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 ru