>> at nytimes.com, this is the andlines read sanity -- senator bernie sanders is eyeing to harm hillary clinton in the home stretch. cristina marcos -- yamiche alcindor is with us. you describe senator sanders as defiant and determined. how so? yamiche alcindor: he is defiant while he is condoning the violence that happened at this state convention in nevada, he is not at all coming out and saying his supporters are wrong, and kind of continuing to really challenge democratic party and called them wrong. say they are not treating mr. sanders unfairly. he is taking on the democratic .arty and one of the most recent rallies, he talked about the idea that the democratic party has a choice to either change its ways and in some ways

acquiesce to what supporters are asking for, or keep this party of low energy. he is really taking on the party. host: what changed between his loss to hillary clinton in new york versus a series of wins in oregon? how did he change? yamiche alcindor: at one point he was talking about the fact that after new york, his path to the nomination was more narrow. a lot of his advisers were talking about the idea they would have to reassess. they were cutting staff members and laying people off. but when he's out of winning --ces, he's added turning like yesterday, oregon and all of these kinds of states. he started talking about the fact he will take on the party, take it all the way to the nomination. he is kind of getting back at hillary clinton. he has shifted to this idea we are going to talk about the platform at the convention.

we need this party to shift, be a different party. but he wasn't going straight after hillary clinton. but after that, he went back to kind of hitting hillary clinton and hitting the party. host: talk about something else that was percolating the last few months that we heard from jeff weaver, the campaign manager. he was very critical of debbie wasserman schultz. he said that on cnn. how has this transpired? yamiche alcindor: it is remarkable to watch, jeff weaver saying debbie wasserman schultz is throwing shade on the sanders campaign from the beginning. he is painting a picture of the dnc putting its stomp on the skill for hillary clinton. and debbie wasserman schultz, you can see the party coming out saying the sanders campaign and support for the violence under this idea they are using data and saying -- using nevada and saying what you did, we will not

have that can. arrests.ot have mass that is what the republican party does. host: so what does senator sanders want? you look at this that. senator clinton has one more states. won onetary clinton has more states and numbers. yamiche alcindor: he wants to amass as many delegates as possible. he wants to leverage he has this new fundraising model which millions of people on it e-mail list, he was to use that to advance his agenda at the convention. he also has this idea he can capture the nomination from her. advisers told me and my colleagues he was holding out hope that maybe if she has a late minutes stumble or the fbi takes her down, he can swoop in

and become the nominee. he really wants to be the nominee. he has a taste of what it would be like to win the nomination with all the states he has one. at least the idea that he had a taste of what it would be like to be the standard bearer for the democratic party. he does not want to give it up. host: what is his overall demeanor, and what is your strategy moving ahead to june 14, which is the final primary in washington dc, a democratic primary? yamiche alcindor: the strategy is to hold huge rallies across the country, especially focusing on the california. to new mexico and california this weekend. he will have as much energy in these places. he will try to talk up his supporters. not condone violence, but he is saying i appreciate the fact you are coming out, that you are challenging the party on my behalf.

he is looking forward to doing that. the demeanor for senator sanders is defiant. it is a little combative, not combative that he is taking on the party and saying, don't tell me to drop out, don't tell me about how many votes hillary clinton has. i want to talk about what i have accomplished. host: can the party unite in philadelphia this summer? yamiche alcindor: i think so. as someone that has been on so many different events, i have watched people. they really want to ask him about whether or not they were support hillary clinton if they are bernie sanders fans, the first thing they will say is i will not. but when you start saying, what if it is hillary clinton versus donald trump? 90%, they say of course i would support hillary clinton. the party is facing donald trump, they can unite. they see him as a union at enemy. people will do whatever they can

to not get trump in the white house. with we saw that in 2008 ma, saying they would not support barack obama, but they did come together. yamiche alcindor: we are talking about, they are all democrats, even people who are independent. they likely voted for the democratic party in the past. and all of these people i interviewed about what they want for the country, it looks like the country is more like what hillary clinton is pitching than donald trump is pitching. so they see him as the ultimate villain when it comes to the democratic party. so they can come together. alcindor covering politics for the new york times. thank you for being with us. yamiche alcindor: thank you for having me. ♪ journaln's washington

with news and policy that affect you. coming up, the chief policy editor for the labor overtime thing on wednesday. and then the sunlight foundation. talking about the deal between the rnc and the trump campaign and the fundraiser for the general election. he has sources that say donald $2mp is aiming to raise billion. and we break down the national authorization act from the house on wednesday night. be sure to watch beginning at 7:00 eastern friday. join the discussion. host: the u.s. house got rowdy with the defense spending bill. covering it for "the hill," cristina marcos. tell us about the provisions, first of all, the provisions in the defense authorization bill

which passed late wednesday. what is that all about? cristina marcos: two years ago, president obama issued an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against members of the lgbt community. but house republicans inserted an amendment into this year's defense bill that states religious organizations and other contractors for the federal government cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion, and the lgbt community and democrats interpreted that as a potential opportunity that would open up discrimination against the lgbt community. host: that came up in the motion to recommit again late wednesday in this defense authorization bill that was shot down, the authorization bill passed and then again, it came up as an amendment this time once again it was sean patrick maloney, the , congressman democratic , congressman, bringing forth an amendment. what was he trying to do? cristina marcos: that is right. last night was the defense

authorization, democrats used a procedural maneuver that would have amended the defense authorization to eliminate that republican provision that was intended, that was framed as promoting religious freedom. however maloney, who is openly gay, was warning that this was personal for him and that, you know, this could open up discrimination against people like him. so with the military construction veterans affairs funding bill, he was trying to prohibit any funds from being used to go against the executive order president obama issued. host: and the new york congressman's amendment came up for a vote. you saw it on c-span, your headline captures some of the affair at thehill.com. chaos in the house after g.o.p. votes down lgbt measure, linking to our video. what happened in that vote? why was that vote unusual? cristina marcos: so house

, republicans, upon taking the majority in 2011, brought back this procedure for considering spending bills that allows lawmakers to offer unlimited numbers of amendments. and so, while republican house says return to regular order and having this open process, it also opens the opportunity for democrats and members of the minority party to hijack the process and force votes on things leadership would otherwise deny them having. while maloney was denied a vote on the defense authorization, which the leadership controlled the amendment process there, he was able to force it on this spending bill that came up today. host: right. it seemed to rub certainly democrats fairly raw in terms of that vote procedure. your tweet about the followup on that, you say that whip hoyer is calling out specific republicans who change their votes on the lgbt measure. talking about jeff denham, greg walden, mimi walters, david young switching their vote. did you get a chance to talk to

any of the members who switched votes or hear why people were switching votes? obviously a strong whip operation on the republican side. cristina marcos: that is right. originally the measure was passing. however, because the house had already passed the provision , you know stating otherwise the , night before, republican leadership felt that they had to beat back this amendment that maloney offered today. and so, you know, it had originally been passing republican leadership, including majority leader kevin mccarthy, could be seen on the floor, pressing members to change their votes. some of the members included some of the lawmakers you mentioned like walden and jeff denham and so -- democrats were complaining that these members were changing their votes without specifically coming to the well of the house so that everyone could see who exactly was changing their votes. instead, they were somehow able to change their votes electronically without having everyone see them do it. host: all of this happening on the last day, legislatively, for

the week. but what does this say about relations going forward, but in particular, next week? the house has a lot to get done before the memorial day recess. do you think an incident like this or what's happened over the last day or more, does it have an impact on relations between the two parties? cristina marcos: well it's clear , democrats will use the open amendment process to their advantage especially while we're , in the middle of an election year. and last night, house minority leader nancy pelosi was clearly linking or trying to link the -- both the lgbt measure as well as a separate provision related to the confederate flag as what she described as, you know, discrimination that donald trump has been promoting in his campaign, turning into legislative proposals in the house from house republicans. host: our guest is cristina marcos, and you can follow her reporting at thehill.com and on twitter, @cimarcos. thank you for joining us.

cristina marcos: thank you for having me. host: we thought we would give you a flavor of how this all got started on the house floor late wednesday. here is a look. my dad was a veteran and was nearly killed serving this country. me to respect those who served. he was nearly killed in the service of his country. saying it is once again legal for members to be fired because of who they are. this is wrong. [applause] this is not, this is not about supporting our troops. it is not about fighting isis, it is not about religious protections. we can do all of that, and we should. this is about bigotry, plain and

simple. but we can fix it by embracing the bipartisan effort denied by the rules committee to remove this hateful language and keep everything else. when my husband and i got married after waiting 22 years, so many of you express your support. will you now look me in the eye and say it would be ok for me to lose my job over it? just today, a member of this as refusing to help strike this anti-gay language said to me, but you know where i am on your issues. i said, no. this is where you are on my issues. your vote is where you are on my issues, and this is where your children and your history.

your understanding on our issues. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> and in doing so strike a blow to equality. mr. speaker -- >> gentleman's time is expired. if we are to make america great, you need americans to make america great. >> gentleman is no longer recognized. host: a look at what happened on the house floor today as members cast their vote. it looks ready to pass, and that it failed leading to sustained voice disapproval. we start with a look at the amendment as it was introduced. night, this house adopted a provision as part of the defense bill that rolls back and-discrimination measures executive orders by the president in recent years. this is one of the ugliest episodes that i experienced in

my three-plus years as member of this house. the inclusion of such hate-based language in a defense bill designed to support our military sends exactly the wrong message at a time when we should all be unified in supporting the efforts of our service members around the world. my father was a veteran. he was nearly killed in the service of his country. i've never voted begins the -- against the defense bill before. i never thought i would. almost a quarter of the constituents i represent in the hudson valley of new york come from families where a member is serving in the military or has served in the military. i represent the united states military academy at west point. we have helped 800 veterans one at a time out of my district office in my three years in congress, and we passed legislation directly aimed at making their lives better. directly aimed at making their lives better. so it is not with an easy heart that i come to the house floor and oppose the defense bill, but this legislation snuck in the bill and kept in the bill

despite a bipartisan effort to remove it sends exactly the wrong signal and it says that we are so concerned about discriminating against a group of lgbt americans that we are willing to destroy the bipartisan cooperation we should have on a defense bill. so my amendment today gives us another chance. it gives us a chance to correct some of the damage done last night by the misguided efforts of some members of this body. and what it would say is quite simple is that we shall not do anything in this bill that controw convenients the executive orders of the president. it's pretty simple. we should not be spending taxpayer dollars to promote hate and we should not be justifying that by some religious exemption when in fact the language in the defense bill simply rolls back the anti-discrimination provisions that the president put in executive order to those contained in the original civil rights act and the a.d.a. it is specifically designed to

exclude lgbt americans, and in doing that, it aligns itself with the parallel efforts we see happening in states like north carolina. it's wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with our military. it doesn't have anything to do with fighting isis. it doesn't have anything to do with religious protections. it's about bigotry, plain and simple, and today we have another chance to do the right thing and to send the right message and to stick up for our military. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. maloney: yes, i will. mr. dent: i just want to state i support the amendment and oppose discrimination in any shape or form in this case as it relates to federal contracting. i yield back. mr. maloney: reclaiming my time. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania and i want to acknowledge that it was the gentleman from pennsylvania, together with mr. hannah from new york, who craig -- mr. hanna from new york, who

courageously supported it. i'm honored by the support and i'm honored by the position you've taken in this house over the past couple days. i yield back. the chair: any member claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer in an open rule in a different bill his objections to what occurred last night. last night, the house of representatives passed the bill and today the gentleman's offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that amendment that we made. mr. chairman, several days ago the house armed services committee handled this issue. it was not sneaking something in. it was a straight up vote. it was a vote that was held in the armed services committee, and then the -- and it passed nd then the final vote was

60-2. mr. chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. that is a vote from people who viewed who are on the committee that they were not going to let one issue or another get in the way of supporting the men and women of our united states military. they very clearly, all of them on the committee understood during this long markup exactly the implications and they lived with the decision. i am here today to say that the gentleman is fully entitled to do as he's doing. but the vote was held last night. the overwhelming viewpoint was, let's support the united states -- mr. maloney? mr. sessions: i will in just a second. let's support the united states military and let's get this done, not the next day come on

the floor with spilled milk on your face and say i want to go back and i want to relit gait a decision we -- re litigate a decision we made here on the floor. i will yield to the gentleman. i admire the gentleman. mr. maloney: i appreciate the admiration. is it necessary to discriminate gays and lesbians to support our military? mr. sessions: let me say this, the issue was handled -- and the gentleman knows this -- in committee. mr. maloney: it was resolved last night in -- it was resolved last night in the affirmative. in other words, this house said that it will include in a defense bill a provision that will roll back basic employment protection for gays and lesbians. my question to my colleague, mr. speaker, if that's necessary for the promotion of national defense? is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians and transgendered americans? mr. sessions: i will reclaim my time, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman.

i am not without an understanding that there are ople who do have ideas which override other bigger ideas. i am simply saying to you, mr. chairman, i stand in opposition to what the gentleman is attempting to do here the next day in a separate bill to limit what we did last night when this body did understand that many people have a strong viewpoint that supports the gentleman and many people have a viewpoint that's against that. that's not my point. my point is we need to transcend that as a body and we did last night and we spoke very clearly, we need to support the men and women of the united states military, and we do not believe this is a stumbling block because we don't view what the gentleman's saying is the critical and key issue. that is why -- mr. maloney: if the gentleman will yield? mr. sessions: i appreciate him and i would yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. mr. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time? the chair: is there objection? mr. sessions: objection. the chair: objection is noted. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- mr. bishop: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike the last word. cheese 5. mr. bishop: i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman. mr. maloney: i thank the gentleman. i'd like to again express my thanks for my colleague's admiration. it's nice to have admiration. it's better to have rights and it's better to be treated equaly and without conned sention and i would just -- and without condescension and i would just say, is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians in federal contracting to support our troops? is it necessary to remove employment protections in employers covering 28 million americans so that we can fight the war on isis? is it necessary to protect ourselves in our houses of worship by discriminating in

federal contracting in businesss that are in the business of commerce and in private contracting? it is a tired and old and false choice to suggest that we need to discriminate to keep ourselves self, to -- safe, to keep ourselves free, and people in earlier times made that argument, sir. the notion they did it last night, this house got a lot of things wrong for a lot of people for a lot of years and then finally slowly almost to spite ourselves we figured out that we can be safe and free and equal and in fact becoming more equal in some ways makes us safer because it is the promotion of our values, through our actions and our ideas and our words, not just our weapons that promote our values around t >> that debate led to a

15-minute vo >> that debate led to a 15 minute vote. the tally started to change as members switched their votes to raised voices on what it looks .

>> boo!

the speaker pro tempore: on this volt, the yeas are 212, the nays are 213, the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. erk: page 7 this act may be cited as the military construction, veterans' affairs, and related gency appropriation act, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with a recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that this bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 497 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments and recommendation that the amendments agreed to nti-bill be amended do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the cheat of the the clerk of the house: has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4974 and pursuant to house resolution 736 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adew pointed in the whole committee ---in the committee of the whole. the previous question is -- under the rule, the previous question is ordered. he house will be in order.

he house will be in order. the house will be in order. > mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the minority whip seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i want to raise a parliamentary inquiry initially with reference to the fact that mr. ryan, our speaker, has told us if people were in the well

that the vote would be held open. i was standing in the well, no one came or no one had the courage to come into the well to change their vote, but notwithstanding that, the vote kept changing. mr. speaker, from a parliamentary perspective, how s that possible? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for changes. mr. hoyer: i saw no one come to the desk to change their vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry. mr. hoyer: the inquiry is how can the vote change when no one comes to the well to change heir vote? the speaker pro tempore: the chair had not yet announced request for changes.

mr. hoyer: i didn't hear the chair request change, but i do know that from my personal observation not one of those members who apparently changed their vote because it kept changing on the board came to this well and had the courage to change from green to red or red to green. how is that possible, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, let me raise another parliamentary inquirery. mr. speaker, let me raise a parliamentary inquirery. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will put them engross. the question on - - mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote on the committee rising. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: those in favor will vote aye, those opposed, no. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have it. hoyer: -- mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i did

not hear and therefore was not able to ask for a recorded vote on the motion to rise. the speaker did not articulate that, so the house could hear it. and i suggest the -- i request a vote on the motion to rise. now, the speaker may tell me we are past that point, but the fact of the matter is, nobody on this house floor heard the speaker articulate the issue of whether the committee ought to ise. the speaker pro tempore: the house is definitely -- past that point. is the gentleman seeking a recorded volt on the -- mr. hoyer: on the motion to rise. the speaker pro tempore: on the adoption of the amendment? mr. hoyer: recorded vote on the adoption of the amendment. which amendment is the speaker talking about? if he's talking about the