Not apply to this proposal. The lady was referring to elected people who became automatic members and then didnt show up. This proposal adds to the number of at large delegates that are state has. And the state sets its own rules as to how to the elected at large delegates. This is a metly different set of circumstances. At large delegates do not notoriously refuse to come to the Republican National convention. So it really, what she said does not apply. The principle of awarding states bonus delegates, or at large delegates, is well established in the rules of the Republican Party. The current rules, if you have a majority, or at least half of the house of representatives from your state, you get one bonus delegate. It would seem to me states that elect a large number of republicans to the house of representatives deserve a bonus. This is a fair bonus and it is awarded and in those places where republicans have elected a lot of u. S. Representatives, they should have some recognition of that and awarding extra at large delegates to the states, under those circumstances, makes sense. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to state in opposition . Thank you. From maine, i stand in opposition to this. You know, maine, were lucky. Were really proud of our republican congressmen. It is the first time weve had a republican congressman in two decades. And were very proud of our representative but do i believe this is one way to take power away from the little states by giving more delegates to the bigger states. And i dont think this would be good for us in maine. So i stand in opposition. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support . Anyone to speak in support . The lady from wyoming. Yes, from wyoming. I speak in support of this amendment. I believe that it is cheer lay republican based type system. Would it get more people involved in this. Coming from the least populated state in the nation, i dont believe it does punish the small states but it does reward those states that consistently vote republican and work hard to elect republicans. I think this is exactly the type of thing we should be doing. It doesnt take away from other states. It doesnt decrease delegates for other folks. But it does reward those sfats consistently vote republican and it is thats important. I speak in support of the amendment. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition . Thank you. From new jersey, just a logistical matter. This doesnt really specify how many more people but with that many more people, assuming were talking about increasing the numbers, then you need that much more staff. And i think one of the challenges that the Site Committee has had in the past is finding locations that have enough hotel rooms. So i think before we pass something without really full considerations of what the numbers would do and what that means overall for the convention. I think that has to be taken into consideration. So im in opposition. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support . Anyone who would like to speak in support . Anyone who would like the speak in opposition . The chair interrogatories gentleman from new mexico. Thank you. Coming from the state of new mexico, the last member of the federal delegation from new mexico, i would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. Keep in mind that the district that i represent is her to registered republican. 60 minority, 50 hispanic, 60 overall minority. Were one of the poorest districts in the united states. To say that winning a stleet doesnt have the same value that the big states are going to dominate is one that frankly, i wonder how were going to get the voice of those of us who will be out there slugging to win in districts that are very difficult. Ive got several 85 democrat counties. And i go in there where people hate to see republicans and some say weve never talked on republicans before in our life. I go to places im not wanted. And im well enough liked that they invite me back. Thats my job. Some conversations have lasted ten years. To say were going to reward performance. I will tell you that it just flies in the idea that we must be broadening our base here. We have to not just win elections but win hearts. Thats what we should be about as a party. So this idea that were going to segregate out. Now finally, many things in washington are not democrat versus republican. They are big versus small. If we take on the tone in this convention that we are going to favor the big states over the small states, we will lose the small states. We are the ones that keep the blue together for us in the u. S. For us in the congress. The senate, those guys, theyre equal. That is the power of the senate. The small states have the power of the big states. We fight they ever day. God bless you all but i stand opposed to the amendment. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the amendment . Thank you. Of. From iowa, i am in favor of it. Thats not what i want to speak to. I want to speak to the comment that was made earlier about whether we could deal with more people. The democrats have way more people at their conventions than we do and they find space. So i dont think we should make this based on space. I do think if you reward people. Weve got a district in iowa that was democrat for many, many years. And we just took it. For republicans. To be able to tell the people of that district, you will get another delegate because of your hard work is a great thing. Thats a great thing. Any one of you in your states, if you could tell your people, if you win this district, you get one more delegate, thats a great thing. So i hope that would you consider voting for this. This is a great amendment. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition . The gentleman from california rises to what point . To voice my opposition, madam chair. With Great Respect to my friend mr. Pierce, having served with him, i will validate that small states versus large states in congress, on the floor, are at a disadvantage. Thats not why i rose to speak against this. When i read that up there, it reminds me of what Debby Wasserman Schultz has implemented on the democratic side which on a constant theme in this entire campaign has been, no more instructions from washington. That smells like a rigging to me and im opposed to it. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else who would like to rise in support . Mr. Little . Do you rise in support. Yes. Gentlemen from louisiana is recognized. This is not something simply in support of large states. This is in support of the flyover country of this nation that supports republicans year in and year out. The states that have republicans are the states that are providing votes in congress. Were not a large state. Were a relatively small state. We only have five republicans in our state. But we support the Republican Party. We have a High Percentage of republicans in our state. And the five in our state would make a huge difference. Secondly, the more delegates you have. This is not that many more. It is less than 247. We already get one for majority. The more delegates you have, the more grassroots people you have in attendance. The more supporters of the Republican Party you have in attendance. This will grow our party. Get support of flyover country and make America Great again. Thank you. Thank you. We recognize the chair from arkansas. I move the previous question. Thank you. Mr. Barnett. The previous question has been moved and is in order. All those in fare of ending debate on 14. 1 please say aye. All oppose, nay. The ayes have it. Well move to an immediate vote on 14. 1. All those that favor of adopting this amendment please say aye. All opposed nay. The nays have it. We will now move to amendment number 14. 2 which has also been committed by the gentleman from who lou, who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. I would like to move the amendment on the board. It has been moved. Is there a second . Its been moved and seconded. Mr. Little, would you like to address your amendment . Similar to the prior proposal which has gone down in flames, i would request this august body to consider increasing the delegates, the at large delegates, from sfats have governor thats are republicans. The office of governor is the most Political Office in a state. It often controls the legislature, deals with reapportionment, budgeting, we are finding in our own state with the democrat governor, we are groaning with a democrat governor after many terms. Just a single delegate i believe is not enough. And in keeping with my concept of the idea of increasing the total number delegates, we have, i believe, 31 republican governors. We already get one delegate for that. So it would be four more. Would be 124 more delegates. I urge adoption of this amendment. Is there anyone who speaks in opposition . The chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. Madam chair, john hammond from indiana. I recognize the gentleman from louisianas point. We have a republican governor were very proud of. Well have a chance to see more of him later. Youve got to think about what this means. Were looking at this one at a time. One amendment at a time. It is the kind of thing that needs to be looked at. Im glad were trying to deal with it here. I think as we look at it, were skewing numbers and balance. We dont know exactly what this means in terms of the exact states. I recognize what was said earlier by our friend from new mexico that we have an obligation to grow this party everywhere we can. Not just the places were successful today but where we need to be tomorrow. I think this is an awful lot going on here that we dont understand changing it here, where it pops up and changes in other places. For those reasons, this is something in need of further study. I oppose this amendment. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in support . Thank you. From vermont, speaking from a blue state, a small state, i am in favor of this. To the gentlemans point, in our small blue state, we nearly won the governors seat two years ago. Lost 102,000 votes. I feel very confident this year we are going to gain a republican governor in the state of vermont. To encourage vermonters to get out there and vote for a republican to be our governor, i would applaud this effort so in four years well have five more strong vermont republicans here at the convention. Thank you. Thank you. Steve dupree from New Hampshire. I rise in opposition to this amendment for the very eloquent reasons spoken by congressman pierce on the previous one and i would like to move the previous question. Previous question in order. We will move directly to a vote on ending debate. All those in favor of ending debate please say aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We will vote directly on voting on the amendment itself. All of those that favor of documenting amendment 4. 2, please say aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it. We can have a division of the house. The chair is not in doubt but youre entitled to have division. Will all of those in favor of adopting amendment 14. 2 please stand. Thank you. Please be seated. All those against, please stand. [ silence ] thank you. Please be seated. The vote is as follows. Those in favor, 32. And those against, 71. The motion fails. Lets move on now to amendment number 4. 3. This is an amendment to rule 14 a 6 ii. By mr. Ash of arizona. Mr. Ash is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. Madam chairman, weve had a little bit of an issue. Ive submitted a number of different amendments at the same time and they got a bit reversed in order. If i could come back to these, perhaps at the end of this particular section and redirect . All right. Lets make certain we know which ones youre referring to, mr. Ash. It looks like 14. 3, 14. 4, 14. 5, and there is a final one. Actually on my copies, it has not even been numbered yet. All right. You still have a number of other amendments. Im trying to see if it is you want to set aside 14. 3, 14. 4, 14. 5, and then which additional ones . Well, the amendment was on 14. A 6, and i dont have a copy with the number on it yet. All right. Im informed by the staff that you have six remaining. May i suggest that unless you feel otherwise, we set them all aside while you sort out which ones you would like to take in what order . That would be great. Thank you. All right. Without objection, so ordered. Now we have move on. We do not have any amendments to rule number 15. But we do have amendments to rule 16. Rule 16 deals with the election, selection, allocation or binding of delegates and alternate delegates. We will begin with amendment number 16. 2. This amendment impacts rule number 16 c 1. It has been committed by mr. Wheeler of south dakota who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. Madam chairman, i move amendment 16. 2. Is there a second . Is there a second . Moved and seconded. That we adopt amendment 16. 2. Mr. Wheeler, would you like to address the substance of your amendment . Thank you. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that in our primary calendar we have consistency and fairness when we divide up states between states that are required to be proportional and sfats are not required to be proportional. Right now we have in our rules after march 15, you can be winner take all. Before that you must be proportional. But there is a carveout for the first four states, iowa and New Hampshire and nevada and South Carolina. And that, so that language that theyre bringing up now, the whole section, would require those first four states to also follow the same proportionality prools any other state has to follow prior to march 14. So i think this is a reasonable amendment that ensure those states that go early in the p s process are proportional and the winners take all are in the process. Thank you. Is there someone who rises in opposition to the rule . Mr. Moore of South Carolina . We have already in the previous section established, to establish a Study Committee to assess such rule changes. I dont believe such changes should be taken lightly and therefore urge nonpassage of this amendment. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like the rise in support of this amendment . Anyone who would like the rise in support . Mr. Blackwell . This is a very simple and easy to understand amendment. We have in the rules to a certain point on the calendar, if states have primaries, they will have to be proportional under certain rules. It does not make sense to say that those primaries held before the period when proportional representation is required should have the option to be winner take all. Obviously, if this amendment passes, which i think is eminently fair, and there is a study which recommends a significant overhaul of our nomination rules, then they can take into consideration things appropriate at the time. We dont know what that will come up with. Meanwhile, this makes sense in our current rules to have the winner take all primaries be possible before a certain date. It should apply to all of the primaries held before that certain date which is now in our rules and we dont know how it might be changed. But we have the right and even the duty to do here what we think is the right thing to do. So i favor this amendment. Is there someone who would like to be recognized . I think im seeing a pattern. I rise in opposition to this simply because we earlier agreed by a very large majority to have a Commission Set up to study the primary process, and the role of all the different states like we did in 2008 and 2012 and each year we try on make improvements and recommendations. Ironically ill point out in 2012 the complaint was the carveout stakes pick our nominee. We dont like that. This year we made lots of changes. 38 different states played a role and some members said it was too messy. Darned if you do, darned if you dont. Thats why we have that commission. Making this change here precipitously would be a bad idea. All of these suggested amendments should be to that commission. Thats what we did in 2008 and 2012 so i would urge members to vote no on this amendment and thats true come up on this topic. Thank you, mr. Dupree. Is there known who would like the rise in support . Anyone who would like to rise in support . Anyone in support . Coming from the back. Thank you. We moved our primary to march 1st and one of the big wranglings was that we were not going to be a winner take all. So as a, what we like to think of as a very conservative state, we werent going to be able to put all of our delegates behind a conservative candidate. As such, we decided to go early so we could be significant in the race. We had to go proportional. Sxif always thought it was unfair that iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and nevada somehow were able to live outside that rule. And i know many of the people in our state, i would be disingenuous if i came to this convention, to the individuals who make the vote, and i didnt express that dissatisfaction from the people who send us all here to do that. With that i stand in support of this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Are there others who wish to stand in opposition . In opposition . John ryder, tennessee. I support the intent of this amendment. I think the early states should be proportional but i dont support passing it at this time. For the reasons statesbdbly moo and mr. Dupree, that we have created a commission to study these issues and these issues tend to be interrelated. How we initiate the process and how we go through and it what constitutes proportionality. The fact of the matter is that none of the four carveout states, i believe, are winner take all. Iowa and nevada are caucus states which apportion their delegates. South carolina, i believe, is winner take all by Congressional District. And then winner take all for the at large delegates. And i dont believe New Hampshire is a winner take all either. But their proportional formulas do not comply with the definition in the rules of the Republican Party as presently written. So i think this is precisely the kind of issue that ought to be referred to the Study Commission and allow them to do their work. I like the idea. I just think we need to blend it into the other rule 16 issues that will come up over the next couple years. Thank you, mr. Ryder. Is there anyone who would like to speak in support . The gentleman from oklahoma. Addressing the gentleman from alabama said, we were march ferris prior to the rule being said. We were winner take all by Congressional District and winner take all by state for the at large. But the rule changed and we had to go to proportional. Trying to get that moved back, the citizens of oklahoma and the Legislature Said no. And so here now we have created this situation. We talked about everybody being equal but we have some more equal than others. That being said, weve talked about changing things cheer back to 2008, 2012, and now we have another commission. Were going to move it back. Im in favor of this amendment and then if the commission comes up later, they can change it. Im in favor of this particular amendment will. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition . Gentleman from nevada. Thank you. Jordan ross, nevada. Im shocked, shocked, i say, that mr. Arriveder and mr. Dupree would chew up three quarters of my argument. The fact is it is complex. In nevada we are proportional. We have a very, very precise and very fair and neutral math mat cal formula for proportionality. And it does strike me as odd that with many of the important things we have to consider, that we would attempt to undertake changes in the rules that really do require some indepth survey. This is why we passed the rule providing for a committee to examine the electoral process in detail. This is not the sort of thing do you know in two days. Again, the gentleman is quite right. It seems to make sense in three of the four carveout states, in fact, are proportional. But this strikes me as jumping the gun. I urge the members to vote no. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support . Yes, madam chairman. Guy short from colorado. First im finding myself in a great position, agreeing with mr. Arriveder and my friend ed henry from alabama. It seems the me maybe theyre only disagreeing with whether well decide that today or if were going on wait for a committee. We have mr. Ryder thinking it is a good idea. The gentleman from nevada thinking it is a good idea. My friend ed henry thinking it is a good idea. I would encourage this body to pass that today. As the gentleman from oklahoma said, we can revisit this. If for some reason it is a bad idea and we want to tinker with it, that will get done with the Study Committee that weve passed today. Lets not abdicate our duties as the 2016 rules committee. Thats why we came here. We didnt come to pass the buck to a committee. We know a lot of folks do that, with all due respect to my great friend from new mexico. Congress does that all the time. They pass the buck. Lets not pass the buck here today as the 2016 rules committee. If were going to study it, i guess well study it. With you there is no reason we cant make that decision today. Especially for those who think it is a good idea, leak my friend mr. Arriveder and my friend from nevada. Are there additional individuals who would hike to be recognized . Thank you im here to oppose and i vote everybody to vote no against this march amendment. I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this time. Im not sure those that are also on posing this motion actually said it was good idea. I think what them, and i dont want to speak for anybody. Im not speaking for anybody. I think what they said is it is a good idea to look at this in the future. So lets not be whimsical and vote on neglect today. A no vote on this motion is urged on. This amendment is urged. Thank you. And i dont know if there is anyone else who needs to speak. I speak in opposition and make some comments. I support all the points that have been made here. Let me make one point. I think it is important for places like west virginia. Im here representing my state, a great state. But the extractive industries, coal mining, natural gas. When we have these early states, iowa, South Carolina, nevada, love all your states but there is not a state that represents those critically Important Industries to this country that is early in the process. I think you have to go 13 or 14 states deep before any of those industry Heyden States get addressed in the process. So i think it is important. Ive. For a long time the six disfor ethanol, there would be in west virginia. I think they ought to be examined. I urge no on this amendment. Yes. Did you want to speak . Thank you. I support the committee. It is important to study process. I believe that is more in the timing. I think we as a body should communicate to that committee if were going to have a time after which, or before which proportional rules must apply, they should apply to everybody. I dont care how much you study that idea. I dont know if there would be a good reason why a if you states get exempted so early in the process. I would urge you to support this now and express why we should have the rules apply to all states. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Evans . Yes. So that i know were getting late and probably dont want to hear too much. But i thought it was important to understand how we got where we are and why i oppose the amendment. And the reason is because of the doctrine of unintended consequences. And ill share with you a little bit about that. Under rule 12 we have to have 75 of the Committee Vote for an amendment. That means that kit only lose 42 votes and every time i move a state around, you whos three right out of the box. So the idea for example that i would eliminate the four carveout states means i have immediately lost 12 votes. And on any given vote theres 20 no votes. So it becomes very tricky. Now, then if you add to that, we shrunk the calendar from six and a half months to 75 days. In 75 days, four of those, four weeks of those were for the carveouts. That left us 55. Now, 55 meant we had seven tuesdays. Seven tuesdays to do 50 jurisdictions. Which necessarily meant that we would have many regional primaries like we did on march 1st. Many regional primaries like we had in the northeast. Or Many National primaries where we had states from all over the entire country on the same tuesday. Okay . Are you with me . If youre not careful, youll have a runaway nominee. Somebody that has not pen adequately vetted if you dont have a cooling off period. If you dont have the cooling off period, then what happens is the first four states have a huge impact. If you can win on the very first state, the super tuesday in this case, the primary, you can skyrocket a nominee that hasnt been properly and thoroughly vetted you this process. So it is calculus mixing all of these things together. To try to do that right now in this 15 or 30minute period of something that took something that took us days, is just too dangerous. We have no idea what the ultimate consequences would be. Thank you, madam chair. The reason i urge to you vote no and let us study it and come up with a reasoned solution that meets the requirements of the 75 threshold. And he didnt even say football. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized in support . Yes, sir. Thank you. A lot of argument has been made to put this off. To wait. Because we dont have enough time to study it. Why are we here sf why did we all come zbhtogether and make s an effort if were not going to do this . We left rule 12 in place. So after this meeting things can be undone if they are significantly wrong. It is a high threshold, as the gentleman, my colleague, stated. If the commission comes back and decides that we need to undo this. And we need on remove their privilege, you have 12 delegates from those four states i mean 20 delegates from those four states who will not be part of your 75 . So the threshold has been moved even further. From the possibility of truly dealing with this amendment. I agree with my colleague from colorado and several of the colleagues that have spoken today. Lets deal with it today. Lets remove the privilege that is in place that ive heard no one give a true and honest reason why it is there. Lets remove it. And if it is significantly wrong, we can, the rnc can undo it. With that, madam chair, i move on the previous question. The previous has been moved and is in order so we will move to a vote on whether we will end debate. All those in favor of ending debate on 16. 2 please say aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We will move directly to a vote on amendment 16. 2. All those in favor of documenting 16. 2, please say aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it. Im going to ask to you stand and it will be quite clear that there are not enough. So rather than have them keep counting. Im going to ask you to stand, if it is quite obvious, were not going to worry about the count. Will those of you in favor of 16. 2 please stand . Mr. Frias, i noticed you counted. What did you get . All right. Would you be seated, please . All those opposed, please stand. Clearly the nays have it. The amendment fails. Next to amendment 16. 3. This rehates to 16. E 5 and has been committed by the gentle lady from colorado who will be recognized for the purpose of making a motion. Madam chairman, from the state of colorado. I would like to move to the proposed language to strikes the words, or the population there in at the end of the section. It has been moved. Is there a second . It has been moved and seconded. If you would like to address your amendment, please. Sure. This is dealing with the 28 delegates are apportioned and the state conventions in our states, whether delegates elect from the Congressional District conventions and the state conventions, and theyre apportioned according to republicans. And it is pursuant to the state law and party rules within the respective districts. But at the end when it said, having regarded the republican vote, or the population there in, i would like to strike that. We are going to want to focus on the republican vote when it is apportioning for the delegates to our Congressional Districts. And the reason why i really like this is because it is not controversial. If we arent also focus go on the population overall. It is not including a lot of the population. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition . To this motion . Anyone speaking in opposition . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support . Anyone else who would like to speak at all . Im seeing some back and forth up here. The gentle lady from california. Thank you. Im opposed to this amendment because taken to its logical conclusi conclusion, you can see similar attempts to disenfranchise people in smaller states based on small population. Right now our founders created balance between states that get apportionment in our National Legislature based on population versus their regional be identity. One could say why is it fair that rhode island has the same number of senators as california . We have 5 million voters in california. Some of them live in places like San Francisco like do i, where i was the chairman of the Republican Party of San Francisco for four years. Donors live in those districts. Many donors live in my district. I can tell you if our representation, pause we are stuck with nancy pelosi for so many years were to be taken away on the basis of an amendment like this, you guys who come to San Francisco for your fundraisers would see a decreased amount of interest there. But on a fairness ground, i think for keeping all of our delegates throughout the state of california engaged and energized, decreasing the involvement at this National Convention on the base of a rule change like this, would have a very similar impact. I dont think it should be taken likely even though it is simply striking four words. It will be a big impact. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like the speak in support . Is there anyone who would like the speak in opposition . Madam chairman, john ryder, tennessee. I oppose this amendment. We are a National Political party. Our goals should be to represent and carry our vision to all corners of this great nation. That chus areas that dont yet vote republican. We need to bring them enlightenment and they need to be in our councils so we can share with them our vision for this country. So i urge a no vote on this amendment. Is there known else who wishes to be recognized this amendment . Seeing none the gentle lady from louisiana. I couldnt get up here fast enough. Im going to speak in support of it for one reason. Let me get it where i can read it. It seems to me when they were talking about the population, that the one that is mostly going to be affected are like sanctuary cities where there is illegal immigration there. I thought that was the biggest point for our presumptive nominee trump. I dont understand why theres so much opposition to it. Im speaking in support of it. All right. Yes, madam chair, i was, i hesitated before i came up here i wanted to make sure i understood the imme indications of this. As i read it, it is directing the state parties and the local wungs to only pick delegates on the basis of republican vote. Whereas currently it says you can do it on the basis of republican vote or the population there in. When i read that, i said, it seems to me what this is doing is taking away from the state parties the discretion to decide how they pick their delegates. And being a tex dhan, this may come as a surprise, but we dont Like Washington telling us how to write our rules or pick our delegates. I would like our state to have the option. Nothing in the current rules pro hent from you basing it on the republican vote. It just gives you the option. Since im a tenth amendment guy, i just now decided to vote against this. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard . Were going directly to a vote on the amendment. All of those in favor of adoption amendment 16. 3, please say aye. The nays have it. Next we will go to amendment 16. 4. Amendment 16. 4. Which impacts rule 163 c. I dont know how to say the although double small i. Double small 2. Is mr. Ash here to make a motion . I would like to submit for ro posal what has been put on the board. It has been moved. Is there a second . It has been seconded. Would you like the speak to your amendment . This is along with the other three amendments that have been presented on performance enhancement. And it would strike the word a at the beginning of the subsection and insert the following language on or after march 31st of a president ial election. All right. Is there anyone who would like the speak in opposition to the motion . Are you approaching the microphone . Mr. Ryder is recognized in opposition to the motion. No. This is a point of inquiry. I was having trouble finding this language in the rule. I was having the same difficulty. Where does it fit . Can we get some clarification . All right. Do we have this up on yeah. If the staff could put this up. A change . 16 3 2. If i understand it correctly, to expedite this. Certainly. It looks like youre proposing that it would be proportional to march 31st. Thats a current change of 16 days. Correct. Is everyone clear now on what the amendment would be . All right. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition . We have not yet had someone speak in opposition to the motion. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor . Madam chairman, if i could. We covered it a little bit except at the beginning. This is a concept colleagues that we have talked about at the rnc. In fact, some of us who are working in this prior president ial cycle seriously believed that going proportional through march 31st was a very good idea. Some of the evans had talked about earlier today, or just a few moments ago with respect to not allowing a wellfunded candidate or an early winner to sort of pile up victories, to allow momentum to flow in a number of state primaries and not have anybody get too far out in advance in the president ial process. All right. Thank you, mr. Ash. Is there someone who wishes to speak in opposition . Madam chair, john hamm monday from indiana. This is a bad amendment. It doesnt seem that way on its surface because most everyone here doesnt really understand how it works. Im not going to profess to be the person that understands it the best. But to me, we still should let states decide this question. And then secondly, we spent a lot of time the last couple of years trying to shorten the calendar. To me, we argue that on the back end we havent linked it all. Im opposed to this. I think its a mistake to make that move. Thank you. I would urge your opposition to this. Thank you, mr. Hammond. Is there someone who would like to be recognized in support . Mr. Blackwell. Thank you, madam chairman. As i understand it, the effect of this amendment would be to return to the rules that were in effect with respect to requiring proportionality in 2012. The rules were changed for this year, and states were allowed to Start Holding winner take all primaries after the 15th of march. What i believe this amendment will do, and correct me if im mistaken, is to say that winner take all primaries could not start before march 31st. Which i think is in accord with the thinking of probably most of the people in this room. I think its a desirable thing to do, to extend the period in which proportional primaries must be held. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Blackwell. Is there someone who would like to speak in opposition . Mr. Evans. Thank you, madam chair. The amendment tries to take us back to a world that doesnt exist anymore. It tries to take us back to a time when we didnt have instant media, the internet, constant communication. So whats happened is when we went to put together the 2012 map, if you shortened from six and a half months down to 75 days, you limit the number of available tuesdays to have primaries on. Now if you expand then, you then have to similarly contract if you contract the overall period, you have to contract the cooling off period. Remember, the cooling off period is proportional, which means that no candidate with wrap up the nomination by say march 10th. And so thats what that is designed to do. On the other hand weve balanced that. Theres a counter balance. And the counter balance is we also dont want to have our candidates still cutting each other up seven months into the process. And so we move the convention date up from august to july. We move the end date up to the middle of may. We move the beginning back to february so we were to cut down the total period. Its kind of like having a shot clock in the nba. It would be like saying we want to go back to the four corners but we have a shot clock. You cant go back to that world anymore. Thats why this is the doctrine of unintended consequences is so serious. You have a proposal like this that says hey, lets add the two weeks back in to a world that doesnt exist anymore. I want to address something that came up in the lasting point. The rule 12 committee can fix that. No, it cant. Let me give you a great example. Imagine me going to the 14 states that were on scc super tuesday and now say were going to move your day. Guess what in they have more delegates than the 25 threshold. I cant meet the 75 threshold because they all have more delegates than the High Standard that we set. Its a rubiks cube. And its a rubiks cube that for us to solve here today would literally need to consequences we could never contemplate. Thats why i strongly oppose trying to do this in the context of the period we have here. I agree we have to do important things. I dont think we should be tackling anything like that. Be like me tangling calculous in high school. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support . Mr. Little. Far be it from the supporters of this to speak to a land that does not exist. The opponents speak of history that they know nothing of. In 1998, the Standing Rules Committee of the rnc met in indianapolis to discuss what was called the delaware plan. The problem that we had was the front loading of primaries and we were going to have a National Primary eliminating all but the most wealthy candidates. So some plans began to be put forth that would prevent front loading. That was the delaware plan in 1998. The proportional versus winner take all was the solution to the problem. But it has not much of a solution. Because starting on march 15th, you can go winner take all. It makes a lot of sense if were going to stop front loading to make that date march 31st. Lets not be devoid of history. Were not talking about a land that doesnt exist. Were talking about in the land of common sense. This committee should support this proposal today. Thank you. Those who would wish to be recognized in opposition, the gentleman at the back microphone. Thank you, madam chairman. Richard forsten from delaware. Thank you for the shoutout to the delaware plan. I was one of its authors. Although the year was 2000. But thats okay. I dont think this amendment is necessary but certainly as its currently drafted it creates a huge ambiguity and hole in the rules. Heres why. If you look at rule c2 on page 30, the page before this one page, it says any president ial primary Caucus Convention or other process to bind delegates to the National Convention that occurs prior to march 15 in the year of the National Convention is held shall be proportional. So that says march 15 is the trigger where you can switch over to winner take all. This amendment, though, drops down into c2 and imposes a march 31st date. And it creates a huge ambiguity. What happens on march 20th . Ive got one section that says march 15th, another section of the rules that says march 31st. If were happy with the march 15 date, then we dont need this amendment at all. If we want to make the proportional requirement all the way through to march 31st, the only change we have to make is on line 10 of page 30 and change march 15 to march 31st. So i dont think this amendment really this is not the place to put it, assuming we want to make a change. I dont want to make a change but assuming we dont. This amendment wont work and i think it needs to be fixed or more closely looked at. I also think we should all look at the delaware plan again. I still have many copies. Ill get them all to you. Thank you. Is there someone who wish to speak in support . Lady from maine. Thank you, mary and kinney from maine. I would propose an amendment to have this language be changed into 16 c2 instead and changing the march 15th date to march 31st to make it in a more consistent location. The chair is going to observe that there is another amendment, 16. 5 that would do exactly that thing. It proposes the strike march 15 and insert march 31st. And so im going to suggest that we go ahead and act on this and then we can act on that separately. Is that all right . Sure. Im sorry, yeah. All right. Is there anyone who would like to speak in support . Madam chairman. Yes, mr. Ash. Bruce ash, arizona. I dont think i had my entire two minutes and if i could just readdress some of the points made by my colleagues. Certainly. And i address these to your madam chairman. The same language that my colleagues used to vote against a prior amendment, theyre using also now to not pass this one. We dont want to runaway candidate. The same gentleman that talked about the front loading problem are also the same people on our committee for a number of years who have talked about making all states matter. Making as many states matter as is possible. And this is whats this is what happens, madam chairman, when we have proportional that goes a little longer than to march 15th. March 31st is a pretty good date. And if that does mean that theres some regional primaries, thats probably a good thing. It allows campaign to spend their time in certain areas and not be spread out all over the country. Thank you. All right. Were going to leave our coverage of the Republican NationalConvention Rule committee meeting. You can turn to skrrks pan to continue to watch live coverage of this meeting pop. Now nsa director Michael Rogers discusses the nations cybersecurity challenges and his role in protecting the u. S. From cyberthreats. He also talks about how the military has provided protection