for it and says the u.s. must lead the world to develop it. tonight on "the communicators," frontier communications executive kathleen abernathy talks about 5g and what it means for the u.s. she'll also discuss why 5g is needed for the internet of things, self-driving cars and the expansion of virtual reality. she's joined by communications daily senior editor howard buskirk.

live coverage on c-span 3. >> the democratic national committee matter oft weekend took finish work on their party platform which will be voted on at the democratic convention later this month in philadelphia. the document is a representation of the democratic parties position on several foreign and domestic issues. for the next four and a half hours we'll show you the debate that occurred on saturday.

>> we need to come to order, please take your seats. all right. i need people to take their seats please. let's be ready to reconvene. please, if you want to get homet this weekend. [laughter] no one is used to our starting on time. no one is used to it.

kourtney. >> testing. amendment number 36 has been withdrawn. amendment number 58 sponsored by dennis abusky page 10, line 35 the proposed amendment is to add the following.ng. many state democratic parties are voiced opposition to the tpp, and in this case, full and more complete discussion of the contents should be debated in public. the idea, trust but verify. we do not support any senate vote on the tpp during their lame duck session this year. the agreement was not publicly discussed and debated on an issue by issue basis and we owe it to the next generation ofat americans to give more

thoughtful consideration prior to entering into a well-meaning but centric agreement. there are too many questions to condone support of the tpp. >> the proponent of this amendment has one minute to explain it.it >> i yield my time to jim hyde tower. do i have to -- is it on here? >> yes. but only yielding one minute. >> yielding my time i got it. and we'll start the clock >> mr. chairman i call up to the amendment. j that's not in order because we have not had anyone speak tondm original amendment hasn't been seconded yet so original amendment needs to be stone to you have one minute to do it and then i'll see if there are supporters which i assume there

will be, but we have to follow some decorum here. and i'm extending your one minute but it is on the issue of the original amendment.gi >> i'm in support of the original amendment and i would be substituting -- to it. >> okay. >> you are in support of the original amendment that's what you're in support of you spoken to in support of it. are there 15 individuals in support of it? >> there are 15 individuals in support of it. we will now go to a debate with respect to the original amendment. >> we want to offer the second degree amendment. >> listen, there's an amendment. >> submitted -- okay. >> we have an amendment that has

not been spoken to -- >> it was admitted. >> but with a one minute it shall and then a motion. correct. not been a movement. >> no, there's been a finding -- okay. just give let's give us one minute and try to figure it out. i think some people are having a discussion. just give me one minute. [inaudible]

[silence]

>> if we can come back to order. was made -- pursuant to agreement of the party, we hear had the high tower amendment, and once it is read by mr. hightower, is that how we're going to do it. it's read by mr. hightower then

u you can describe it and i'll ask if there are 15 supporters if there are we will go immediate reto a discussion.th pursuant to that discussion you will be granted i assume you'll take it five minutes to be follow by five minutes of discussion by an opponent and then i'm gong to call a vote. this is all pursuant to grement and we're going to do this as agreed.t. i now recognize him. >> essence of this amendment it is policy of the democratic party that the trans-pacific partnership must not get a vote in future session of congress. [applause] this -- this proposal is very important to grassroots americans and to the success of our party that's because tpp is not just another trade proposal. it's a little shop of corporate

what are roars that unleashest global waste busters, big parliament. world bank stores internght and other predators that rip us off and subvert the sovereignty. once said that i see lots of funny men and some rob you by the townen tay pen doing stealing in our society today and in the now have to thinknk that we can contain this local graphic government of greed with soft words and regulations.d rather we must kill it before it kills our democracy. >> thank you. [applause] pursuant to agreement there are 15 supporters -- we will now have five minutes of -- by the proponents of this amendment to speak to it followed by five minutes of the opponents please begin the clock.

>> i appreciate the unity that we're experiencing this is going to carry us great distance into the next couple of months. and i urge us, however, to join in the boldest absolute action to take against tpp not just condemn it but act against it . there's an old cowboy saying out in west texas speak the truths but ride a fast horse. [laughter] now -- the way that tpp section of our party platform is not just inadequately soft but disastrously inadequate statement of our parties political real will. it's crucial that we fix this or for two reasons. one, on principle. millions of our core voters orou on fire about the tpp power grat leading that the party, on fire about it. but using lame language tells them that we will not stand with them on this fight against the

greed itself. against the people who wrote this thing. the corporate power. but second reason is politics. but donny trump is telling working class americans all across this country that he wilt flat out kill tpp effective in midwestern swing states there that we're counting on, and other p by the way we now learnh that gop platform was specifically say no lame duck vote on tpp. the republicans are going to be a flatout statement.t he's going to hammer hillary wi mercifullessly it is hue -- humiliating -- [inaudible] than the republicans.lause] so i offer this straightforward amendment as a form of political viagra. [inaudible] >> three minutes. to stiffen the sign of our parte

to ordinary americans can knowwe without doubt that we democratsr are on their side and then you can't make chicken salad with chick hadden manure. more graphic than ma u niewfer but nonetheless 2,000 pages of unadulterateed manure it is not in a trade deal but incorporate power deal and only six deal with trade. the rest of them corporate over the people of this country and around the world. even adds new incentives for offshore more of our middle-class jobs and no u how cynical you get it is almost impossible to keep up. this is -- [inaudible] chairman -- yesterday you have a lot of people behind you. chairman you have two minutes. keep our eyes on our children. and riding a platform well, he's

right about that. on their children too and on their grandchildren and grandchildren . tpp is forever. most people don't know that. future president can't get out of it. the supreme court cannot. you can just put up their stamp on this thing. if it is signed and the reason that it's a corporate dream is because corporations wrote it.t. 500 corporate executives and lobbyistings sat around the table including koch brothers and coke koa will and wal-mart, et cetera but we weren't at the table . labor wasn't. environmentalists if you're not on the table, you're on the menu and that's -- it's [laughter] [applause] it's a platform would have said that democrats are 50/50 divided on tpp that's not even close to true. 85% of the house democratic caucus is on record against the tpp grassroots democrats are,

and if you -- if that's not enough, these are bocks with 10 petitions signed by american people in the last week and a half for this attempt amendment more than 700,000 of them have been signed. >> thank you very much. if we can clear when you're done please clear so that we can have the opponent use their agreed to five minutes so that we'll then go to a vote -- >> you're done. >> thank you, thank you very much. >> my pleasure. now with opponents of the highwe tower amendment which actually does appear before you, i believe on this screen because it was mr. hydetower understand where we are? okay five minutes in opposition beginning now. >> good morning brothers and

sisters my name is sam, i'm from the great state of new jersey. i rise. we just supported the sanders amendment which perfects families and sanders i made that mistake. sanders -- very close. it lays out pribs principles to allow trade deals with tpp along into the future. this is about principles not process. i urge you not to support the hydetower eamght it is something that labors come together -- coa [booing] and supported our amendment but i believe this is right they think for working families and working people of the united states if thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> next speak speaker. excuse me. please next speaker. mr. chairman, gary blackbyrne

from tennessee. >> andrew jackson. who was a free trade -- in other words. mr. chairman, i think must of us in this room share the deal is that has been spread here.e. sometimes, however, a zealous approach can make -- lead us a certain unintendedns consequence this amendment states that there should never be in any future session of the congress a vote on tpp. that is basically -- i don't know about you all but we elect and expect him to stand up to represent us including on issues such as this. this is the approach that the republicans are taking on gun control.

if you want to -- [booing] to my friends in the peanut gallery -- i want to remind you listen -- let's have some decorm here if you do that we're going to add time so complete your comments. you have three minutes left. >> i want to remind you of one thing, if first of all we have no authority whatsoever to tell the congress that it can't vote on legislation. that it's undemocratic absurd and unconstitutional. secondly, if they can't debate the tpp, how can may makees positive changes to it? all right thank you next speake. for new york state. i rise in opposition to this amendment and go back to sanders amendment that we just is supported that has highest standard workers and highest standards to protect our

environment to apply not only now but in the future to allll trade agreements including tpp. thank you. >> additional speakers. any additional speak ergs then we're going to go to pursuant to agreement pursuant to agreement where debate was limited an go to a vote. please put up the -- issue. >> still additional time? >> no there's not. each pursuant to agreement. each side had five minutes. it's been used. we're going to go it a vote pursuant to agreement. this don't vote until it is up on the screen a no vote would be against the hydetower amendment. yes, yes, yes -- [chanting]

[booing] >> the amendment failed. >> kourtney. kourtney please read the next amendments.t >> thank you mr. chair., amendment number 46. sponsored by -- [inaudible] >> excuse me. i apologize. that was my mistake kourtney i apologize.n that was an amendment to the

amendment we have the original amendment l. which number 58 so we have the original amendment. so was that a substitute? and it failed. okay. pursuant to agreement, pursuant to agreement kourtney read amendment the amendment isdm deemed fails. >> thank you mr. chair. amendment number 46 sponsored bt dimingo proposed amendment to have this section read as far as, democrats will support laws and regulations that will prohibit any american company who leaves the country from doing business in the united states . >> you have one minute to speak to the issue. >> ladies and gentlemen, my name is -- [inaudible]e and i'm from dallas, texas. my brothers a dallas police officer. and as you know the event there

is have been pretty heart disease on a lot of people there. but some have been what's going on wall street and we see over and over again like here in indiana to mexico and company after company leaving the united states and then coming back and wanting us to do business and buy their product that's so inherently wrong that i think democrats need to do business in america you stay in america. thank you. >> are there 15 seconders? one, two, three, four -- okay.the there are 15. the proponents have five minutes. what's the time? 5 minutes they have five minutes if they want to use it.if if they don't opponents have five minute and absence of anyone using we're going to call the question -- please put the 30 second clock up. please don't vote until i call for a vote.'re

if you are in favor you vote yes against it vote no. a 30 second clock so please vote. 15 seconds. failed. voting completed it failed. i'm going to ask for one more amendment, two more, and then weir going to break for lunch. okay, give me some guidance on how long lunch will be. but kourtney please read the next amendment..

>> thank you mr. chair. number 43 have been withdrawn. amendment number 40 sponsored by garcia, on page 8, line 21, the proposed amendment is to have this section read as follows, in thes will support stronger criminal laws and civil penalties to be applied to wall street criminals who pray on the public trust. [applause] proponents, one minute. >> i don't know how many of you saw the movie the big short ---- that's what happened. nobody at goldman sachs. nobody at any wall street went to jail while millions of american lost their homes while millions of americans were bankrupt and nobody prosecuted them. a young man may go in and steal or rob a 7-eleven and go to rob

for life but steal billions of dollarss never get held accountable and democratic party needs to stand with working people and go after criminals -- [inaudible] thank you.street. >> do we have 15 seconds okay we have 15 seconds to the proponents wish to use their five minuting? i don't see anyone. do opponents wish to use five minutes? i don't see anyone. i'm going to call the question c think we can do this one on hand.e all in favor raise your white card. [applause] all opposed -- it passes with at least three, four --, four votes again. passing with four votes again, now, let me just because we made a lot of progress that may not seem like that, but we have. i want to thank had everybody. we're going to take a one hour, one hour lunch and we're going

to hold people strictly to this. includings myself, and which means i have to hold other people to it. there are concessionings immediately outside here. it is a cash sale. there are facilities in the hotel as well. or or you can go anywhere and eat anything as long as you're back in your seat in one hour. we will reconvene in this ballroom in your spots -- should they leave your click rs where they are please. leave your clickers. we will reconvene in one hour. thank you. purchase [silence]

[silence]

all right, if we could come to order please. preseases -- recess is over. please take your seats. we're going to begin this session kourtney are you ready to read the next one? we're still on the same section which is fighting for economic fairness. fairness. >> thank you mr. chair. amendment 169 proposed by steven detlebox on page 8, line 21. proposed amendment is on page 8, line 21, after the words equal justice, under law sentence, add democrats support extending the statute of limitations for

prosecuting major financial frauds. and providing the department of justice the securities in exchange commission and commodity future trade commission more resources to prosecute wrong doing. >> the proponent has one minute. >> mr. chairperson i'm steve from ohio, and i rise in support of the amendment on the hillary rodham clinton delegate here. more recently i was the united states attorney in the northern district of ohio, and working in the bolder and lynch of justice department a proud member of that team. i saw firsthand and we know that there were corporate abuses that happened both before and after the financial crisis. and too often prosecutors didn't have the tools they needed to hold people accountable. that's what this amendment is about. i voted for the attempt 40 before the break. this is two specific ideas that helped to hold corporate

wrongdoers accountable to make sure that our free markets are also as we said fair markets. the first is to extend statutet of limitation on serious fraud cases. look, these are hard cases to investigate. especially when they go up to the top. it takes time and effort to do it and five years. it's not enough. we have one statute of limitations in other places we ought to have them here as well. the second is to increased resources that are available to the d.o.j. and other regulators to investigate these crimes. i saw sequestration social general tony west had to see 4,000 employees leave the department of justice during the core of the time that we were investigating these crimes. we can't have that happen again, we need the resources to make these cases. >> thank you, are there 15 seconders? >> there are 15 seconders, does anyone wish to be heard? does anyone want to be heard in

opposition? because if no one wants to hearn opposition and appears to be no one without your -- without objection i believe i can freed to a vote and i think we can do this one by card all in favor raise your white card. thank you, and majority has been had. anyone in opposition, i congratulations.ratulati kourtney. thank you mr. chair, amendment number 19, sponsored by dennis abdusy page 8 line 22 propose amendment is to add the following, there are no doctrine that our justice department should apply that takes collateral consequences into account when conducting an investigation determiningns whether to bring charges in negotiating plea agreements. we cannot afford a double standard that allows white collar criminals to avoid prosecution and pay fines with corporate profits while low level criminals are are

penalized with incarceration. [applause] the proponent has one minute. p >> i'm dennis in 1999 deputy eric holder pinned a memo saying prosecutors needed to be cognizant of collateral damages before -- to prevent corporate instability and collapse before decides to prosecute financial institutions apparently or anyone else who worked there. planny brewer then head of the criminal division said in his speech it was his duty to consider the health of a company, the century and markets deciding to file charges. more corrupt financial institutions were prosecuted during the s&l crisis during ronldz reagan and then during any own financial corruption that brought our country to its knees last decade. r billions in fines with that admitting wrong doing was just a cost of doing business.

i don't to tie hands of prosecutors but we need to be clear and on the record that justice trumps money. thank you. exactly one minute. do we have 15 seconders. there are 15 seconders -- is there anyone who is beginning to want to be heard in opposition in there is, so we'll begin with proponent argument does anyone else wish to contribute to the proponents argument? you have five minutes if you do. please. please, please no, proponent will speak first. you're in on o decision. proponent please. carly stevenson from indiana and rise in support of thisdi amendment, i think that we need to send a strong message you know, when a young man is arrested and then incarcerated for having a small amount of

weed on him and then is not able to -- get gainful employment after he gets out of prison, and is unable to support his family afterwards if we're not going to look at the collateral consequences for the hundreds of thousands of people who are incarcerated for a small low level crime in this country -- many of whom this is disproportionately affects communities of color, and african-americans. if we're not going to look at the collateral consequences to their lives and their families, then we should not provide the same privilege to white collar criminals who steal millions of dollars from regular working people. thank you. >> anyone else wishing to behi heard, please? this is the -- out of the five minutes proponent? go ahead. >> i'm from oregon, i just wanted to agree in support all

of the previous speakers remarks. i am not an attorney. but i wish that they had the concept of economic malpractice in existence because i think it could be applied to corporations who lute people's pensions also corporations that devastate communities by removing their factories. >> anyone else wishing to be heard as a proponent. we will go to the opposition argument. >> thank you. i'm mark and i'm from philadelphia and let me say first of all on behalf of the host committee i can't wait to see you all in a couple of week. s. you're going to have a good time all of us together. i'm in a hillary dell galt and i'm standing in opposition to this but not to the spirit of it. make no mistake. no mistake. we are completely, completely together on the spirit of prosecuting white collarpi criminals for the full essex e tent.

we've just gone through two amendments which increase resources, increase the penalties look for better laws -- all of the above. we just said that, and we did that unanimously and together and we have strong at the same n the platform about equal justice and words aboving the supreme court building are not just words. they're words that needs to apply to everyone and there's no white collar criminal, individual who should get off of a crime because of some collateral issue, period, and, in fact, it really doesn't happen to the extent that you all apparently think it does. but -- but no. [inaudible] nobody here -- nobody here, nobody here wants to see anyone get off of a crime because of some execution. no one. but here's the problem, this

idea is born out of a frustration with the system, and if you think about this idea. >> speak into the microphone. >> if you think of this idea, it is an idea that is going to have collateral consequences that none of us want to see. let me give you an example. supposing there's a hospital executive in a community hospital who ripped off the system. commits a crime. he needs to go to jail, no collateral consequences, no problem. now the prosecutor has to look at the institution, the hospital. unless that prosecutor can look and say gee if i prosecute that hospital, they lose their if ise. jobs are lost, and medical care in the community can't be served unless that prosecutor can weigh those issues and decide whether or not the hospital a also getsw prosecuted, you have bad collateral consequences. things you don't want to have.

you don't the to take that discretion away from the prosecutor and it's strongly felt as we feel about the principle and spirit behind this amendment the idea of it goes too far and that's why we're asking for you to the to vote for this but to stand behind strong changes in the platform or strong white collar prosecution. i yield the rest of my time. [applause] >> so the rest has been yielded. you know, we know -- the rules are now and they were read this it's five minutes and five minutes. okay did you want to speak on the same side? okay if you want to speak on same side go ahead. >> why assume i wanted to be on other side? >> i don't -- [laughter] >> usual suspect. thank you i'm chuck fromgh

pennsylvania, and my colleague from pennsylvania who will have been voting on opposite sides of this or same side of this one, i'm a criminal defense lawyer. what that says is there's no doctrine that should apply that takes collateral consequences into account when conducting an investigation determining whether to bring charge hads in negotiating plea agreement period. it doesn't say in corporate crime.e. it doesn't say, it says inny anything and let me tell you prosecutors take a lot of things into consideration whenta determining what to do. [applause] in every case. and if we take away from prosecutors their able to consider anything when had determining what plea to offer the entire system will come to a halt. everybody will bo to trial. and the system of justice will be a disaster. so we ask for negative votes. >> i think we can call the

question. i will do this by card. so everyone in ifer favor of the amendment raise your hand that would be supporting the amendment. it is beginning to fail everyone wishing to vote for it, it represents a majority. excuse me against it. against it, excuse me i'm sorry. everyone voting -- against the -- majority is had. thank you. let's go on to the next one kourtney. amendment number 144 sponsored by steven kettleback on page 8, line 23, proposed amendment is on page 8, line 23 between word landmark anded to frank to insert the words and historic.ts >> proponent has one minute. >> thank you mr. chairman. there's a lot more work to do to

reform wall street we democrats recognize that dot frank wasde major achievement imposing tough new rulen and tightening regulations and creating critical correction bureau i'm proud to say it headed by a former state attorney general from the great state of ohio richard, a tireless advocate for consumers. these weren't just monumental but they were historic. most significant reform we put in place since the great depression we have a long way to go but we've come a long way as well. this amendment recognizes that i urge its approval. >> a motion is -- amendment has been made and spoken to. do we have 15 seconders?o. we have 15 seconders anyone wish to be heard in opposition. no onishes to be heard in opposition i think ill call the question without opposition to it. so all of those in favor of the amendment please raise your card. majority is had anyone wishing

to be noted as having voted against there are roughly 20. thank you very much. kourtney can you -- now let me just say some folks have been working a little bit. we're going to have coffee, code da and cookies delivered shortll to our meeting room -- a complement of joe, kathleen kennedy and campaign and i want to thank all the of the platform committee members for their hard work.k. i have to actually single out kathleen kennedy as person who got me involved in this pres and we brought it about. so thank you. kourtney, let's go. thank you mr. chair sponsored by maxine waters, on page 8 line9 24, the proposed amendment is on page 8, line 24 after the wordse stop dead in his tracks. every republican effort to weaken it to insert the following.ub

we stop republican efforts to hamstring our regulators through budget cuts and we will ensure that our regulators is have the resources and independence they need to fully enforce the law and hold both individual and corporations accountable when they protect rules. please propoangt has one minute. >> i'm maxine waters member ofer congress and ranking member on financial services committee. the republicans spend a great deal of time trying to weaken our regulatory agencies. that is why we have the dot frank reforms. because if you can recall what happened in 2008, when this country went into a recession almost a depression it was because our regulatory agencies were underfunded they were not functioning. they were supposed to be aboutec our safety and soundness.

they did nothing . and so we created the dot frank reform and guess what they're trying to do? they try to weaken agencies but underfunding them.ed they fight their appropriations because fcc for example is our cop on the block. cfc is concerned about derivative and making sure transparency and god knows you know what they're doing to the cfpb that is consumer, financial, protection bureau that we created under dot frank reform, and he's doing a wonderful job reigning in all of the payday loan operation. dealing with the fraud that's been committed by some of the automobile dealers. looking at all of the fraud that's going on with our postoi secondary -- educational institutions. and so this is an important amendment. this is what we have to speak against.t. they cannot -- they cannot do what they're doing to weaken this oversight that we need so desperately. >> thank you.

[applause] and some of their had efforts gave us a new senator in the common commonwealth of massachusetts i might add. do we have 15 support percent? we have 15 supporters, does then wish to be heard in opposition? oh, we have an a opposition. so no -- so this is how it works no proponents go first. five minutes up up to five minute for proponents and then we'll hear in opposition. okay. i interrupted you please. >> ladies and gentlemen this is all about whether or not we're going to have the oversight agencies in government that will protect the citizens, protect investors. this is all about whether or not they're going to have the resources to do their job. the way that you weaken them is by denying them the appropriations and that's what the republicans do day in and day out. they have the majority, and they

undercut their ability to do what we would have them do what they're supposed to be doing by denying them resource that they need and i want to point your attention not only to the fcc and cftc commodity trading commission, i want to point to the consumer financial protection bower row, because that is the greatest thing that came out of the dot frank reform. he's doing a fabulous job eve protecting the consumers. we were supposed to have oversights for consumers in law. but guess what, they were dropped off with agenda. prior to dot frank reform we have nobody looking out for our average consumer. so you know what they're tryinged to they don't like fact that we have one director. they want to create a commission so they can have majority so they can kill what he's doing.a they also don't like the fact that we protected his budget and what they would like to have i done is have them come before the appropriations committee

where the republicans have the majority so that they can denytt them the funds. please support this amendment it is extremely important. t t >> anyone else in support? >> from great commonwealth of kentucky em barszed to admit barr serves on committee and testify to the fact he's been dedicating to e dot frank outright. i don't anybody to be under any misunderstanding here. congresswoman waters isre absolutely right. this is something that needs to be safeguarded against --inst because a lot of efforts are not direct. a lot of them are indirect efforts to do everything they can to weaken and water down these regulations so thank you congresswoman waters and encourage anybody on sanders and complin ton platform to support this piece.. >> additional support --

>> mary from state of wisconsin one of the brilliant things that was done for the consumer product safety commission i'm sorry -- the cftb was that it was its budget was linked to federal reserve and not to congress, and it's been driving them crazy ever since trying to kill it by putting under the budget. so it's porkt important for progressive to keep an you on that agency and important for folks to keep an eye on cftc to regulate derivatives to put oveu counter derivatives on transparent market so we can all see for the first time what the heck is going on with crude oil speculation and to be fund sods you may think that dot prank didn't go enough. you may want to break up the bank, so do i, but we have to defend some of these important gains that we've made. anyone else wishing to be heard. you have about 40 seconds. seco.

>> robert craig wisconsin. i want to say as democrats when we pass important regulation to protect if we don't give toolss to enforce them then it is discredit the regulation if dot frank doesn't work because we do not fund regulation it would be blamed for next financial collapse. so as democrats we're ones who want government to work.be we needs to make sure that regulators have tools to actually make things work that's had all -- so i want to praise congressman waters for putting this forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. those wishing to be heard in opposition please step forward. [inaudible] opposition. thank you.n, go ahead. [inaudible] mr. chair -- thank you. [laughter] no more regulation -- [applause] all right, sir --

thank you, go ahead. come on. we've got work to do. >> mr. chair i'm e-gore emory and i rise to a specific opposition to this or particular amendment and i would like to sponsor this bill, measure to consider removing objectable words and see the word of the other party removed from this amendment. this is the democratic platform and i don't really want to spend time advertising for other parties. so if we can strict nail of that party i'd be happy. anyone else wishing to be heardn in opposition, no one else going to call a question and do it by white cards all in favor of the amendment. raise your cards it passes pas overwhelmingly. thank you. kourtney. >> amendment number 20 sponsored

by dennis on page 8, line 28. the proposed amendment is to delete the following: we acknowledge there's room within our party for a diversity viewss on a broader financial transaction tax, and replace it with the following, markets will quickly adapt to any type of financial transaction tax. which would provide stability in the majority place and fund necessary programs which ultimately will help all businesses. >> the proponent has one minute. >> thank you. time for our party to be firm with policies related to thehe financial industry and not be willy nilly and say nothing. there's a diversity of views for ways to deal with thinning hair or proarpght colors to go with shoes. but the language as it's written says we need -- we need to take a stand at this point.

>> thank you. >> are there 15 seconders? >> there's 15 -- okay. anyone wishing to be heard, there be anyone in opposition okay so question go first. does anyone want to speak inpo support if there's no one speaking in support, this is your five minutes i'm going to go. one person who wants to speak in support -- marcos from iowa. proponents said, we can find, you know, diversity for practically anything. democrats there's certain things that we stand for.

i think that, that markets that we can get up any financial tax is something that we be agreeing on so much room for willing. when the voters look at this kind of language, they seem safe to us and we're wobbling. we need to be a strong democratic party that stands for real things. that stands clearly for what it believes. the kind of language is not conductive to strong campaign that we can tell independence. we can tell people that we need to vote for the democratic party. this season, we are strong, you know we believe in -- that's where we stand. that's all. thank you. okay. please -- >>mary from wisconsin again. dennis this is not my favorite

language it wasn't be exactly what i wrote. but i do think it's an improvement over language that exist this diversity of views idea. there are thousands upon thousands of people across the united states including in large group of nurses who are campaigning for robin hood taxes in the united states as both a way to bring financial stability as a great way to raise revenue for all sorts of sprooms this amendment acknowledges that the market will quickly adjust it a financial transaction tax that snot going to collapse the global economy. europe is already slapping one with on. we can do it too. and it will be a mechanism for funding future programs without giving any specifics so it should be noncontroversial opinion >> thank you. >> any other speakers now we're going to go to those who are opposed to the attempt and after that we'll take a vote. >> thank you mr. chair again from philadelphia, hillary

delegate. the basic principle that we e agree with is embodied in platform in two sentences before. i think it's important for all of fuss to take a look at that. it says our goal must be to create a financial system in economy that works for all americans not just a handful of billionaires we support a financial transaction tax on wall street to curb excessive speculation and high frequency trading which has threatened financial markets. there is diversity of opinion on a broader tax. but even supports a financial transaction tax on excessive speculation and high frequency trading. this was a unity language. this is an effort to relitigate what was carefully worked out with sanders and clinton drafters. this is unity.

and we should stand behind unity and let me tell you why perhaps -- there is that sentence on diversity. one thing that you need to think about at least when you're trying to figure how broad the tax should be is dowpght that tax on middle 401(k)s do want that tax on union pension funds you should think about that. that's where there's a diversity position to figure out how much broader you may want that. one fact,s just one rfn many that general give you that's probably behind the unity amendment that i ask you to support in other words defeat this amendment, sport what the the unity folks did in drafting this platform. the imf estimates that a financial transaction tax of just one tenth of one percent which is a fifth of what the sanders, bernie sanders proposal was during the campaign. one fifth of that.

reduce market values by 7.6% and translate to a reduction of wealth it means that a family that has a mass 250,000 of assets for their future -- would e see value those assets decline by $20,000. now, that is why how broadly it works out and brilliant drafters did in prpsessing strong language and not change it in any way shape or short-term.. >> anyone else wishing to be heard and question this and do it on whites card. everyone who is in favor of the amendment raise your card. everyone who is against the amendment raise your kartd. those against have won. listen, we're going to take a

very short break. hang on -- there's a reason. the co-chair and i asked to have a meeting with both campaign staffs should not take long. before we take that break and meet with with those campaign staffs, i just like to do a quick survey. how many people in the room would like to complete the deliberations tonight, today tonight or army morning -- early morning hours. we'll have is a meeting and be back very is shortly. don't wander away. we're going to come back. [inaudible] i promise. ... we are going to start with the introduction. reverend hale wanted to bring her good wishes and on her behalf, we will start. we can only move our country forward and create opportunities

for all if we do everything in our power to end institutional and systemic racism. we understand why black lives matter. we will fix our broken immigration system, keep families together and confronts head on any efforts or language that denigrates those seeking to become citizens. democrats will fight for comprehensive federal nondiscrimination protection for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender americans. i am inspired by our commitment to create opportunity by supporting self-government, self-determination for people of the us territories and by honoring indigenous tribal nations and living up to our moral and legal

responsibility to american indian and alaskannative tribes . each of us may have a different reason why we call ourselvesdemocrats and why we align ourselves with this party . i am a democrat because democrats are driven by the passionate exchange of ideas aimed at moving our country forward . we will start with the first amendment. thank you madam chair. >> amendment 161 sponsored by stephen benjamin on page 10, line 44. the proposed amendment is to insert where appropriate in the racial justice section the following: democrats support removing the confederate battle flag from public properties, recognizing it as a symbol of our nation's racist past that has no place in our present or our future. [applause] is the sponsor

here to speak?>> madam chair i offer this men on behalf of myself and fellow delegates and i'm happy to be a member of sacrum and i have fairly strong support here, do we? all right. i yield my time back to the chair. >> iq. is there any second? a second. anyone would like to speak in opposition? here in non-we will go to a vote, hand vote all in favor raise their hands, all opposed? the aye's habit. next amendment please. amendment number 128 has been withdrawn. amendment number 47 has been withdrawn. amendment number 48 has been withdrawn.

we are waiting on updated language for amendments 50. are those all of the amendments? there are additional amendments, after 50 there is amendment 59. >> if you moved to 59? >> sure. amendment number 59 has been withdrawn. amendment #6 has been withdrawn. amendment number 139 sponsored by benjamin kemper on page 11, line 41, the proposed amendment is as follows. on page 11, line 41 strike the following. explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system and insert the following: reform the civil asset forfeiture system to prohibit police from keeping assets seized

during an allegedcrime when the owners are not convicted of that crime . [applause] >> can you all one minute please, just a second . can we hold on that? and we will come back to that? yes, they're asking us to come back to that. the next one please? >> amendment number 164? 164, sponsored by stephen gelb. on page 11, line 47, the proposed amendment is to insert on page 11, live line 47 after the words addiction and mental health issues the following: it also means building on effective models of drug courts, veterans courts and other diverse dairy programs that seek to give low-level and nonviolent offenders opportunities or rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration.

[applause] >> thank you, the respondent has one minute. >> that you madam chairman. i rise on the half of supporting this amendment. like many here, i live in a state that has been ravaged by heroine and opioid crisis facing us. tragedy after tragedy and i think yours in the criminal justice system, as a prosecutor and i'm hereto tell you from that perspective we are not going to arrest our way out of this problem . [applause] my colleague from indiana spoke about more discretion and that's what this amendment is about, getting people the tools they need because there are people certainly violent people who belong in jail but there are a lot of people who don't need handcuffs, they just need a hand. so we need to concentrate on the 55 percent of people who are locked up who are eligible for substance abuse treatment, we need to get more money for treatment, need to make sure that creative drug courts, veterans courts, all these things areavailable.

>> one minute is up . >> ... making sure our justice system is a fair system, i support the amendment is there a second? anyone speaking against this? we will go to a vote, all in favor indicate by raisingyour hand . all opposed to mark? five opposed, it passes. next amendment. we will be going back to amendment number 66. let everybody get there. the sponsor is chuck pascoe. on page 11, line 40 the proposed amendments is after the words grand jury process, add the following: we will assist states in providing a system of public defense that is adequately resourced and which meets american bar association standards .

>> thank you, will the sponsors be for one minute? >> just a parliamentary inquiry, i was told this was being accepted into the draft and that's why it was withdrawn earlier because, is that not correct? >> i'm sorry can you repeat the question? >> the question is i was told by the staff earlier that the language was being incorporated into the staff by agreement, is that not correct at this point? >> at this time we do not have updated language . >> so i will offer the amendment. one of the ways to make the criminal justice system warfare is to make sure that there is adequate defense provided for the indigent. throughout the country there is a very sporadic system where some states fully fund

a public defense system and stop some states like mine, pennsylvania provide no funding at all and it is left to the counties which means that defendants do not have access to lawyers who are, who have caseloads that are manageable. it means that defendants don't have access to investigators and other things that are required to have a competent and quality defense to their criminal charges. this result as we all know in false convictions and in order to buy a fair criminal justice system for all, we have to have a fair public defense system that will adequately defend those accused of crimes. >> thank you, do we have a second? 50 15 seconds, yes? is there anyone in opposition? opposition?

is that opposition, okay. if there is no opposition it will go to a vote. all in favor indicate by holding your cards up. all opposed? the aye's habit it passes. at 66. amendment number 60 sponsored by dennis i dusty on page 12, line 1: the proposed amendment is to before line 1 add the following: because of conflicting laws concerning marijuana, both on the federal and state level, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from its list as a class on federal controlled substance providing a reason pathway for further legalization. [applause] >> the sponsor has one minute.

>> manager i was told earlier that this was going to be combined with, i think it's number 35 that has him a wording and they were going to ... >> why don't we set that aside and we will determine that. >> i'm not sure i sing let's hold it and we will determine that. 35 and 60, we need to have a question answered. in the meantime, is there an answer for that in the room? if not we will hold it for now and go to the next amendment. is the same amendment? it's similar language. i understand, i'm not saying we're not going to bring it up, i'm just trying to find out whether there's agreement to this. so we can make a ruling. wait a second.

[inaudible conversation] all rights, 60 is withdrawn. madam clark? 85 is the one we are ... 60 is withdrawn, am i hearing that right? 60 is withdrawn, what's the next amendment? >> thank you madam chair. amendment number 35, sponsored by christine kramer . on page 12, line 5 the proposed amendment is on page 12, line 5 after the word uncertainty. insert the following. wewill also remove marijuana from the controlled substances act . [applause] >> the sponsor has one minute.

>> thank you. christine kramer from the state of nevada. marijuana is treated as a schedule one drug just like heroine. regardless on your views on marijuana, i don't think anyone in this roomleaves marijuana is as dangerous as harrowing . the time has come to remove marijuana from the controlled substances act. it should beup to the states to decide whether to legalize marijuanaor not . we need to rethink the war on drugs . [applause] according to the fbi, we are arresting on marijuana user every minute yet we have not arrested on executive on wall street for causing the near collapse of the economy in 2008 . that has got to change. veterans living in states with medical marijuana cannot get his prescription through the va because it's still eagle illegal federally.

meanwhile, marijuana's classification as a schedule one drug was only supposed to be temporary, becky richard nixon, when the law was passed in the 1970s like i said this is a long overdue change . most voters they can do what they want with marijuana. >> one minute is up, or their opponents? 15 seconds. are there seconds for this, yes. all right. are there opponents? if there are opponents, the proponent will go first with five minutes. >> good afternoon delegates, david king from nashville tennessee. i had a young lady in nashville having over 500 seizures a month, vanderbilt university and the medical professions told her that all they could do for her was a lobotomy or a do not resuscitate. the family was required to move to colorado .

and they developed a strand called charlotte's web. this young lady today is down to five teachers a month. she's four years old. and she's working. the marijuana craze that nixon portrayed in the 1970s and john ehrlichman confirmed in 1994 was an effort to suppress hippies andblacks . [applause] it is time for law enforcement to stop the perpetuation of the suppression of the minority communities and people without means. [applause] our jails are stacked full of people who had opioid addiction and we

will see and you will see that when this legislation occurs, that the state and local level, dropping the prohibitions against this natural product that you will see a reduction and we have historically proven the reduction in opioid use dropping some 25 percent. it needs to be regulated and the criminal penalties need to come off of this and i encourage your support for this amendment. >> we have three minutes left. three minutes, >> hi, nicole bag, new mexico. we are a medical marijuana estate in new mexico, however if you are a medical marijuana patient and you live in hud housing so if you are senior, disabled, a veteran, you cannot use your prescribed medication inyour own home . your own apartment.

you cannot use it. marijuana is exponentially safer than alcohol. studies show it. we all know this. this is not on par with harrowing area. >> one moment, if you face toward the back of the audience you are not viewed by the public online. >> i apologize, thank youvery much. >> okay. you've got to do both . you've got to turn this way so the cameras over here. >> this is yet another way. >> you have to face this way, i know you're trying to look ahead but ... >> it's not bad at all. this is another waythat low income disabled seniors , veterans are kept from being put on medications that cause addiction like opiates which

i personally wasseverely overmedicated and was housebound because of that. now with medical marijuana, i'm out, i'm here . i'm representing my country so marijuana saves people's lives. >> we have two minutes, two minutes. >> quickly my name is terry tucker and i'm from the state of colorado and you know that we have all kinds of pot in colorado, rocky mountain high. however i'm here to talk about some unknown consequences of our federal laws. there are children with cancer, children with cancer that are receiving some sort of medical marijuana that could not be administered to them in school. we had a law called jack's law passed so that they could , signed by our governor but because of funding issues that cannot be administered to them in public school so these are children withcancer that you are saying cannot go to school . please support this.

[applause] >> one minute. >> sandusky from colorado as well. i just appreciate for this amendment you know, especially people that are trying to get jobs, that have to check the box that they been convicted of some crimes . they need to be supported so that we are taking care of people. >> thank you. we are done? time is up. opponents? five minutes for the opponents. >> my name is tim wright from illinois. >> and face this way. >> i'm from illinois. >> thank you.>> i wanted to

acknowledge my sister from ohio because i'm now a member of the new democratic party. [applause] but i come here and what i am speaking to is my opposition to this amendment . and i'm opposed to this amendment for two reasons. one of which is substantive but the other is principle. with respect to the substance of reason. this amendment really removes marijuana from all schedules. it'sdifficult . we support these legal policy changes to allow the marijuana research. we also support the movement of this on the schedule but to remove it completely we believe is not appropriate at this time. what we have right now, i'm in illinois and in illinois we are now supporting medical marijuana. there's research that still needs to be done and the state has taken the lead on this with respect to

colorado, with respect to california, oregon and illinois, there are other places that are beginning to compile valuable information that will allow us to determine what should occur next. i suggest that we allow the state to continue to take the lead and resolvethese issues. once we see what the results are, the federal government can move .[] you guys won't let me go home but i will. let me say one other point. once we agree on language and this is a principal issue, when the two parties in this new democratic party agree on language, we need to stick with that language we had an agreement coming out of this, not more amendments . let's say with those agreements andi close with that . >> three minutes.

senator dianne sanz from montana and i carry the medical marijuana bill from the state of montana, it is legal although it has its problems and i fully support legalization. the currentlaw in the platform has been accepted already . support policies that allow for more research as well as performing laws to allow medical marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty, etc. and that's the language we need to stick to. the problem with this is unlike the withdrawn amendment which removed it simply from a schedule one drug, this removes it from all schedules area whether you think it should go to a different schedule number four regulation or whether you think it should come off all the schedules and go to fda regulation is an important fundamental issue just to throw it out there into a completely unmarked area i think is not a good idea and i think the current language we have already written and adopted in here is the appropriate ones let him ask you to vote against this amendment. >> are there other ...

>> parliamentary question madame chair. i would like to offer an amendment that is number 68 of the secondary amendment to replace number 35. >> that was one of yours. in that case we, are there 15 seconds for that. there are. in that case, you now have one minute 42 describe it, right? >> i just have to say, we've already ... you already, sorry. you've already heard a number of the arguments because their conflicting laws concerning marijuana. the federal and state levels, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from its list as a

class on federal controlled substance. there's no reason we need to be penalizing people. >> this is the secondary amendment, number 60. zero. we have a second which is done now and then we are going to have the people speaking in favor of this. >> a parliamentary inquiry. is this in order right now because i thought that campaigns had agreed ... >> they have agreed tothis. >> a certain set of amendments i'm seeing that over there, they do not agree . >> one of your five, yes. >> he withdrew, what did you withdraw? [inaudible conversation] in other words, the one you agree to you withdrew so again, madame chair ...

>> after it is withdrawn it can be reintroduced? >> they are introducing one that no one has agreed to. i'm not even sure. >> what does agreed to meet mark i understand what you're saying, i'm trying to understand ... >> the two campaigns have agreed to five amendments that they can put in but also they've agreed to a marijuana amendments for a password on marijuana so my understanding is they haven't done that and this is actually in order we will take a minute to answer that question. we think we know the answer but just a minute. >> just to try to, under normal circumstances having been withdrawn we would not take this up but because you are claiming this as one of the five that was previously agreed to which i believe brings you to paris, we are prepared to allow you to

offer it, you have offered it . it's been spoken to and i understand senator your point, it's been spoken to and there are 15 sponsors so under those circumstances senator, we are going to allow it because they have claimed it as one of their five under the prior agreement that whether they are happy they did that or not i can't tell you . >> to that end we are now, we have five minutes tospeak in favor of the secondary amendment . go right ahead. >> i'm from the state of nevada.it is time to end uncertainty between state laws and federal laws. it is time to allow teachers who may need to medicate not to feel threatened that they will lose their jobs. in my state of nevada, it is time for individuals who wish to hold a gaming license to be able to use medical marijuana without.

>> one moment please, weneed the right amendment up please . >> 60. 60. thank you. now, we start. we need a reasonable pathway for future legislation regarding marijuana in this country. that we have two systems of criminal justice regarding marijuana right now. that has and they have not. that is not america. that is what we seek to do is provide sensible reason pathways in legislation because marijuana is coming and democrats can either be at the head of the line or way back in nick sonyand politics . [applause] >> nicole back again from new mexico. i live in our away from the mixing can border into separate directions but also lived in tucson arizona.

>> can we have one conversation please?>> which is an hour away from the border. we have to regularly pass through driven border patrol stops. whether or not you have a medical calvinist part or not they will seize your medicine. how many times have you gone through a federal agency and then take away your blood pressure medication? how many times, anyone? anyone have like it in taken away from them, please? anyone? number. >> three minutes. opponents? opponents? then we will go to a vote. this is on the secondary amendment . all right. all in favor of number 60, please raiseyour cards .

all opposed to mark? >> go to a vote? 32nd vote. 30 seconds on? ... [inaudible conversation] 10 seconds.

[shouting] attention. attention. next amendment please. next amendment. amendment number nine. next amendment please. >> amendment number nine sponsored by tarrant battery. >> next amendment please. >> amendment number nine sponsored by karen nagasaki, on page 12 line 21. >> i have a point of order. >> i have a point of order. >> all right, you have a point of order.

go right ahead, go ahead. can you state who you are so we haven't for the record. >> i'm mark pryor from arkansas and that's the point of order whether this past because i think the rule says it has passed by want, one percent? >> majority. >> but someone abstained. >> we've asked for that point. >> it didn't get a majority vote. >> the phrase and robert is when you fail to exerciseyour boat , it is as if you voted in the majority. >> so in other words ... [applause] in other words when they abstain, i'm sorry madame parliamentarian but when they abstain it is as if

they voted against? >> voted in the majority, it's that you voted in the majority . >> can we appeal the ... read like a rollcall on the rolling of the chair. >> regular order madame chair. [inaudible conversation] >> mister fry?

>> yes madame parliamentarian . >> okay, can we just settle down for a minute? we like you want to be fair and we want to follow the rules. the one minute. >> can i move to establish a quorum? i moved to establish a quorum . >> wait a second, wait a second. >> can i have a rollcall on the quorum? >> we would like to have a 32nd vote on the clicker. >> we request a recess. >> no. excuse me? >> point of order chair, i have a question. [inaudible conversation]

>> we can hear you, come over here. so there are a couple of numbers that are important . 91.75. >> 91.75 is a quorum. wait a second. 91 point 75 is a quorum. we just had a vote with how many votes? 81 and 80 three it so those are important numbers to remember. we can establish a quorum but we just established a quorum.

we have the parliamentarian, she has given this advice. now, you had a question. >> i heard a request for two people to get clickers. >> that is something we should do. if you do not have a clicker we need to get you a clicker. >> why would they not have a clicker at this point? [inaudible conversation] know, like they just got here or something. >> give us one minute. >> regular order.

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation] hold

on. unless there's another point of order we are working on this. >> what's point of order are we working on. >> and at ease area this is standing at ease. >>. [inaudible conversation]

>>. [inaudible conversation]

>>. [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] >> ladies and gentlemen, have we ... [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible

conversation] [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation]

>>. [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation] >> all right. [ gavel banging] let's move

on, ladies and gentlemen. can you take your seats please? take your seats quickly. just a second. take your seats. so there's just one quick announcement. there was a suggestion that someone does not have a clicker. wait a second. i just want to go on record. if you don't have a clicker, now is your chance to get one. now is your chance to get your clicker. if you lose your clicker, if it goes in your handbag or your pocket and you can't have it, please advise us. you must use your own clicker .

not someone else's clicker. this is an indication, no, this is not a joke. when we take a vote by clicker, that means we can track the vote and if you are not voting with your clicker, it's a problem . i didn't know i have to make that announcement . but we've settled on that so mister potter, you have the floor. >> test, 123. madame chair we were very, very pleased with the unity amendment and very proud of the unity amendment that the sanders campaign and the clinton campaign agreed to and adopted in st. louis. and it was our hope that we would maintain that unity and i think that maybe when we go

back and look at the clicker issue, possibly there are a few people that didn't vote but we would let that slide. we would say that we would likethis vote not to change, we will withdraw our objection .>> thank you very much. [applause] next amendment. >> next amendment, please. >> amendment number nine, sponsored by karen nagasaki. >> can you start over? >> sure, okay. amendment number nine sponsored by karen nagasaki on page 12, line 21, the proposed amendment is to add after the words character and history the following: our broken immigration system is full of backlogs and bureaucracies that result in

us citizens waiting for decades to be reunited with family members and green card holders waiting for years to be reunited with their spouses and minor children. add after the words we must and before the words defend against the following: 60s family backlogs and. >> thank you, with a sponsor like to speak for one minute? >> i'm karen nagasaki and i'm sponsoring this amendment. >> microphone. >> sorry, i'm too short. thank you. i'm sponsoring this amendment , it's one where i appreciate the drafters and their strong immigration reform language. i wanted to make sure we were clear about the need to address the backlog area there are over 4 million family members waiting to be reunited or waiting in line

for visas that are not sufficient for the family category. spouses and minor children of green card holders wait almost 2 years and from mexico three years, this is spouses and minor children of people legally here. the wait time for unmarried adult children of a green card holder from mexico is over 20 years and four brothers and sisters from the philippines almost 25 years. reuniting families helps them to immigrate and become more economically stable since they don't need to send money back to family members. they are able to be more productive without worrying about family members left behind and their money stays in the united states . >> thank you. do we have 15 seconds? we do? do we have anyone prepared to speak in opposition? hearing none, we will go to a show of hands. all in favor indicate by

raising your hand. all opposed, it passes. >> thank you. >> next amendment please. >> thank you madame chair. amendment number 50 altered by benjamin jealous. on page 11, line 35 the proposed amendment is to strike line 35 beginning with we will invest in training for officers and replace with the following beginning at line 35 to line 40, ending with the following: including through reforming the grand jury process, this section will read we will work with police chiefs to invest in training for officers on issues such as de-escalation and the creation of national guidelines for the appropriate use of force including how to de-escalate situations.

we will encourage better police community relations, require the use of body cameras and stop the use of weapons of war that have no place in our communities. we will end racial profiling that targets individuals solely on race, religion, ethnic city at national origin which is un-american and counterproductive. we should report national data on policing strategies and provide greater transparency and accountability. we will require the department of justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police involved shootings and we will support states and localities who help make those investigations and prosecutions more transparent including through reforming the grand juryprocess . >> thank you, thesponsor has one minute . >> thank you madame chair, if you don't mind i'm going to the body for a second. we started yesterday with a

great unity on the $15 minimum wage. the center prior now graciously referenced the need for us to continue in that spirit of unity so it's my pleasure to stand beside my fellow soldiers on the civil rights movement bend trump . [applause] is a national survey before a different campaign. here with the two campaignson full agreement , on this language. >>. [applause] from minnesota to louisiana, to dallas to baltimore where i'm from, oakland and many other places, there's a need for us and the time to rebuild the trust. >> your one minute is up.

>> to help the communities and the police will do that, thank you. we would urge that everybody support this. >> 15 seconds. >> after the second. thank you.we have the second, now you have five minutes. >> i am bend trump, a proud democrat and also president of the national bar association representing 66,000 black lawyers, judges and legal professionals all across america. and i stand proudly with ben who is the president of the national association for the advancement of colored people . last time we were together here in orlando, fighting for justice , for trey von benjamin martin about 40

miles from here. and congresswoman maxine waters. the spirit of this bill goes directly to what happened in your own time. in ferguson misery when they came in with these weapons of war in our communities where the coordinator of wealth and i were fighting for the value of another teenager named michael brown. [applause] is so very important that we are unified, 100 percent as democrats on this because we need the statistics to make the case now in minnesota, now in louisiana, baltimore maryland, los angeles california and everywhere they continue to kill unarmed people of color without any

accountability. [applause] [ gavel banging. ] >> i stand in conclusion as i give it back to the makeup of this amendment what doctor king said and that is when i talked to all the young people in black lives matter congressman waters and they said the system breaks our hearts over and over andover again . nobody is being held accountable when they kill our children. doctor king said what we remember most is not the criticisms of our enemies but the silence of our friends, let them know that the democratic party showed up

for them unanimously on justice reform. thank you. >> now we must all vote together and get this done, god bless. >> you have to minutes. >> my name is justice terrel and i'm from minnesota. i'm going to speak this way because i need my people at home to see that we care and we are doing our best to honor the struggle. my comrades are in the streets right now. we are here, we are not safe. 61 seconds that started jamar clark's wife and casteel was murdered in front of his four-year-old daughter. you can hear screaming in the background trying to comfort her mother.this amendment

is the beginning of what we need to start as a rebuilding of a brand-new justice system. [applause] we don't have a justice system today, we have a crime and punishment system , one that protects the profits and poverty of the wealthy and divides and controls the rest of us. it will divide you from your family, from your well, it will apprise you from your help and we will struggle and resist every moment that we can until we build the system that works for all people. >> one minute. >> vote for this amendment because there's a child what we've got to do to get right. >>. [applause] >> good afternoon. good afternoon, my name is ellie fraser, on the social

justice and civil rights activist from cincinnati. in 2001 leading up to 2001, 1400 african-american men were murdered at the hands of cincinnati police officers. i was at the front line. let the record reflect that i do respect our police officers, i understand we need in our community. but police officers are charged to serve and not kill our communities. i was recently in cleveland standing with me arises mother fighting for justice. last year in cincinnati ohio, they were murdered and we're calling for justice. we want convictions. they have to be held accountable. [applause] >> okay, excuse me, one minute. we are going to stand one minute please. >> we also, we want to make very clear that most of the people in this room have been in prayer most of the last week. pray for the family of alton

stirling, pray for the orlando family of philander castile. pray for the five officers and their families killed in dallas. [applause] >> i am a criminologist by training because my grandfather was in law enforcement 30 years . he was the inspiration in my life. what has been very clear and i look at it with nina turner, this issue is not either or, it's both ends area no one should be discriminated against because of the color of theirskin or the color of their uniform . this is needed because we are the party of martin luther king and we got to finish the work he started. [applause] so let's move forward on this even as we move forward onthe rest of the equation, thank you .

>> thank you, you are ready for a vote? ready for a vote? all in favor indicate by show of hands. all opposed, the eyes have it, the vote passes unanimously. >> the next amendment, amendment number 139 sponsored by benjamin kemper. on page 11, line 41. the proposed amendment is on page 11, line 41 strike the following. explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system and insert the following: reform the civil asset forfeiture system to protect people and remove perverse incentives for policing for profit.

>> the wrong thing is on the screen right now. >> the amendment that is ... >> we have a unity amendment, to his credit but it is not on the screen. >> you have the right amendment? >> can you read that again please? >> you can read it. you can read it. >> my name is ben kemper from los angeles california. >> my name is ben kemper from los angeles california. this is a unity agreement, so i'm very proud to be able to announce that. on page 11, line 41, strike explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system and insert reform the civil asset forfeiture system to protect people and remove perverse incentives for policing for-profit. >> thank you. >> are there seconds?

are there 15 seconds, we have it. anyone speaking against this? there should not be, all in favor indicate by a sign of aye. all opposed? passes unanimous, i'm sorry. it passed. >> wait a second. let me go back. not the screen, don't look at the screen. >> the screen is not what passed . >> read what passed. >> i will read it again. i'll read this again in a second but i want folks to know most people have no idea that you could be driving down the highway and have let's say you've got no front license plate. not particularly a criminal act but something they can

pull you over four. >> we are out of order, we just need you to read the amendment. please. it passed. >> you can be ... it's a unity amendment man. it's a unity amendment. you to . [inaudible] yes, if we want to be here until wednesday. [inaudible] i agree that we should. >> may i have a point of personal privilege? >> read the amendment, because there's a question about it. >> i did read it. i will read it again. page 11, line 41, strike "explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system" and civil assetrm the forfeiture sys