the election? guest: the press secretary said he decided to and i think he deserved a little praise. slightly tongue in cheek.

it would be embarrassing. i don't believe that. i think that would be a rough one or two days. than a week later, there be an obama-clinton ticket instead of van obama-biden tickets. i do not know anyone that does not believe an obama-clinton ticket would be stronger. warner to bring us an important state. i think the conventional wisdom is wrong. i would say, you can do better

than biden. he has been loyal and deserves a gold watch. you didn't need to have him as vice president. maybe he likes biden and maybe he doesn't want hillary clinton at the vice president's residents. may be a 1% chance of a last- minute switch. i think it conveys -- it makes him more on the defensive and more politics as usual. if obama wanted to recapture some of the fresh and new, it would be to get a new vice president. hillary clinton is not young but to be an exciting vice-

presidential bid. ken salazar, warner would add something to the ticket. i suspect if the democrats in president obama's circle have thought a little bit of dumping biden. it sounds like it is not going to happen. think the ryan-biden matchup is good for republicans. host: this is an ad that takes an attack and joe biden. [video clip] >> america needs a vice president americans can count on. >> three-letter word, "jobs." they will put you back in chains. you cannot go to a 7-eleven or

dunkin' donuts unless you have an indian accent. rape continue to rise. >> we say joe should stay. >> they are going to put you back in chains. host: that is an ad by american crossroads. guest: that is sort of amusing. president obama and joe biden has a record and that is what voters are going to judge. sometimes people stress the gaffes.

none of that matters too much. the web is a great thing. you can make these ads and put them up. sometimes they can influence the debate. the conventional wisdom in washington is it doesn't matter. bush won by nine points in 1988. vice presidents do not make much difference at the end of the day. it leaves president obama on the defensive. the ryan card was a big card. i would bet that most voters have never seen mitt romney for more than 20 seconds and now they will see them both to give speeches. >> the republican platform committee is continuing its meeting. up next, the delegates will

debate foreign-policy issues. the republican platform meeting is being held in tampa. one week from today, the republican national convention gets underway in tampa. in the following week, the day after labor day, the democratic

convention begins in charlotte, north carolina. we will have live coverage of both conventions. >> ok, public service announcement. we have one of lost iphone. a couple of things we have done in the interest of time, amendments made during the course of the discussion take so long to distribute. currently, we have eight amendments. they should be on your desk. correct? [inaudible] those are being distributed right now. if there are other amendments that you want to offer, rather than slowing us down, if you will write those cut and then they will be put on your screen, ok?

that will go a lot faster. [applause] let me ask you this. we're going to try for another 50 minutes and hopefully, we can get through a good portion. when you are recognized, state your name and state, keep your comments to about eight minutes. if it is something more detailed, please do, but focus the comments, keep them concise. thank you for your courtesy. i will turn it over to the center for the american century foreign-policy discussion. >> we are on the american century section. this is about foreign-policy and defense. we believe in strong defense and protecting this great country

and the people of this great country is an absolute priority of our government. our country is truly a beacon of liberty in the world. we can only accomplish that through strength. as former president reagan said an accomplished so well for peace through strength. this section is all about that. not only the -- about being a begin of liberty for the world through strength. i was like to call on eric two cochairs for this subsection. our two co-chairs for this subsection. >> it is the desire of the chair

that we be as quick as possible. i will be brief. i want to thank our to professional volunteer staff for their work. all the members of the committee it for what was a vigorous and constructive session. the members of the subcommittee would agree. we have presented a report and you are correct in saying the policy of the united states is peace through strength. the purpose of our foreign policy is to protect the security and freedoms of the american people. we should do that through cooperate -- cooperative security with their allies, maintaining robust american capabilities, and by deterring aggression before it breaks down -- breaks out into open common -- conflict. our report is respectfully phrased. we're dealing in the area of foreign policy, but we show the

strong contrast with the administration. it has engaged iran instead of deterring it. allowed leaks of classified information. administration that supports sequestration, which the secretary of defense called devastating. a demonstration would cut missile defense -- an administration which cuts missile defense. there are other areas as well, but those are some of the high points. it contain strong language on restoring america's military strength and preventing a replay of the 1970's. strong language on standing up for the values of this country. a section against him and trafficking. strong language on establishing -- against human trafficking. strong language on establishing stronger ties with the americas.

language on support for taiwan, restoring the special relationship with britain and language advocating a firm response to the rise of chinese power and russian provocations. the report also contains language unequivocal supporting the state of israel and america's relationship with israel. the delegate from alaska will wait in because he was largely responsible, that there is a strong section on support for our veterans and their families. i recommend the subcommittee report to the full committee, and mr. chairman. thank you to the members of the subcommittee for their constructive efforts. >> thank you. i would now call on for her comments as well. >> i would like to thank the senator and rnc staff and committee members.

you have been a tremendous help and of made this an extremely exciting meeting. the defense and foreign-policy plank tipped a lot of hard work and everyone was passionate about what they did. there were a few differences in opinion, but we all came to an understanding pretty much. i hope everyone is pleased with what we have turned out. the constitution played a huge role in how we were did these amendments -- worded these amendments. we did make a strong statement on each of the sections in the plank. again, thank you, it has been a total pleasure. >> thank you. we will proceed ride into this -- we will proceed right into this section. the first subsection in the

section is an american century. i would ask if there are any comments or amendments in regards to an american century. mr. chairman? >> the demand from nevada. we did the gentleman from nevada. -- the gentleman from nevada. >> i would like to add -- i have a list of universal truths. one of my universal truths is that you were going to grant the power to government, you must first imagine that power in the hands of your worst enemy. for that reason, i would like to add on line 24 at the end come up for this reason, the republican party must oppose the indefinite detention of american citizens as proposed by the national defense authorization act. >> have you put that in writing

yet? >> i have not. >> we need to have that in writing. >> it has not been passed out yet. going to make sure everyone has something. we have five amendments right now in people's hands. we are using just for those friendly amendments'. as the gets -- this is the time where we would prefer you not to close the section. >> i would prefer you not to close the section. >> let me check with the subcommittee chairs. the recommendation as though we proceed on a comeback to a written amendment, i believe. >> i guess, mr. chairman, i would prefer to have text in front of me if that is possible.

>> we will proceed, leave this section open. are there any other comments or amendments on this section? >> i do not think we have anything else written on this section. we will go to the current failure. it begins on line 31. we do have a written amendment. it does not relate to this section. are there any amendment or comments related to the subsection? hearing none, that section will then be closed. the goal line to sequestration, it begins on page two, line nine. -- we go on to sequestration, it begins on page two, line nine. >> we will leave this

sequestration section of been. >> mr. chairman? >> i am familiar with the gentleman's amendment. i do not think it is going to be controversial. that is an amendment i would not mind considering putting up on the screen. i do not think anybody will have the objections. >> staff has the wording has to work did out. it is short. it is a parenthetical fought. it is lined up one, sequestration -- automatic a severe spending cuts. >> one more time. >> sequestration -- the staff has the language we worked out. i did not remember it completely. >> do you have it or would you

like best to proceed? >> we do not have the language at this time. >> we will leave sequestration (we do have a written amendment for links for political purposes. let's go to the first amendment. >> does everyone have the amendment? >> it is fp4. foreign policy number 4. it should have been the first one. show of hands. keep your hands up. you can proceed.

>> the language is pretty clear. i am asking that we delete that section entirely. here is the reason why. i come from a blue-collar place, at a very blue area of a very blue states. if we want to have any chance in the fall, we will have to pull moderates and get people to cross over to our cause. this is one of those -- if you are in republican circles -- >> [inaudible] >> if you are in active circles, this may be really great to talk about over coffee, but it does not play well with middle-class america. as a representative of that, this is the kind of thing that is lampooned material. it comes across as being sour grapes. when we start talking about having to make the president look good.

sometimes are antagonism for the sitting administration can clattered judgment, i think. this is one -- can cloud our judgment, i think. spending more money on something, i do not think it is significant enough to included in the platform. >> is there a second? is there a second for this amendment? >> the amendment dyes for the lack of a second. -- dies for the lack of a second. are there other amendments? >> are any being drafted at this time? >> certification? -- sir? been >> i put in for this section before.

>> sequestration is open. >> sequestration, remember, we have left open. we are waiting for the amendment. we'll come back to it. >> but you guys close the other section. i did not want to interrupt you what you were talking. >> we are on leaks for political purposes. yours relates to the prior section, right? >> the current failure. >> we left that open as well. >> i want you to leave it open. >> we were not aware of it at the time.

>> when we said we did not have an amendment, we had an amendment. then we will go back. >> thank you. >> we are on leaks for political purposes. that section is closed. we will go to a failed national security strategy. it starts on line 33, page 2. comments? amendments? failed national security strategy. comments, amendments? we will close that section. at the top of page 3. >> [inaudible]

you should all have fp5a. raise your hand if you do not have fp5a. we missed a row. ok. we would like to go back and discuss the sequestration section. >> ok, we will go to sequestration. we are going to fp5a. raise your hand if you do not have fp5a. mr. barton, texas. >> david barton, texas. it is an attempt to take a few

words that are not necessarily well articulated. it would suggest that after sequestration, we insert -- which are severe automatic across-the-board cuts in defense spending over the next decades -- and then back to the text. mr. chairman? >> raise your hand. >> i appreciate delegates defining sequestration. it was an admission by the subcommittee. i am willing to accept the amendment. >> that sounded a lot like a second. [laughter] >> you can see what it will look like with the language.

>> [inaudible] >> in the english teachers here? -- any english teachers here? >> that is sufficient now that they have posted it? ok, we are good. discussion? >> thank you, senator. i want to make a comment. i know it makes us feel good and warm and fuzzy when we talk about cutting spending and that sort of thing. except with the military sometimes. my point i want to make is that we are not even putting anything, folks.

i understand this is going to have an impact, but that is because the plan on spending more money. this sequestration and all these cuts we talk about with defense spending are not about cutting money that actually exists. these are projected increases. i know this is going to pass with flying colors. >> point of order. this debate is not pertinent to the amendment. the amendment is defining the terms sequestration. he is trying to debate. >> i think the point of order is valid. >> this is the definition of sequestration. >> a fair enough. i just wanted to make a point, apologies. >> you may have that

opportunity, but not yet. other comments before we call the question. all those in favor of the amendments -- motion carries. >> i apologize for being out of order, first of all. i want to state that these cops are not costs. -- cuts are not cuts. we need to be honest with ourselves when we are addressing these issues. we are voting on something that is gone to be shown to the american people. i do not want to be looked at as not telling these people the truth. these are not actual budgetary cash that exists right now. these are proposed increases. >> the motion carried,

obviously. we are now on the section sequestration. further comment or amendment? >> [inaudible] >> ok, we will proceed from sequestration. we will come back because there is another written amendment coming. we closed out a failed national security strategy, is that correct? conventional forces in decline. we are on the top of page 3. line seven, conventional forces in decline. are there any comments or amendments? still on page three, line 22. i'm sorry. that section is closed.

line 22, nuclear forces and missile defense in peril. comments? or amendments? >> i have an amendment on page four, line four. does everyone have the barton amendment, fp7? raise your hand if you do not have it. this is another attempt to define a word that is not necessarily comment. it has been used a couple of times. under asymmetric, they would insert something that would say nontraditional warfare. >> is there a second? there is a sufficient second. further discussion?

all those in favor of the motion? motion carries. other amendments? >> on page 3, line 32, check the slovakia should be czech republic -- czechoslovakia should actually be czech republic. right? >> does that come under attack the " correction? -- does not -- does that come under technical correction? >> the parliamentarian agrees with you. i do not know if you can hear him. thank you. other comments or amendment for the section?

anything else for this section? nuclear forces and missile defense in peril. ok, that section will be closed. page four, cyber security danger. comments, amendments? we will close that section. now we are the bottom of page 4, the republican national security strategy for the future. comments or amendments? hearing none, we will close the republican national security strategy for the future. we will move to the bottom of page 5, supporting our troops.

>> mr. chairman, over here. i do have one on page 6. it is a one word change. >> ok. maybe we can put it on the screen. identify the line. >> it is line 26. >> page 6. > we strike the word conducte and insert the word supports. i do not think we would be conducting the review ourselves as a party. >> second. >> the motion has been made on page 6, line 26, to replace the word conduct with support.

do we have the handout? >> it is is -- is it on the screen? >> can you highlight where it is on the screen? can you pulled the work? >> there you go. >> it has been moved and seconded. discussion? we will call the question. motion carries. are there other amendments? >> i can describe the amendment.

>> is it short? >> it is. online 33, page 6, readiness, talking about our national guard, it seems like here is an opportunity for us to support our troops and be able to specifically define appropriately -- to find appropriately and take leadership on that. the present -- this does not go on the president's budget and it is always a matter of congressional efforts to find -- fund that account. i am wondering if the republican leadership could take some --

take an effort by adding something, maybe for the first time, show our guard reserve folks the budget and support that. >> maybe you need to write that up and submit it. unless you can give us the wording. >> through presidential and congressional budget support. >> all right. is there a second? for presidential and congressional budget support. -- through presidential and congressional budget support. we will call the question. motion carries.

are there other comments or amendments for this section? >> i do not wish to make an amendment, i would like to point out something that is quite extraordinary that has never been said before. this party formally recognizes the contract which is currently applied that is not real between the united states and those men and women who served. that begins on page six, line seven. i do not want this to pass quickly. >> he wanted to call attention

specifically to the compensation support for members of the military, is that it? >> what this says is that the time someone joins or is enlisted or commissions, the benefit package that is in place at that time shall not be diminished during their time of service, retirement, or separation. men and women sign a contract and put their lives and souls in danger. and then retire and find a commitment made by d united states has been diminished. this is the first time that any party has made this kind of commitment. >> thank you for calling your attention to the incredible commitment of our men and women in uniform. other comment, or other amendments and for this section? >> one more comment in regards

to the finding words that made the general public doesn't understand. online 30, deployment resulting in inadequate dwell time, could we say that even downtime would make more sense to more people, i believe. >> representing a military post, at fort campbell, dwell time and is something our troops talk about. it has been an enormous issue for them. quite frankly, dwell time would be a different component to them than downtime. i would request that we leave that language as well time. -- dwell time.

>> i want to give you an opportunity to respond. >> thank you, i do not live near a military base so i'm not sure what the difference is. in general, i do not know that everyone in the room knows what the difference is. >> dwell time is the time between their redeployments. it is when they are working on post. it is when they are at home at night with their family. they had the routine of reporting for duty on post in the morning. they go through their training, they repair their equipment, but they are working full time. downtime would be when they're on vacation. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> other comments or amendment? >> what if we said inadequate

time between deployments? >> let's ask the gentleman from oklahoma whether she feels it would cut been covered adequately. >> that would help. >> i am from tennessee and i think it is important that we explain dwell time. i think we should have dwell time in there. maybe we should put both terms and there. >> recommending that we had -- add --

>> otherwise known as dwell time. >> this is good discussion. here is the d.o.. either offer an amendment or move it on. is there an amendment being offered? >> [inaudible] >> the further definition is on the screen. if you were looking at the screen in blue, inadequate time between deployment, also known as dwell time. >> you are now offering the amendment on the screen. further discussion? >> the national guard reserves are not active duty full-time military personnel.

dwell time has a different meaning to a guardsmen that would to a full-time military or officer personnel. the clarification addresses that issue because of bad language refers to guardsmen and reserves. it is important -- it is an important distinction that has been made. i support the amendment and i encourage the body to do so. >> motion carries. thank you. thank you. anything else for this section? on we go. that section will be closed. supporting military families. >> mr. chairman?

a point of inquiry. is there anything still open up to this point? >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> sequestration? >> everything have to this point is closed except sequestration? >> let's make sure. sequestration. >> in the amendments on the very first section? >> 0 waiting for the printout. >> those are the two. >> further comment -- further questions? we are on page 7. supporting military families. >> mr. chairman, over here.

i offer no amendment, but a word of caution. if we could briefly look at line 25, the last sentence. we will work to protect service members and their families by not overextending their deployments. i say this respectfully to president bush and president obama. it is very difficult because of circumstances on the ground to avoid overextending deployments. we have very smart, very thoughtful, very concerned people who plan these missions at the pentagon. if they could avoid overextending deployments, day would do so. i want to make sure we are being realistic in terms of what we can and cannot do in this regard. >> thank you.

>> my amendments -- >> have you submitted them in writing? >> what is the number on the top? >> on the top corner of your amendment -- >> fp12. >> we are going back to that. >> i am just making sure. >> we have two sections open. >> we are on supporting military families, but i am closing this section. page seven, supporting military families. now we are on our veterans.

page seven, our veterans. >> mr. chairman? i have an amendment, fp6. >> does everybody have fp6? >> if not, raise your hand. fp6, raise your hand if you do not have it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. those members who are familiar with some of the actions of congress in recent weeks and months are aware of the fact that the va has taken it upon itself to dump the names of

veterans who live had representatives appointed to manage their financial affairs into the data base of dealing with firearms ownership and background checks. totally unfair to do this across the board basis. the amendment reads, we urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of our armed forces. >> is there a second? there is a second. are you raising your hand to get a copy of the document? or because you have a comment? >> [inaudible] >> everyone has the document? the amendment has been proposed and seconded. discussion?

hearing no discussion, we will call the question. some of you just got the document. >> i am sorry, sir. i am not clear where it goes. >> give us your name again, sir. >> it says page #8 and line # 23. >> add the following copy. >> it continues the section at the end. >> yes, sir. discussion? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to ask one question.

we were just talking back here and one of us interpret the us to mean that this was a member overseas serving, there was a representative managing his financial affairs. this is someone who has returned and for whatever reason, someone is managing their financial affairs. that raised the question, are we talking about someone in the military to this had some psychological issue or not? >> mr. chairman, may i address the question? the process now is automatic. it is not on a case by case basis. it could be that the member had a representative appointed before their return and that appointment remains in effect. the member has had a representative appointed after

their return. the mere fact that someone is unable to manage their financial affairs does not necessarily make them pay prohibitive% under the law -- a prohibited person under the law. this is asking for the automatic dumping of these names in the data base to cease and review of the process take place. this be more of a fair evaluation of each individual on a case by case basis. >> who was that speaking? >> the sponsor of the amendment. from delaware. further discussion on the amendment? >> i just mentioned that it seemed awfully specific to go

into the platform. some further understanding as to why the va did this to begin with. >> at this point, i'm going to call the question. >> i asked for the support of this amendment. >> all right. we will call the question. all those in favor of the amendment -- i think we're going to need a

show of hands. all those in favor of the amendment, raise your hand. hold them up. put them down. those opposed -- motion carries. if you need verification of

that? the motion is approved. >> the motion is approved. we are on the section, "our veterans," page 8. anything else before we close the section? we close the section "our veterans." >> mr. chairman, i'd like to say as we close this section, there are signifigant statements that have never been as clearly stated by any party. this is a statement that will cause veterans to rethink who they will vote for. >> when it comes to our veterans, the strong statements are appropriate for a country at

war over a decade. we move on to page 8, soverign american leadership in international organizations. amendments, comments? hearing none, that section -- you have an amendment? >> it should be -- >> fp-2. does everyone have fp-2? >> from maine -- >> yes. i'd like to -- linda from maine. i'd like to suggest we add a phrase. i have fp-2. >> linda, where are you. can you hold a minute. does everyone have fp-2. raise your hand if you do not

have fp-2. linda, if you would, go ahead. >> under the sentence starting on line six, "because of our concern for american sovereignty, i would like to add, domestic managment of our fisheries." we have the legal and tax machines inherent in the treaty, continuing. we have, um, mr. chairman, we have three sides of our country surroudned with important and valuable fisheries over which we need to maintain domestic control and managment. we know them better than the

u.n. would. that is why i urge we add this phrase. >> it is on the screens for those of you waiting for it. you see the suggested amendment. >> moved and seconded. >> i will say, i understand wehre thhere the delegate is cog from. i don't see where this is an appropriate spot. this should be a discussion we had in the previous discussion. i think it's in the long section. i urge a vote "no.' >> i" >> my feeling is we talk about

u.n. conventions in a group. and it seems to me there would be controlling influence over our managed fisheries. >> mrs. chairman. phyllis schafly. this is one of the busybody u.n. organizations that wants to control everyting in the sea. 8 10ths of the earth's surface. their commissions like to rule against us. it belongs in this section, talking about american sovereignty. you shouldn't let the u.n.

treaties interfere with that. >> from the virgin islands? >> i totally agree with the mover and phyllis schafy. we have water our local fisherman cannot fish due to various restrictions. foreign vessels take whatever they can get. this is an appropriate place to put this to protect local fishing industries. >> i'd like to support the amendment also. i need to say the delegate from maine did raise the issue. i suggested if she could come

up with the appropriate language, i would support this. i know why those unfamiliar may thing managment of fisheries is not a huge issue. but it is along our coasts. not just the kind of detail thing we don't want to put into the platform. >> we are ready to call the question. all those in favor, say aye. opposed? same side. motion carries. on we go. anything else for this section. hearing none, we are on page 9. human rights. anything under the section? page 9? human rights. we will clsoose and move on. international assistance.

line 28, page 9. ammendment.. ford's >> does everyone have fp-10. >> does everyone have fp-10? >> mr. ford? >> i think foreign aide is useless and a burden to our economy. from the governemnt section, i don't see anywhere in our constitution we should put funds from another country when we have problems at hoem. me. >> is there a second?

is there further discussion? we call -- >> is there further discussion? >> yes. >> it is jim talent. i do feel -- >> there was someone else here? >> right here. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> just clarification. we move forward just to read that out. clarity of this amendment. >> clarity of the motion. >> can we go forward -- >> this is written the way you propose it. >> i say we remove it entirely. >> the written text says page 9, line 29. it begins -- >> line 28. removing it completely.

this is -- it does nothing for national security. strike the section. >> just a minute. your amendment is to strike the entire section, 'international assistance.' i'm glad you asked for clarity. >> mr. chairman? >> the amendment is to strike this. sen. talent? >> the effect of this, if it strikes the second, it doesn't advocate ending foreign aide. it takes out the provisions to reform how we give foreign aide. i think it has the opposite of the effect. i understand any delegate's frustration with how americna

an foreign aide is abused. this enables us to protect our interests at little cost. our aide to israel, this strongly supports. i mean that. we advocate doing things that haven't been done before. and this is used to enhance american interests and security, but i have to oppose the amendment. >> all of those in favor, signify by saying "aye." those opposed. >> no. >> motion fails. >> mr. chairman, we have fp-16. rich cochran from vermont. line 9.

do you have fp-16? 1-6? >> fp-16. >> right, but it -- we closed out human rights. this is international assistance. mrc. cochran from vermont. >> as sen. talent mentioned, foreign aide and assistance is important and medical diplomacy is extremely successful. my only addition is to have a comment around foreign aide, supportive of economic base in the u.s. rather than foreign goods and

services, giving u.s. companies preferential when aid is given. that is what what it addresses. >> does this begin at line 38? >> i marked it after "critical parts of the world." i suggested a new sentence at that location. it is essential -- >> you insert this as a sentence , after world, before assistance. >> is there a second. >> second. >> it is moved and seconded. discussion.

yes sir? >> brandon smart, american samoa. are we saying here that we would not give u.s. money to any foreign country, at all, ever? just goods and services? >> mr. cochran? >> my comment is that when the u.s. provides foreign aid and foreign assistance, there may be times when it is appropriate for cash dispersements, but when possible, u.s. companies should benefit from providing goods and services. pakistan we took u.s.

dollars and went to european entities and purchased the equipment and we shipped this into pakistan. the suggestion is that foreign aid can be an important element. and i believe that this is an important element and governor romney believes this as well. but there would be some benefits to the u.s. companies when we offer for assistance. and the american public will appreciate this. >> mark baker, from montana. i oppose the amendment. i believe that line 37 adequately addresses the goal of foreign aid. this should serve our national interest. this is the overriding issue and i will oppose this amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> i think that the gentleman who put forward this amendment,

if he were to insert the word only instead of cash disbursement, i think this point would be clarified. >> the word that you are suggesting? >> only. >> only cash? >> this is correct. >> are you proposing that amendment? or just suggesting it to see if he wants to do it? >> i am is suggesting for clarity purposes. >> this is fine. i think this is something that was debated through the primary and everyone sees the misuse of foreign assistance. >> is there a second to this amendment?

this is proposed and seconded. i will call for -- >> i have lost where we are. >> on the screen, the word only has been added. >> we have a second-degree amendment to this amendment. to have the word only, which has now been added onto the screen. >> i have a question to the author of the motion. do you want to do this first? my understanding is what is happening here, the nine states gives cash disbursement, and that country purchases goods and services from another country,

giving us their business. >> this is correct. thatu know, i don't think there should be a quid pro quo with this. we talked about the great program that george w. bush had in southern africa to fight aids, and the revocation of several diseases. those madison's came from germany. we cannot pick and choose. -- maedicines came from germany. we cannot pick and choose. we need the best bang for the buck. i can believe in buying caterpillar tractors but that sometimes it is not practical to get technology -- to not use

technology with a much better answer. >> from nebraska? >> my concern about this amendment is that it almost as another level of bureaucracy for the government to deal with in the foreign aid decision. we have to decide if there is some sort of domestic way to purchase this product, at this issue. we are further confusing this, and my concern is that there may be situations where the government provides products instead of cash. it may already make purchases and provide those. we say they only give cash disbursement. before we would go this direction, this idea needs to be further vetted.

and we have to make sure that this is correct. i would oppose this amendment. >> steve kim from illinois. we have stated that foreign aid should serve the national interest. and i oppose this, because it would really limit the policy makers. in the realm of foreign aid, it can be complicated, and we try to limit this to a specific item. this can hinder the policy makers. we call the question on the amendment to the motion, that is the word only. so first, we will call from the second amendment, the second

amendment, the word only. those in favor -- >> aye. >> no. >> the second amendment fails, and "only" is not added. is there further discussion on the original amendment? mr. krishna from iowa. >> the intent is to stop the abuse of our generosity when we give them the cash. i would offer a friendly change to the amendment. as a condition -- this is another password. >> can you repeat this? >> i am going to substitute, as a condition of cash dispersement -- whenever possible. if they're going to buy

something, they should buy this from us. >> this is being written on the screen, can you make sure that we can get this right. we would strike "versus" for cash dispersements whenever possible? >> is it accurate? his proposed amendment, is this accurate on the screen? >> and you want to delete all foreign goods and services at the end. >> and delete "foreign goods and services." you are making that motion. is there a second? >> second. >> that motion has been made and seconded. >> mr. chairman? >> we should give you first shot. >> i appreciate the friendly assistance.

my intent is to protect american interest. this is attempting to do that. >> is there another? >> over here. >> massachusetts. when did the forever possible come from? when he changed the amendment, -- did this to say that? >> is this accurate? is your amendment on the screen has proposed? he says this is the way that he proposed this. >> i oppose the amendment and the secondary amendment, it seems that the intention is to require, whenever possible, under whatever conditions they -- are proposing that u.s. foreign aid money be used to buy

u.s. goods. that is contrary to our principles. we are in favor of free trade, with the efficient use of the funding, not to artificially by u.s. products when they are not competitive, and so the underlying idea, which is that anytime the government spends money, it should buy u.s. projects, not those projects that are the best and cheapest is not a republican principle. i oppose the secondary amendment and the amendment itself. >> i go to mr. krishna first. >> this happened. we gave cash disbursements to pakistan and they rented military equipment from other countries.

that is the importance here. >> i will call the question here, mr. luna? >> this is an attempt to demonstrate frustration that some have with foreign aid. i agree this is an infringement on our basic agreement of free- market principles and i would oppose both the amended amendment and the amendment itself. >> this is the second amendment to the amendment, which modify the language as written on the screen. all of those in favor of modifying, say aye. opposed -- all of those in favor, raise your hand. all of those opposed, raise your hand. it is clear the motion fails. we are on the primary amendment.

>> sen. talent? >> could i ask the question on the amendment. >> we call the question on the amendment, all those in favor, say aye. all those opposed, signify by saying aye. >> if you said aye or no, the motion fails. we know what you meant. all right. is there anything else under this section, "international assistance?" that is closed. we go to human trafficking. gov. mcdonald? >> we still have three more amendments and many of you have plans. we have got a half-hour longer than we planned. if we can keep the comments

brief so that we can get a fast debate, we can finish this tonight. >> and we will have finished three sections. we appreciate your patience and your diligence. human trafficking. >> does everybody have fp-17? >> ok. >> wait a moment. we have not finished -- this is in human trafficking. let's see if we can get that language on the screen. >> this is up there. we are in human trafficking. >> the amendment is on the screen. >> kevin erickson, minnesota.

my daughter has been working against human trafficking since she was 13. i could not go home if i did not bring this up. by budding this -- putting this particular sentence in the section on human trafficking, it would undermine and create a hypothetical that could be very real, if there is a human trafficking victim in the united states who is rescued through law enforcement or something of that nature, they would not be a political refugee. and yet the person, even though they were not here legally, would be here through no fault of their own and should be able to be granted refugee status, and to have a shot at a new life. by being so specific, to say we

would never grant refugee status other than political grounds is going to create unintended consequences which we may regret. >> did you have a comment on this one? >> i appreciate the gentleman in the issue forward. human trafficking is something i have put some effort and energy on, and what he is pointing out his the fact that sometimes individuals are brought into this country, and they're able to break away from the individual who has enslaved them, if you will, and that that -- and at that time they try to work with authorities and to seek medical care and conditioning -- he is correct in this not being -- this would be a non-political factor. >> name and state?

>> chris kobac from kansas. i do a lot of work in immigration, both for the justice department -- the language originally in the version that we had is good language because there is a movement over the last decade, particularly on the left to expand the definition of asylum status and refugee status. this goes to all kinds of things because now they make the argument that if one person of use you, in a domestic dispute, you are a refugee. this was original within the context -- or the former member of the government. as for the gentleman who proposed this, there is a

remedy, and this is for trafficking victims. this is a path to legal status for refugee victims. >> you still did not have this, -- >> do we have a second? we do. of course, they are really involved in human trafficking. on the west coast, if this is asians or from the southern border, hispanics, this is a huge issue. the gentleman who spoke before is correct that there is the avenue to citizenship. but this language is rather vague. to put this mildly, or i think he is right that we are not trying to hinder the current federal law that permits citizenship, and i think people

in the room are confused when we say refugee status. the point that these individuals currently abide by it needs to be retained. most people do not know what refugee status means in this room. did that make this easier, advocating that this should be deleted. or not? >> right now, under federal law, these people are eligible to seek citizenship. this references that you oppose the granting of refugee status. if you clarify this, you all wanted the sentence in there that said, to retain the right

under federal law for them to apply for citizenship. i am not certain what led to this sentence on refugee status? >> mr. chairman. >> i am jim talent. >> i think that the language is ambiguous. this is one sentence in this report and i have not focused on this. i had no problem with the gentlemen's amendment. if the experts can't figure out what the draft was doing, maybe we should pull this out. >> i would offer an amendment. mike wallace, from maine. we oppose the refugee status as opposed to immigration status on

political factors. >> please repeat that? >> we oppose the granting of refugee status as opposed to refugee status on on political factors. >> you are proposing this amendment? >> i propose this amendment. >> and is there a second? >> your microphone is not on. >> it says we oppose the refugee status for non-political factors? >> as opposed to immigration status. >> immigration status is not in my revised draft. >> this is on the screen. >> this says we oppose the granting of refugee status for a

non political factors. >> he is proposing an amendment to the amendment, adding that to the amendment that you have on your sheet, which is also on the screen. my question is if there is a second to that amendment proposal. is there a second? there is not a second. we're back to the original amendment. i will call the question. all of those in favor of deleting the last sentence, all of those in favor -- aye? opposed? motion carries. >> mr. senator. i have a friendly section. maybe they will let it pass. where we mention the emancipation proclaimation,

should we not honor president lincoln -- >> this is human trafficking. line 15, we say, as we approach the 150th anniversary of the a emancipation proclamation issued by the first republican president, i would like a friendly insertion of his name. >> is this a technical correction or does this need to be voted on as an amendment. this is a technical correction. >> we were discussing civil war history for a half hour in the break. >> to the judgment of the chair we will add that. at this time we are closing the section on human trafficking and we are on public diplomacy.

is there anything for this section? we will close the section and move on to strengthening ties in the americas. is there any comments or amendments for the section on page 11. we will close that section and move on to advancing hope and prosperity in africa. this is line 32. is there any comment or amendment. we will close that section and we are now on page 12. line seven. the asia-pacific community. we will close that section and move on to line 22. page 12.

south asia. comments or amendments? hearing none, we will close that section. move on to page 13, line eight, taiwan. utah. >> this is fp-9. and this would be on page 13, line number 17. >> how are we doing? >> this is one of the first ones that was distributed early. >> do we have this? >> does everyone have this. >> after the word including, we

insert the; as well as this and continue on with the scent, as well as the seller of defensive arms. there is a democracy in that part of the world. other countries surrounding taiwan have free trade status. we cannot grant this to we can encourage this discussion. >> this has been moved and seconded, for the discussion. this is shown on the screen. hearing no further discussion, signify by saying aye. motion carries. anything else for the section on taiwan. we will go to the section on china. is there anything for the section on china. we will close the section on

china. now at the bottom of page 13, the section on europe. is there anything for the section on europe. we will close this section, and we will go to the section on russia. page 13, hearing nothing we will close that. we are now on line 22, the unequivocal support of israel. >> we have two amendments. fp-13. randy page of south carolina. fp-13.eryone have >> we have for amendments to go. we will see if we can wrap this

up. mr. page. south carolina. >> mr. chairman, we look at striking the insert for the entire section and insert the language the has been provided, with all due respect, i think that the present places off base. in 2004 we added language to pressure israel to continue a failed negotiation process that is hurting their sovereignty. prior to 2004 it simply stated that we use our prestige to encourage negotiations and discussions. but we will not -- impose our view. our commitment to the security of israel is a strategic concern. most republicans do not support another terrorist state like the

ones in southern lebanon and gossip. this is almost a direct copy of the democrats' platform. let me ask, how many of you agree with president obama is policy of pressuring israel? that is not what is in the heart of every day republicans to stand with israel. we cannot force israel to negotiate in the face of suicidal risk. this will be very well received by republican voters. it does not prejudice to any particular course of action. if israel wishes to seek negotiations, they can do so but only as a matter of free will. the voters who will put president obama -- president mitt romney in office agree with us, including the democrats will

move over for the very reason. this moves us over to neutrality and allows israel to decide their own future for themselves. how we decide upon his choice will be known to the public. they are watching us here today. if you stand for the idea of having america to establish another terrorist state in their backyard like president obama, i asked you to hold your hand high soever republican and every friend of israel can see just where you stand. >> i would like to second that motion. >> donna kane, oregon. >> we are trying to get this change on the screen. >> well, while they put it on the screen, did you want to comment? >> i like it. [laughter]

>> we need to support israel very strongly and at this time i would call on the subcommittee chairs. i would ask jim talent to comment on the us. >> we considered all of these issues and we strongly support israel, jerusalem is the capital and they should not be expected to negotiate with enemy's pledged to her destruction, calling on the -- on your a -- on israel to hold up the part of the peace treaty, and negotiating with palestinians is the israeli government policy. we considered language that would take out any reference to two states and the delegate mentions this. but we decided this would embarrass israel. it is not their policy not to recognize the existence of the

palestinian state. they want to recognized as a jewish state and we have strong language in there. in the efforts to support israel, this may undermine what has been america's policy for many years, and what is the actual israeli position. i will say that there is a lot in this amendment that i like, and all of this language i agree with, and we have similar language in the existing draft but i would be careful about doing this because it actually undermines the position of israel. so i oppose the amendment for that reason although i support a number of the elegant -- delegation's support for israel. >> this is -- a very important issue. all of these issues are important and we want to make

certain that they get full consideration. i would ask that we stop here and that gives us time to make sure we understand what is being proposed in the amendment. the fact is that we have gone well beyond what we anticipated getting done for today. i want to thank you -- >> mr. chairman? >> sneen. talent. >> what sections are open? >> we have the unequivocal support for israel, the changing middle east. >> we go back to the section about -- >> those four sections. >> we did not deal with sequestration. >> one more time so there is no

confusion. the last two sections are open and the first to sections are open. >> american century. >> the amendment -- mr. ford had the amendments and we had to go back. >> this was sequestration. >> i have fp13, fp3, which is page 14. i have fp-12, page 2, and fp-15. >> give us your indulgence so we don't leave with any confusion. we just have to finish this section. these are the sections that are still open.

>> this goes along with fp-15. this goes along with fp-12. 4.ge 2, line 3. = sequestration is closed. >> mr. chairman. >> just a minute. >> are we clear on those sections? mp-1fp-11 is out there. before i take any questions, is this for amendments or five amendments? >> the amendments are f p-13, f p-three, s p-12 and f p-11. >> mr. chairman. the amendments outstanding.

fp-3, fp-13, fp-12, anfp-11, and fp-15. mr. luna? >> thank you, mr. chairman. jim bopp, indiana. for those of you going to that's amore's, you can get a shuttle from the restuarant or wlaalk the bridge. this is just across the water. we begin as soon as people get there. >> we hold on for just a moment. we will go to announcements. you have the numbers of what we have left. there are some announcements and that turn this over to government donald. your questions pertain to this section or the announcement.

>> are you going to accept amendments for the open sections where are these closed and we will deal with them tomorrow? >> the sections are open so we will except amendments. >> if all of them belongs to the current failures, that section is also open. this is belong to the heading of the current failure? >> yes. anything else before we turn this back to governor mcdonald? >> from puerto rico. i just have a general -- and editing suggestion, which we discussed in our committee with energy and environment. this has to be with the subtitles we have in this

section and possibly sen. talent cover this. it is important that any document, the blueprint for the next four years conveys aspirational messages and what we stand for as a party and what we propose. >> we are going to take this up tomorrow. with that, i will turn it back to our chairman, gov. mcdonald. >> ladies and gentlemen, great job today. 12 hours. [applause] i made the decision that this was time to stop. this is an important topic about our relationship with israel, so i thought that this was time to pause. we are full section had no where we intended to be. the subcommittees were so efficient, with great debate and

most of the key points debated there. let me just get a couple of things. we have learned a couple of things. we will amend the amendment form. this is a place where the amendment actually goes, the place where the amendment starts and what you strike. new forms are being prepared that will be much easier to follow. the open sections of the american century and the three other sections of the constitution, government reform and health care should take over from that order tomorrow. get those forms so you can do your work tonight, and have them back in by 7:30 in the morning. this will take a half-hour from the photo? >> if this is an easy picture,

it will not take long. no later than 7:35 and we will do the team so tomorrow morning and we will be able to start right at 8:00. >> three very quick announcements. hang on to your amendments so we don't have to recreate those amendments. as far as there are two sections, we had a couple of human errors. we reprinted the section on health care and constitution. as you go to the front door we will have staff there, please replace constitution and health care. a few of you are checking off tomorrow, but come see myself and we will have a safe place for the bags. and we will check out before 11 so you don't have to be charged

another day. and are there any other announcements? great job. we will see you tomorrow morning. enjoy your day. >> the republican platform

committee discussing foreign policy, assessing the gop position on issues ahead of their national convention. there will be more work on the platform tomorrow morning, when government reform, health care, education and crime start at 8:30 eastern on c-span 2. >> there are those who criticize me for saying complexes. some things are not that simple. say that there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq does not make this true, and saying we can fight a war on the cheap does not mean this is so, and proclaiming mission accomplished does not make this so. >> three days after september 11, i stood where americans died in the ruins of the twin towers.

workers shouted, whatever it takes. a fellow said, do not let me down. since that day i wake up every morning, i wake up thinking about protecting our country. i will never relent in defending america, whatever it takes. >> c-span has shown every moment of every convention since 1984. there is only to go until the republican and democratic national convention. all starting next monday, with the gop convention with chris christie as the keynote address. and the 2008 nominee, john mccain and the former governor of florida, jeb bush. democratic speakers include julian castro.

and former president bill clinton. >> more coverage tomorrow as barack obama talks at a campaign rally. this is live tomorrow on c-span. >> we look at work being done in the auditorium, where the gop convention is being held. some of the speakers will include chris christy giving the keynote address, as well as john mccain and marco rubio. the countdown to the convention. in seven days, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the convention in tampa. in a few moments, president obama on the situation in syria. in 20 minutes, a town hall meeting with mitt romney and his

running mate, paul ryan. after that, the republican platform committee meets in tampa. >> from time to time, i will watch the proceedings of the house and the senate floor. the interest i have in c-span, so i can check your schedule, and sometimes if the timing is just right, i can get the feed from the floor of the house or the cement, and have them watch that for five or 10 minutes and then we have some conversation. >> party davis watches c-span on comcast. invented in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> president obama says that the u.s. is monitoring the situation

in syria and any use of chemical or biological weapons could use to military action. he made an unexpected visit to the white house briefing and spoke to reporters for a little over 20 minutes. >> before i take some questions, let me just mention, since medicare has been in the news lately, it would be useful to start with actual facts and news about the program. today, hos announced 5.4 million seniors have sent $1.40 billion on prescription drugs. this is an average savings of $700 per person. this year alone, 18 million seniors have taken advantage of new preventive care benefits like a mammogram or other

cancer screenings at no extra cost. this is a big deal for a lot of americans and represents two important ways that the improvements that we made as part of the affordable care act has helped seniors get better care at less cost. i will do whatever i can to make certain we keep our seniors health and the american people. health and the american people.