separate amendment from you which we'll go to next which is also on line page 10 and line 35. lets start with the one on page 10, lines 14 to 36 where you strike. >> thank you mr. chairman. as my first amendment as a doctor, we can skip the second amendment. >> thank you. in addition to serving the republican party in the commonwealth of massachusetts in the state committee, i serve my special education parent advisory council and my town, this so called c-pack, many of you maybe familiar with it. when i found out that i am going to be adel gate before i knew i am going to be on the platform committee, i reached out to leaders in congress on issues in particular, the senator from iowa, representatives from mississippi and washington state, mr. harper and miss

kath kathie mcmoore and working with them, we came up with some language that we drafted and submitted early on the platform committee for their consideration and that's the language that i have here today. it is very similar to what in the platform already. the draft platform so what i would do is simply there will be lines of 14 to 36. so there are three praragraphs. i would add in new texts of similar contexts but stating it differently. in working with these offices, there are words that we would like to use in terms of talking about people's disabilities and the issues that we have been working on in washington dc to advance legislation. so that's the concept behind my amendment. it is not making any substantial changes. it is mostly a matter of wording and again, i happen to authorize and i have the support from

three offices for my amendment. if you would like, it is difficult toll read on the screen. i will read it if folks would like. i think it is very strong language. >> the idea is strike what is in the original document lines 14 to 36. and then put an amendment which i have a copy >> we are going to make copies and distribute those. so we can just lay this aside temporarily until those copies of what you have written get contributed so people know exactly what their seeing and we can lay aside that also, also striking those wording and combining your two amendments and we'll move at that point to come back to that but i am going to move it this time to chris colbach of kansas of lines 30 to 36. >> thank you mr. chairman.

does the person who's contr controlling the screen have the language there so i can walkthru through it. it is a couple of language changes. >> if you want to explain -- >> the final paragraph on page 11, lines 30 to 36. >> correct. >> the bottom of the page. >> yes. >> so in the first sentence, it kind of reduces the scope of the bill. >> the language that says we urge a halt. it changes the halt to caution in the creation of new crimes. i think it will be inappropriate for this body to say that we do not want congress to ever create a new crime so it tempers the language. the second change is in the second sentence where it says we call for defense.

it is an element. in replace the word -- finally deletining the sentences of lin 34 and 36. all the way through that sentence. the u.s. supreme court recognized the mistake of law back in 1959 of the cases of raley's verses ohio, it is already there. i don't think we need to create something that the supreme court long recognized. some legal edits. >> they appeared on the screen. is there any discussions? is there a second? discussion? yes, the delegate from lalaska.

>> unless your lawyer are dealing with this. i am not sure what it meant. i like the first of great problems and all that. but when it gets to lines 30 to 36, if you are not in law enforcement or attorney, it is extremely difficult to understand. i would like to see it removed. that's just -- explain to me why if i am giving this to someone like a legislature or someone running, it is a lot of information. >> delegate from rhode island. >> just in response to that comment, i have lobby for this in my home state, she's right, it is a difficult concept to get across unless the listeners are law enforcement or familiar with

corral l criminal law. with that being said, this is incredibly important modifications. it is something that we have left slide for too long and our justice system is suffering. despite the complexity, i am for civil language for our platform. this form of this out weighs that concern. >> yes, the delegate from new mexico. >> jonathan gardener from new mexico. >> in addition to having clear language in the platform, it is important that we have correct language in the platform and the platform will be read by attorneys. it is important that the language to the extent that we have special language reulating to particular field and issues that we have in the paragraphs and in places of the platform. that language needs to be corrected in the field so that we are communicating to lawyers and to scientists and to whatever professoionals we are dealing with and we are

confident to be running the country. >> all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. oppose nay. the amendment is adopted. >> the next is from the delegate in new land. >> april new land. this would create the number of 38 which would be in addition. if we could read it. i don't think it is up. >> if they can put it up so i can read it. >> they'll type it in, this is an addition on page 12 of a new line, the new line 38 after line 37. >> i don't have it in front of

me so i need it to come up on the screen. >> let me read what i have. correct me if i am wrong. there shall be a national registry for children burglars so every american family knows who is their neighbor or/if an offender is located next to an elementary school after their sentence has been served. >> is that a correct read? >> yes, technically. if i must speak to a motion? >> please do. >> several years ago, my brother's two children, three and five years old were murdered. the perpetrator were supposed to have a death sentence. my brother and his wife decided they would agree to a life sentence. he was supposed to be serving on a life sentence but the laws in indiana were changed and they

allowed the perpetrator to be released. after his release shortly, he moved to a location directly across from an elementary school. it was very long before he molested one of the children from the elementary school. we do have a national registry for sex offenders. it is critically important that we have a national registry for child murder so people are aware of who's moving into their neighborhood and saving the families from the tragedy within my family and others. >> thank you. >> we'll try to get the gray part out of it so it is easier to read. that's the language and the delegate from north dakota. >> yes, this is kelly carparmst,

i am a recovery defense attorney. the concern i would have with this is how the crimes are defined by a state by state bases. we run into this issue on an unrelated note but i am talking about driver's license and dot suspension. it is different in all fifty states. you are running into issues as to murder homicide unintentional homicides or man slaughter, there are varying degrees dep d depending on each state. it is not even called century code. in north dakota is called century code. the concept is difficult to an enforcing in a uniform manner of how each state quantify it. i would oppose the amendment.

>> from indiana. >> thank you, jim. >> of course, the reporting requirements and registries for child predators is based on pedophiles and it is based on the established behavior that they tend to in high numbers to repeat their crimes. my question would be and that justifies the registry and the warning. what is the science on this issue that is adults that kill children and is heartbreaking as the example she gave but are they likely to repeat their crime to an extent -- they were justified and creating a registry in order to track them and to inform about them. if somebody has that data then that would you know, and we have a similar behavioral pattern. i would think that this would be

justified. however, if we don't have that data, and then creating a registry of citizens is something generally that the government maintained is something generally is offensive. >> the delegate from virgin island if you would like to respond. >> my sister and i went to washington dc and met with the justice department, she had volumes of information about child murder and it is quite high. i don't have all the statistics in front of me. but, it is quite high and similar to pedophiles. if you know start qualifying well, was the pedophiles intentional or not intentional. a murder is murder. there is really no different definition than i am aware of. so i think that this is an over

arching issue that could save many, many children from many, many different problems. i hope that people will be in favor of this amendment. >> i see no additional discussion. oh, i am sorry. there is adel ga delegate in fr maryland, yes, delegate from maryland. >> hi, this is a one side solution for the 50 states. federal mandates does not wo work -- i am sorry, about your family but i don't think this is the answer. >> i see no additional discussions. all those in favor signifies by saying aye. the amendment fails. the next is from the delegate from rhode island.

page 13, line two. yes, the delegate from rhode island please address the issue. >> thank you, giovanni from rhode island. >> also, i do not have the copy of the amendment. >> page 13, line 2. i will read what i have, and we'll get it all up on the board. you said on page 13, line 2 after the text public health and safety. >> i don't see the word public

health and safety on line 2. lets see if we can get this up. this does not comport with the page and the number that i have here. >> do you have a copy of your amendment? >> i do not. as we are working onto make sure that we have that right number. lets move to the the american sam samoa, page 6, line 5 about faculty lounges. we'll get back to the rhode

island. i don't have it in front of me. what people do have in front of them was what was passed out which was from the delegate from massachusetts, who recommended striking on page 10, lines 14 through 39, inserting an attached page. does anyone from the attached page? >> yes. so there is no one without it. can i call the delegate from massachusetts? >> i think everyone will see from reading this attached language. very similar concept in the existing text of the platform. it phrases a little differently. again, i do have the support of conservative leaders in congress who work closely on the issues dealing with people of disabilities so i urge support

for substituting additional paragraphs for the exception. >> delegate in california. >> can i ask that the chairman of this subcommittee that dealt with this chime in on this. i know we go through the language of this committee draft very early and this is a lot of language that we have not gone throu thoroughly. carolyn, from oklahoma. >> thank you, mr. chairman. most of this language was already drafted by our editors and not touched by us today. and, i would like to see if the person that's bringing this amendment would give us the gist of what she's change sing so we don't have to read it all. again, mostly it is just the way

things are said and for example, we talk about federal programs that focuses on can rather than cannot. something that the advocates like to talk about. the only substance of change or amendment to take out is some language in the existing texts is removing the program, the ability of the one program. my understanding, i am informed that there are multiple investigations for programs of frauds. i don't think we should be highlighting that. that's the one substance that's changed and everything else is more how it is said. >> um -- yes, delegate from mississippi. >> i want to speak in fay favor of this amendment. we are starting this year, this is a tremendous asset for those of you who may be for me of

autism allowing our account and creation, that language should be approved by us because there are limitations to avoid medicare or medicaid. it is a tremendous cause for people who are supported by these. th it can be made by family members so it is a way to pass onto family members who are disabled and the ability to help pay for themselves in the future. i encourage the adoption. >> additional discussion. >> yes, the delegate from kansas. >> i believe able in both things. so what he was saying is right it is in both. [ inaudible ] >> the delegate from virginia. >> i am trying to find clarification because there are a lot of lines changed.

one thing i am finding in the motion to 'meamend but i am not finding in the original language is about federal contribution and funding. the person who made the motion clarifies of the existing language that's in the platform currently had anything to say about federal funding. >> sure, i am happy to respond to that. the existing language does not mention the federal funding. the new language simply points out that ida authorizes federal contribution up to 40% but the obama administration under funded this priority. we can do better by stopping these false promises so it does not commit to a specific level of funding. just pointing out the obama administration under funding it and it is a false promise. later in the section, we also do make the contrast with the

democrat democrats in terms that we hope to provide the program as oppose to their vision. >>. >> there is a light in the back row, are you look to speak? >> yes, ai am. with regard of this process, we have our staffs at the rnc helps draft original language that we are discussing today. that language is by our nominees and those in the policy world who looks at our platforms and what it should be standing for. we have not had a chance to have our staffs look at this and make sure our nominees are okay with it and making sure it unifies with the rest of the documents and quite frankly, i really believe the reason behind offering this amendment are noble, i don't know that for sure because i don't know where all this came from. my preference and my position is

rewriting the session when we have not had a chance to do a full vetting of it. that's my position on it and rejecting the entire amendment and making small adjustments to the languages so desired by those bringing this motion. >> delegate from indiana. thank you, jim bob, from indiana. i have an in query to the maker o f the motion of line 27. i know this there are two sentences there that do not appear in your draft but do appear in the section that you are amending. did you intend to delete of those two sentences in terms of opposing the nonsense -- did you

intend to delete those or is it still in the document or did you only amend lines 14 to 36. >> yes, the amendment is only lines 14 through 36. >> i don't mean to sound like a broken record but for ten years in minnesota, we work to streamline our party platform to an actual marketing document. in doing that with some of the debates and discussions we had internally with our party, don't drag me into your argument of your legislation and members of congress. this feels like what this is. i would encourage you to vote no on the amendment. if i can respond to that. >> the original author. sth >> thank you mr. chairman. the reason for the rewriting of this session is to convey language that republicans can

talk more easily of people of disabilitie disabilities, it is more of a friendly language to talk to the community, that was the intense of the rewrite. i will add that early on in the process that i also share this language with the trump campaign as well as the platform community south, they have had it in their hands now for at least a month or if not longer. it is out there and invisible. >> seeing no discussions, all those in favor and addition of a new page, all those in favor of the amendment signifies by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those oppose please say no. >> no. >> you have the next amendment have having to do with this specific of page 10 and line 35 and you said you wanted to go to

that if this first amendment is defeated. >> yes, thank you, senator. this would delete the reference to the ability of one program and bestow words, i have been informed of federal investigation on the bases of fraud. i don't have any confirmation but on the bases of what i have learned and let everybody -- i would urge the deletion of that section. >> any discussion us on that or just those words? is there a second? any discussions? >> all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> no? >> one more time. all those in favor of the one program line please say aye. >> aye. >> all those oppose please say no. >> the amendment passes, the

line is stricken. back to the delegate from rhode island. i think there was a miss print here and we are on page 13, i think it is line 7, is that your understanding? >> yes. >> this is page 13 line 7. we are after the words o public health and safety, you are working on putting it up now. you are deleting the words and preparing to dealing the problematic consequences. you are deleting that and you are inserting, you read what you are inserting as they ar are -- they'll make this bigger so everyone can read it. >> so the in certification would allow that to read -- a long range of implications for public health agency and fairly of the economic cause of the failure drug prohibition and recognizing

our state of a new approach that's long over due. >> can you make it a little bit bigger? > >> this is a replacing of line eight right now. understand there is a step for this platform. as often as the case with government, sometimes the solution is worser than the problem. >> we learn 100 years ago without alcohol prohibitions that there are consequences of that type of regulation. and, i think we see it everyday. now the damage that it causes. i am not suggesting that we need to legalize drugs but what i am suggesting that republicans who are federalists who believe that this state of our laboratory of democracy, we need to give the

states some room to figure out how to fix it. states are making strikes and we heard discussions on certain components of medical use of marijuana plant. i believe that there are a lot of other opportunities other states are looking at and there is no denying right now. we created a system where you have state that is are actively c controverting federal law. as we did without prohibition, the states chipped away until such time as the federal government recognize it was long over due for an appeal. i do not suggest this language to endorse that. i believe that we need to recognize that the states need to be allowed without threat of federal punishment, the states need to be allowed to figure this out. and, i really do believe and i was not intended to submit this.

the more i thought about the event of the last couple of weeks, the more i felt strongly that we need to start this conversation. we created with drug prohibition, and a generati generation -- and, if you want to response to the black lives matter protesters, if you want to respond to the families of police officers died in dallas, if you want to respond to the families of alton sterling and philando castile, we cannot do that. we cannot answer those questions and the left candidates cannot answer these questions at all. you cannot answer these questions of explaining our law enforcement by forcing them to enforce on workable laws and forcing them to have laws that's contradictory and if we can adjust our systems, it weakens our law enforcement and leads things to 84 people being shot in chicago over the course of

the weekend. this is a problem that i don't offer solutions. this is the republican party to embrace those laboratory democracy and solutions in the hope that we can do better. >> discussion? senator from north carolina. >> yes, i am strongly opposed of this amendment. i would ask if the states are allowed to do it, that means myself and north carolina could be regionally surrounded by folks where the use of drugs are legal and come into our state to harass and do things. i think that -- what we are doing is say thag t we cannot enforce the law, we are tired of finding the drug wars so we are not going to fight. that th that's the wrong answer to the problem and i strongly oppose this. >> thank you mr. chair. >> you know -- my understanding is that we are the party of the

tenth amendment, which states that if a power is not delegated expressly to the federal government that it rests with the states and the people. back in the early 20th century, it was known that, the federal government had no authority to prohibits alcohol. they passed add constitutional amendment to prohibits it. they recognized they needed to change it. when it came to other issues, that approach was never taken. the federal government has taken an unconstitutional authorities. just like so many other laws we get frustrated under the burden of. >> this amendment is -- i think a moderate amendment, it is not prescriptive in any way. all it says is it recognizes the amendment principles. states have the right to make

choices on these policies. it is going to be the states where the solutions com comes f. the federal government failed times again to come up with any real solutions the problem is facing. the discourage of drugs is as bad as it is in our nation. this is under our policies that the frederation has put into place. i hope that we adopt it. >> delegate from california. >> i would strongly oppose this and i would recommend that we read about the opiate war in china in the 19th century and what that did to the whole social fabric of country because it is with that kind of -- if anything, we need a stronger. the only way to eradicate it

then was stronger laws like they have in places like singapore and such against drugs then it is to be telling our young people and allowing young people to become more and more believing it is okay for them to do drugs, which again, i get back to at least leading to major mental health issues and again just to mention what happened during the opiate war in china. it is an example of what could happen here if we don't take action of the opposite of what this is opposing. for delegate from maryland. >> mr. chairman, what i particularly like about this approach is that is asking for means -- if i read it correctly. we as conservatives and republicans are constantly asking for liberal programs to be means tested so we know whether they work or not. i don't know why we would not apply the same standards in this

situation. i would urge its approval. >> i am definitely oppose this and appreciate a no vote with my colleagues. f >> delegate from minnesota. >> lets me honest about this. this is legalizing drugs. it sounds attract activiive to is as states' right issues. i am from minnesota, we cannot have any fun fire works. guess what happens all over minnesota and 4th of july, we have a good fire works. this is where it is a federal issue. this rolling back legalizing drugs state by state means that we'll have the same type of legal activities that's happening now are these drugs being transported state boards instead of u.s. borders. i vote no. >> delegate from illinois. >> stephanie holder from illinois, of course, chicago is

the murder of the capitol of the world. i will have to oppose this addition. >> delegate from iowa. >> i feel like sometimes in fear, i fear for what we may find of these issues or how they make the interpreted. we need to be able to question any policies that we have and any stance that we have and there is been other baggage added to this by the author and the discussion. the discussion of this is excessive. >> i call the question. >> the question has been called as debatable. it requires a two third votes to cut-off debate. all those in favor vote immediately please signify by saying aye. >> aye. the question is on the amendment from the delegate in

rhode island. please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> oppose, nay. >> yes, the motion is needed. >> next, a motion on page 6, line 5.

page 6, line 5, page 6 line 5. after the end of line 5, you said not a faculty lounge period. you insert a new sentence which reads educational institutions, do not have the ability or means to properly investigate sexually assaults, is that your words? >> correct, this comes from many of the current situations with college athletics and for example, baylor and not only with that -- also, one of the players don't know was brought back to office because they did not want the situation to go out in the media so they released him from his scholarship and was sent to jr. college. there is no reason why you need educational institution from the

football coach, anybody should be investigated on this. >> what's on the screen is not the part we are talking about. it is the addition of that line. the end of page 6, line 5. if you want to blow it up there with everything you have there in the gray area. that's an accurate reflection of what you are proposing. >> correct. it has been moved and seconded. >> mr. chairman. the wort properties should be changed to proper lee. >> you are going to get the award for the best find.

this is the second time. thank you. >> that's right, we'll put her in charge of all the money, too. this is terrific. >> additional discussion. >> yes, delegate from massachusetts. >> bob from massachusetts. i am also going to offer an amendment following this section. i spent quite a bit of times with members of congress, senators and rubio and others on the topic of sexually assaults and proposed by republicans in the senate as well as the house. and, some facts that just need to be understood her here -- probably of the 3% of the people commit 90% of sexually assaults on campus. the idea that these can be dealt with in the courts failed to recognize that a college career may only last two or three years depending on the person.

the ability to move those cases through the criminal courts is not feasible. it is also a standard of reasonable, beyond a reasonable doubt which is more than necessary for educational institution that has contract n contractional rights with students as well as legal rights to enforce conduct and behavior on the campuses that's appropriate. so the idea of taking that right away from them which flies in the face of the first sentence which says that we commend their efforts, we commend the good faith efforts of educational institutions to properly address these crimes in a responsible way and turn around in the next sentence including this addition and removing their ability to do that is wrong. for those i am talking about this being a market document for the idea that we'll put in ways to make it possible for the

sexual predators of the 3% committing the 90% of the crimes to continue to stay on campus is a really bad idea particularly whether you believe the polls or not. we have a massive gap of women right now with the elections. it is not something that's supportive by many of our leading. people running for our reelection like rubio. i would not only be opposing this, i am going to be making an amendment to strike lines 4 to 7 including this piece as well. our amendment is up next after we deal with this amendment. delegate from california. >> thank you, i am from california. our experience in california, date rapie is very, very rapid. it is among -- it is not only in our schools but among people

that know each other, friends. there is a recent case in santa monica where they were best friends for three years and it happened to be the girls saw the boy putting the drugs in the drink and reported him to the bait waiter and he was arrested. i think we need language that would say we strongly condemn as a party of date rape. and, when you speak to the rape foundation. you find out that the women are always like the system, they blame themselves somehow. also, rape counseling because they always never recover from this. the more that we can show as a party that we do care about young women and their safety is positive. >> delegate from florida. >> the time line cases came

before my state of florida indicates the ability of universities which is the problem here covering up for certain super star athletes. obviously, the universities when you are talking about a state run university falls under the curfew of our governor's offices and other places. that's where law enforcement, not individual history teachers or whatever need to be enforcing the laws just like they enforce the laws in every other public venue in our state. the problem as it is brought up here is the women don't get a fair share, we need to take some part of this platform and push forward a new idea empowering women of the united states of america. there is been enough problem of title nine that we cannot take a stand from this. i believe. thank you. >> delegate from virginia. >> yes, as the delegates pointed out there is a disconnect between commending the good

faith efforts by educational institutions and the amendment of as -- [ inaudible ] i would say the problem is not commending education institutions proven to not be effective in this, they have a conflict of interest because of wanting to present a state campus and not allow these rapes and assaults to be actively documented and just because these actions are happening on a campus does not mean that they're outside of the jurisdiction and preview of the civil government and law enforcement. i don't see that there is any reason to allow them a way of escape from the regular type of law enforcement than any other person would be. >> delegate from massachusetts. >> yes, i think that there are some confusion of either /or. this is not an either/or, it is an and.

the courts should prosecute these things. people committed sexually assaults and rapes and horrific crimes should be prosecuted. that will takes a long time. it has a high standard beyond a reasonable doubt. oj simpson was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. he was on victimed convicted on standar standard. the under pressure and the microscope and they are moving to address this more aggressively. we should be pushing them to do the right thing and the right thing for them is they can act faster, some taking years when a person only has four years on campus at stakes, that getting through the courts system, they can act faster and a lower standard and i have talked with the title line officers at major universities, they know who many of these people are, the ones of the 10% and committing 90% of

the sexually assaults. they are empowered by the current way things are. so it is not changing where things are. they are empowered to go ahead and take action and expel and suspend or cause them to not be in the same class and taking different kinds of actions that don't chorequire them to put pee in jail just to protect women on campuses. we would do a mass destructive party to say that we are against that. >> delegate from north carolina. >> yes, sir, thank you. i think we ought to put -- i will say two words putting this in perspective. i think we ought to be looking at duke and lacrosse, if they are well equipped to analyze the problem, why did luke and lacrosse team -- it was rushed

to judgment and they do have a conflict of in interest to protect. i think it has to go to courts no matter how long it takes to get justice. >> the question has been called, all those in favor to vote? is there a second? all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> any no s? >> now, as stated on the zrescr, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> oppose, nay. >> page 6, line 4. >> yes, you have it up there. i am going to propose that we strike the inconsistent lines 4

to 7 where it reads right after we commend them when ever reported, it must be investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in the courtroom, not a faculty lounge. then continues questions of guilt or innocence must be decided by a judge or attorney beyond a reasonable doubt. i would strike that. we inspect the legal and rights of universities to enforce proper conducts and behaviors on campus. colleges and universities should be encouraged to use the course to prosecute these crimes. as i said earlier, it is not either/or, both should be done. if there is clear evidence that someone is a perpetrator, then they should be empowered to take action. i will remind ourselves again that this is simply leaving

things the way they are and it is not trying to come out oppose to our actions that would protect women on campuses. so that i strongly recommend that we strike our language and replaces this with our new language. >> does the screen reflects everything you said and crosses out the new language that you recommended. the delegate from iowa. >> thank you mr. chair. i want to make sure that i am clear on this, mayor scott. you are saying to me that colleges could decide whether or not -- we have headlines full of women who have been raped and in fears for years come forge forget -- forward to tell us what happened. there is conflicts in schools

investigating when it is sport members of teams that make them great money. we have headlines of women 16 years back who are just now coming forward because when they tried and a rape kit was processed. it was hidden. or of the outside regular system of law enforcement in order to work with a school in a community. the victims are up against every issue here. i really find it curious. most colleges don't allow security forces to carry weapons. there is a reason. if they don't trust them with the weapons of emergency situation, why do we think they can proclaim and define and investigate the case on their own as well. i think that the courts -- i don't think colleges should get to decide whether or not or how something is turned over, a crime is a crime. delegate from minnesota.

>> um -- i am not a lawyer, i think the first half of this is up to the word "behavior." that's a nice thing and the rest of putting "assaults" in quotations. i am a man so it is not my place to say. that offends me. we are saying "assaults" with air quotes that we are not taking these types of things seriously. we cannot put this in the platform. platform . >> right. >> the air quotes were not part of mine. i didn't see that. you can take those off. >> because the handwritten part i see is -- there's a quotation mark on here. so that's why they typed in. >> to go on, i don't think we should just encourage colleges and universities to use the courts to prosecute sexual assault. we should require it. >> i would accept that second part.

to my amendment that colleges and universities should be required to use the courts to prosecute these crimes and to that ma ra's point maybe also if what you're suggesting is that the first part instead of just saying respect also could say require them because if they weren't doing it, the legislation that is moving through the house and senate will require them to do it. and they're probably required under current law anyway to do it if they're not. so if those friendly amendments, if those are friendly anticipates, i would accept them. >> so there's a second degree amendment that makes two changes to the word respect is change ha to require. >> i would not want mine considered friendly. >> well, the amendment that he has suggested that he would accept is that you could change respect to require in that location as well as at the end where it changes can the word

encourage to required. is that a correct reflection of the two recommendations from you that that have been accepted as the author as improving? >> i believe that's correct. if we could read the first sentence. does it read correctly? >> we require the legal and contractual rights of colleges and universities to enforce appropriate conduct and behavior of their campuses including addressing the problem of sexual assault. that's how that would. >> i don't think that reads correctly. it would need to say we require -- we require colleges and universities to use their legal and contractual rights to enforce appropriate conduct. so we would need to relocate those words. >> i'm going to go back to the dprelg minnesota who is in the middle of to the amendment on the floor. i want to be clear. i'm not trying to fix this. i oppose in had this from the beginning. if the author is amending it it's on his own.

i'll be voting no. >> i'll still accept the idea of amending it. >> i oppose the amendment. now we have two sentences that are contradictory. i have a right to kick you out student and then in the next sentence it says but we want you to use the courts. the second sentence is probl problematic. we should stick with the original language. >> the amendment on the floor is as typed because the delegate from minnesota did not offer a specific amendment on the floor. so we're debating the amendment on the floor first we respect and in the end we encourage. the delegate from hawaii. >> as a former prosecutor and

criminal defense attorney, i oppose this amendment. a crime is a crime. and if there was a rape or a sexual assault it needs to be immediately reported and not covered up. that was the problem with the church. they didn't cover it up. they moved one guy to the next guy claiming this and that. if it was reported it needs to be reported immediately and prosecuted. what the colleges do about it is who knows one thing or another and then put it up on facebook and the internet this is what's happening at the college. >> the delegate in texas. >> just to remind us about the 30,000 view we hold the position there's 17 powers to the federal government and everything else belongs to the state. this is both police powers and education. we would normally hold these are not federally touched issues and the fact we use the word require with the issues that are not

enum rated seems to be contrary to our core philosophy. >> we are getting so far astray from the fundamental principals and the guiding principals of a platform i will be opposing this and all these other amendments. goodness gracious, how do you explain this? it's self evidence. we want to prosecute criminals. it doesn't belong here. >> delegate from virginia. >> thank you. i echo the concerns of others. this is the first sentence especially makes it sound like sexual assault is a matter that can be settled on campus. it can't be. it must be prosecuted. i think the original language is better and i oppose this amendment. >> delegate in south carolina. is there a second? all those in favor of o voting immediately place say aye.

we'll vote immediately. all those in favor of the delegate from massachusetts please say aye. the amendment is defeated. next we have an amendment from the state of colorado on page just one and three and four. wel well. >> should we serve all three. >> it's probably better. >> the first one is page one, line 27 where it says children raised in a two parent household, i want to insert before two, traditional. that's been a general theme we've seen from the general constitutional committee and this committee as well. we want to have specificity as to what sort of household we're endorsing there. >> we are inserting one word on

page one, line 27. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. so the word at the end of that line 27, after two parent you would insert the word traditional. >> before two. >> okay. in a traditional two parent household. >> yes. >> people understand the amendment discussion, yes. delegate from new york. >> thank you mr. chairman. annie dickerson here. look, it's another poke in the eye to the gay community if you could scroll back please. you're scrolling down too fast. to say that the traditional two parent household accounts for physically and healthier children that are less likely to use drugs or alcohol is outrageous, zero evidence, horrible research that was

connected in 2010 before marriage was allowed and freedom to marry was allowed in most of the states. the research has been debunked again and again and again. this place has no place in us continuing to suggest that a gay married couple, which is legal in our country, and was legal in 32 states prior to the recent decision, this is outrageous to suggest that children of a gay couple are more likely to be completely imbalanced and use drugs in droves and be kric criminals. i mean this is to provocative and i completely disagree with this language and i will not support it and i would hope fellow members would not want to continue to do harm and would want a party of addition and not

subtraction. again and again and again paragraph after paragraph, so i must object to this and i hope i'm supported. >> delegate in kansas. >> we went over this again and again in the committee. she's wrong about the research and this was talked about at lends in the committee and decided. >> delegate from missouri. >> yes, i like -- people who we've been lied to by many many people, but the right way to go about it. >> this particular addition i might add was not that's why it's called an amendment right now, was not decided to add traditional two parent to this. again, this is just a slap in the face of folks that we know

and love who happen to be gay. >> the other delegate from missouri. >> this is intended -- we've been talking about this for years, especially in missouri, whenever you talk about children in poor areas, they will say it's poverty, that's why they have poor education because they're poor. i would say no it's because they're in single parent homes. very to encourage married mom and dad because the evidence does show that children raised in married homes do better. that's no refuting that. i support this in the -- it's not a slam against the gay community. it's encouraging what has always worked. >> discussion delegate from nevada. >> i'm going to speak in favor of any parent that wants to raise a child and any two parents that want to provide a

loving foundation for children and so i actually do speak against this amendment. >> additional discussion. delegate from washington, d.c. >> thank you. in addition to the points that have been made about the evidence simply not being there to support this claim that it's a slap in the face to the lgbt community, it's also a slap in the face to their children and i'd encourage you for a moment to look at this from the eyes of a child who is raised by a same sex couple and emergenimagine w would think about voting for the republican party. >> delegate from guam. >> i have the question because i have seen other research about single parent and a two parent household but i haven't seen any of the research on a same sex two parent household and how that differents. it's hard pofor me to believe is

the amount of time and caring that the parents provide for the child that the fact that they're both male and female would have such a substantial difference in that caring of the kid. i have not seen any evidence and would like to be provided it. >> we'd be happy to provide that. >> delegate from louisiana. >> thank you. the amendment here simply says traditional two parent. in terms of the social science research the studies from individuals who have looked at the long term effects upon children, the evidence is overwhelming that children in a two parent home with a mother and father do better in every social category. there is no studies to compare two same sex couples because quite frankly it hasn't been around here in this country. where it has existed the numbers do not bear out that claim.

there was mention of a report. there is volumes, volumes, of social science that points to the fact that children do better when they're in a home with a mother and father who are married in a life long relationship. >> delegate from nebraska. >> not only do i think this is an insult to the gay community, i also think it's insulting to single parents. i was a single parent raised two kids. my kids are excellent citizens and i find it offensive to think that just because i was a single parent and my kids were raised not with two parents that they are more likely to use drugs. they've never used drugs. they don't abuse alcohol. they've never engaged in crimes. so i think this is something

that i certainly cannot support. >> delegate from indiana. >> thank you. the republican party has supported traditional marriage and families since 1856. in our first platform we condemned what we referred to as the, quote, twin relics of barbari barbarism. it was viewed as an attack upon traditional marriage and the family. throughout our history we have supported and defended the idea that the best outcome both for society, for the members of the family and particularly for children, arose from the family that is created by a marriage between a man and woman. this has not had anything to do with gay rights until most

recently. now what perplexes me is that the idea of same sex marriage which is now legal in our country may involve 1.5%, 2% of people in america are not het r row sexual and some of them want to get married and the focus should not be on them but on the 40% of girls and women that are having children now not having formed a two -- they're hetrosexual and not having formed a two parent family and the effect of that on the mother and children and society. a better outcome is more likely to occur in a two parent man and

woman family raising children. that is a scientifically established fact. it is a -- it is preferable that we have public policies that encourage the best outcome and this is simply describing the non-optimal situation that can occur when you do not form that family. we cannot close our eyes to the effect of having children out of wedlock on those children, on those mothers, on our society simple because some people can see nothing other than gay rights when we're talking about this issue. >> delegate from south carolina. the question has been called. is there a second? which calls for a vote immediately. two-thirds needed to call the question. all those in favor of voting

immediately say aye and opposed. the question has been called, this is on page one, line 27, inserting the word traditional. it is adopted. this was a divided amendment. back to the gentleman from colorado. page 3, line 11. >> yes, page 3, line 11, i want to strike the term after school of choice all low income. school choice should be available to all families no matter what their income is. >> there's a motion to second. hearing none. those in favor say aye. it is adopted. for the third part of your amendment, this is page four, line 11.

>> thank you. page 11 says who interact with school children, i want to insert the word public between with and school. i don't want to regulate private schools because we're opening up the tent there. so when it comes to regulation and federalism and all that stuff is that we don't want to regulate private schools but public schools are within our dominion. >> is it seconded? the amendment is on the screen. you can see where the word public is inserted. discussion. delegate from rhode island. >> just an error. it says he held to the highest standards should be held to the highest standards. >> correction's been made. additional comments. >> yes. >> yes. >> i don't like -- i'm going to

oppose having that put in there. we have addressed public and private schools throughout this document. i want background checks on anyone working with children. i don't care whether they're in public or private schools. if there's a ped file there we need to know it so i'm not going to support just public because all schools should. we haven't differed on any other statements we've made about public and private schools. >> yes. delegate from north carolina. >> thank you. i agree with the previous comment. the word public separates folks out. i want to protect all children from predators. >> thank you. delegate from south carolina. >> i definitely oppose this language. most churches and most schools in order to even work with young people today still have to pass

background checks and i think it should be in there and i call a question. >> the question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately. >> point of order can you make a statement and call the question. >> you cannot -- you cannot speak and then call the question. >> the delegate from texas. >> david bartin, texas. a number of states if you are a homeschool you have to register as a private school. if we're going to say we're conducting background on private schools and that's into homeschool and that's not the objective we're off. >> we would like to -- what would we like to see people do and what do we as government have the authority to compel them to do and should we and can we constitutionally force a private organization that takes no taxpayer money to adopt a policy like this. just because it is commonly done in other places does not mean

that is something that we should choose to continue doing. constitutionally limited government means that private businesses and organizations have the right to set their own policies and if parents want to see background checks happening at a private school they choose to send their kids to that private school will listen to the market that says that should happen. so i support the language. >> delegate from florida. >> yes. i'm confused sir and perhaps you could help me with this. i've never been on this committee before and i keep hearing my fellow delegates talk about it as though i'm somehow have been elevated to congress or my state legislator. i thought that what we were doing was putting together an advertisement for what we all believed in and this happens at the state level and also at the local level where everyone is a

legislator. i wanted to go on record i'm just a delegate here. a mom, business owner and a good republican. [ applause ] >> delegate from louisiana. >> many of you are probably aware louisiana has what's known as school choice and we have a voucher system. many private schools are receiving state and federal funding because they're accepting vouchers and they're accepting the school choice program. if you're going to pass this particular amendment, you have to recognize that we've already said we're for school choice. louisiana is an experiment in that you have to exclude private schools because they'll be receiving school choice money. >> delegate from iowa. >> i'd like to call a question. >> question has been called. takes two-thirds vote. is there a second. all those in favor of voting

immediately please say aye. the vote is on the amendment part three, page four, line 11. all those in favor signify by saying aye and say no. the amendment fails. >> it's about 6:30. we are planning to continue this plank of the platform this evening. we will not go to the economic plank but we'll take about a ten minute break. people have been coming in and out so everyone can get a chance to refresh for about ten minutes and we'll reconvene in about ten minutes. >> we need your sections for the economy tonight because they'll be copied for the morning. please submit your amendments now. we have to close it out. thank you.

as you're taking your seats we're getting ready to resume and the first amendment we'll be considering is from phillip wilson, the delegate from the state of washington. so i could ask delegate wilson to be ready to present. i see the microphone is on as people are getting to their seats. this is on page 2, line 5. the delegate from washington

state. >> actually i'd like to insert it between eight and nine, it's going to be a new paragraph. would you like me to read the text. >> no that everyone is here we have about nine more amendments to go. i appreciate your patience and your willingness to work through the evening. we have on the screen the amendment from phillip wilson of washington state from page two of the health education and crime plank. please proceed. >> okay. the text reads we believe that children have a natural right to be raised in an intact biological family. while brokedness can default children in a myriad of ways we acknowledge that children are made to be loved by natural parents and united in marriage.

legal structures such as no fault divorce which divides families and empowers the states should be replaced by a fault based divorce. would you like me to speak to that? >> please do. >> a lot of our focus in this marriage issue has been on the parents or the adults and really very little has gone to children, although some of that is addressed in other areas in this platform. really a child does not have -- is not going to go into court when their parent is taken away from them at 5 years old. they're not going to be in court saying my dad's been taken away and i have a right to my father or that sort of thing. the structures that we put in place here for the state are really important to protect children. the adults will be able to take

care of themselves in ways that the children are just not going to be able to do. so the legal structures we have should be those that encourage families to stay together rather than the state coming in on the side of splitting up families because that is what happens in no fault divorce. the state comes in on the side of the party that's least committed to split it up. what happens is the result of that the state grows bigger because you have all these other people to take care of suddenly. a fill os fer said frivolous divorce will lead to frivolous marriage and that's where we are at today. i'd like to submit that as an amendment. >> the amendment is on the floor. discussion. delegate from kentucky. >> thank you. i would like to just speak on this really quickly. this amendment is nothing new. it was proposed during the subcommittee level of this process and it failed because it never even received a second.

the subcommittee felt there were a few problems with it. i'll just raise one as a for instance. we talked about an -- it talks about an intact biological family. this does not account for the vast number of adopted children that are in our families all across this country. so because of that, i'm thinking the interest of time that maybe since it never received a second in committee we might want to just move on from this. >> amen. >> the chair needs to apologize for not asking for a second before getting to this. is there a second? it is moved and seconded. delegate from new york. i'm sorry. it was delegate from ohio. >> i'm very very pro-marriage but i don't think this is for

the platform. right now people aren't getting married and 72% of african-american children are raised by single family homes and have never been married and the number's growing amongst mainstream. we believe in traditional marriage a we don't want people to have divorce but in the times we're living in right now it is what it is and i think that this should not be a part of our platform. we need to get to the nuts and bolts of this platform so that we can advance our party because we have a lot of work to do. and this is not something that we can legislate today. it's not legislative. it doesn't work that way. you can't tell people who to live with and who not to live with. right now we want people to take care of the children they have. i ask that we please not get into this type of conversation and move this along so we can get to what we stand for so we can sell our party and our

candidate and move forward to a victory in november. thank you. [ applause ] >> delegate from south carolina. >> call for the question. >> the question has been called. it takes two-thirds. all those in favor of voting immediately say aye. all those in favor of the amendment please say aye. opposed no. the amendment is defeated. the next amendment we have is from the delegate from new york. >> thank you. welcome back to the 21st century. we're glad to be here. so let's put up my amendment. >> page two, line 10 and 11 and

12. >> keep in mind addition versus subtraction. we need to attract more people to the republican party and not cause people to flee in large numbers, not just gays but people that love them me listenles. this is going in one direction. so we're all for adoption. the first line says families formed by adoption strengthen our communities. so far so good. i agree i have two adopted boys. they're fantastic. i don't know what i would do without them. my eldest boy was adopted on the same day that a gay couple was adopting their little girl. she's now a young woman and she's strong, healthy and was raised in a stable and loving family which is the hope and dreams of every american. so far so good.

private inteentities which facilitate adoptions. then we get into these support measures and i'm going to be advocating that we strike this language. we support measures such as the first amendment defense act to ensure these entities do not face government discrimination because of the views on marriage and family. so what we've got here first of all let me say i agree that religious freedom for a private organizations absolutely, amen to all. however, we need to distinguish between the private orgs and those that receive public tax funding dollars, right. this language is not just asking for religious freedom, it's asking for taxpayer funded organizations to actually turn away people, to turn away gay

couples. freedom is not freedom when it abridges the rights of others. we are a party that was built on freedom. we are built on a free society. let's not lose that. it seems like it's gone out the window a little bit here today. now, this was tried specifically in mississippi recently and it was struck down by the federal courts. so i move to strike this because it is both not constitutionally able to be held up and it is blatant discrimination on our loved ones, our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. our neighbors, our coworkers and some delegates perhaps even in this room and in the back of the room and everywhere in america that we know and love and that we do not wish to discriminate against for the very fact that they're gay. again, this does not pass the smell test of attracting and

addition. this is blatant discrimination and blatant subtraction. thank you, mr. chairman. >> discussion on the amendment on the floor. is there a second? >> second. >> the motion has been made and seconded. discussion, the delegate from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chair. i really don't appreciate the lady from new york implying that the rest of us are bigots because we don't agree with her view and she's certainly not helping her cause. [ applause ] >> if she wants to imapply anybody is a bigot she should talk to them personally. >> i did not use that language sir and i reject that language. >> i have the floor. the first amendment defense act does what it says, it prevents government discrimination against people who believe in natural marriage. mr. donald trump and ted cruz have endorsed the first amendment defense acts. i think it's something we're all in agreement on and i think we should move to debate on requesticly because i think most

people support this. >> delegate from maine. >> just a point of information, do all -- do all adoption agencies receive taxpayer money. that was a claim that was made? >> no. >> delegate from south carolina. question has been called and seconded. there's no discussion. all those in favor of voting immediately please say aye. oppose nay. vote will be immediate. all those in favor of the amendment place say aye. opposed nay. the amendment is defeated. the next amendment is and we have two from rachel hoff from the district of columbia. the one i have first is the one that has striking parts from page one and two. is that the one that you want to go with. strike page 1, line 17 to the

bottom of the pain age and the of line 2 and replace with language that's going to be appear on the screen. >> we're going to be the testing eyes of the committee here. it's a strike and replace. the first three paragraphs of the section on marriage and family and society are the three that deal primarily with marriage and if i might read the language i'm proposing instead, i don't have a copy myself. >> it's on the screen. we want to make sure it's what you want as you propose it. >> i'll read it and let you know if anything doesn't sound right. we believe that marriage is -- >> there should be an s there. >> we believe marriage matters both as a religious institution and a personal freedom because marriage rooted in love and life long commitment is one of the foundations of civil society as marriage tlooifz so our nation thrives. we believe the health of

marriage nationwide directly effects the social and economic well-being of individuals and families and under mining families leads to more government costs and more government controls over the lives of its citizens therefore we believe in encouraging the strength and stability of all families. we recognize that there are diverse and sincerely held views on marriage within the party and support for allowing same sex couples the freedom to marry has grown substantially in our own party. given this journey that so many americans are including republicans are on, we encourage and welcome a thoughtful conversation among republicans about the meaning and the importance of marriage and commit our party to respect for all families and fairness and freedom for all americans. i'm honored to be here with you today and to be serving as the first openly gay member of the

republican platform committee. [ applause ] >> thank you. this amendment that i propose today is simple. it acknowledges a diversity of opinion within our party on the issue of marriage. i'm not here asking you today to endorse my own constitutional rights, which have been made clear by the recent supreme court decision last year. i'm only asking you to recognize that many republicans, many of the republicans that sent us here to do work this week in shaping our party's platform agree with me. and we should not be excluded from our party. as a committee member under the age of 40, i represent the majority of millennial republicans who support the freedom to marry and i'm proud to be joined by 64% of young evangelical republicans who support allowing same sex couples to marry.

if our party wants a future, we should be mindful of these statistics and we musty evolve. we agree on one thing, the importance of the institution of marriage to our society. gay and less been americans like me are simply asking for the opportunity to join that institution to share in that institution and to strengthen that institution. we are your daughters, we are your sons, your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues, the couple that sits next to you in church and one day when i'm ready to marry the woman i love, i hope it will be me. freedom means freedom for everyone, including gays and lesbians that should receive the same protections as het row sexual couples. in high school i close to be a republican. my parents are not republican so i wasn't born this way.

i chose to be a republican because i believe in the same principals that you do, freedom, individual liberty and limited government. i'm here 15 years later still in this great party despite the hurtful rhetoric and stance on these issues and all i ask today is that you include me and those like me and not exclude us by simply acknowledging that thoughtful republicans represent multiple views on the definition of marriage. thank you. [ applause ] >> is there a second. second. delegate from oklahoma. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the sin certifity of the maker of this motion, however this issue was thoroughly discussed in our subcommittee and the majority

opinion and position is in the original -- is in the current language that is presented here. >> the delegate from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chair. i call the question. >> the question has been called. is there a second? all those in favor of voting immediately please signify by saying aye and oppose in had. i believe that's two-thirds. all those in favor of the motion from the delegate of the district of columbia. >> can i call for a show of hands on this vote. >> yes, you may. >> all those in favor of the motion from the delegate from the district of columbia please raise your hand to signify aye. let me go back. did you want it on calling the question. you want it on the vote itself? >> yes, sir. i'm sorry. >> this is the final vote of the

adoption or rejection of the amendment. all those in favor of the amendment please raise their hand. thank you. all opposed please raise their hand. the amendment is defeated. thank you. we have another amendment at this point from the same delegate from the district of columbia referring to pages 5 and 6. can you please scroll through. >> it begins with deleting on

page 5, lines 30 to 37 and then the first two lines of page 6. so on line 30, after the word denied to them, it deletes the same provision of law is now all the way down to the end of that page and all the way down to the first -- through the first two lines of page 6. >> what's shown on the screen is deleting further than the first two lines. >> all right. >> let's make sure we have that right. this should end with gender

where it says biological gender. i want to make sure we have it correct. so it deletes, i want to make sure we have it accurately portrayed on the screen. so we strike starting at that same provision of the law as now being used by bur row krats through the rest of that page on page 5 and then the first two lines on page 6 to the word gender. that's what i have as the

written. >> i didn't commit this amendment mr. chairman. i think perhaps it's the delegate from rhode island who i was conferring with earlier. >> it says rachel on it so we can -- we can withdraw the amendment if it's not yours and it has your name on it, we won't -- >> i'll withdraw the amendment. >> thanks. i'll be happy to share you with the paper i have. thank you. the next amendment is from connecticut, the delegate from connecticut. pat longo. >> mr. chairman, i have a very quick amendment, requires no conversation. page 5, line 37 beginning with

the last three words, we support and on to page 6 the first two lines, that's duplication. that same information about privacy in locker rooms, et cetera, has already been stated in the sentence before on page 5. >> so a motion to strike -- >> eliminate that last sentence. >> the motion made and seconded. would you like to discuss it any further than you have? >> no. >> it has been seconded. the delegate from louisiana. >> mr. chairman, i second that. it is duplicative. several members of the committee are in agreement with that. i support the motion. >> the delegate from vermont. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

we thank the delegate from connecticut and tony per kins for offering it. >> someone else would need to call the question. the delegate's hand from west virginia was up. >> i'd like to call the question. >> the question has been called and seconded to vote immediately. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. we're voting immediately on the motion from the lady from connecticut. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. it is adopted. next we have an amendment from the delegate from florida, page 5, line 35. can i ask the delegate from florida to please address the amendment. >> thank you. please look at page 5, line 30 to 33. i propose adding a period after

categories and deleting beyond a person's by lodge al sex at b h birth. is this is to follow the principal to keep language general rather than al nating one specific person. i urge everybody to support this. thank you. >> discussion from gentleman from california. you second it? additional discussion. >> i call the question. >> the question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately please say aye and opposed no. the motion is now on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the motion is approved. next i have eric from maine. i have an amendment for page 13, lines 3 and 4. i think we have on the screen

exactly what you have but i'd like you to please go over your amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. this amendment would strike out the language which states that many jurisdictions marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. many states are questioning the legality or illegality for can i b cannabis for medical use. >> is there a move for a discussion. >> yes. >> the delegate from california. >> i believe that language needs to be left in that says that it's reminding people that it is illegal under federal law. >> additional discussion before going back to the original author. the delegate from maine. >> i'll just say that the language that's there implies

that federal law is in this case has precedents over state law in this case and that's a miss reading of the claws. the clause says the federal law is supreme. i would challenge anyone this this room to look at the u.s. constitution and find a place where the federal government was granted authority to prohibit and decide the legal status of marijuana. if anyone can find that enumerate there, i will withdraw the amendment, but other than that i would suggest that this really is a state issue. this language is not prescriptive. it clarifies that states can decide the legality or illegality. if states want to have harsher penalties and harsher laws in place than what the federal government has that's their right as well. this clarifies that we recognize, we the party of the

tenth amendment and the constitution recognize that the tenth amendment applies in this issue not just those where it's convenient to us. >> delegate from minnesota. >> let's be clear, this is once again asking us to support legalizing marijuana which is a divisive issue we do not have to have in the platform. >> delegate from south carolina. >> i call for a question. >> the question's been called. to vote immediately. is there a second. all those in favor of voting immediately say aye and opposed no. all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying ay echle. opposed say no. the amendment is defeated. the next amendment is from the delegate from louisiana. >> i guess we don't believe in first amendment. >> it's page 8, if people are heading to the -- turning the

pages, line 23 after the text health care professionals. we respect the rights of health care profession als and then there's an addition. >> we add doctors, nurses and pharmacists to this. this is in keeping with legislation that will be voted on by congress on wednesday in the house. it states that doctors and nurses and pharmacists are protected under the law. >> is there a discussion. hearing none -- is there a second. discussion? hearing none. those in favor say aye and opposed no. this is adopted. that is the final amendment of this the second plank of the republican platform and i'd like to call on carolyn from oklahoma to make any final comments or to ask for an adoption of the entire plank. >> yes. i do make a motion to adopt the report of the subcommittee on

great american families, education and health care and criminal justice as amended. >> those in favor say aye and opposed no. the second plank is adopted. before you get up to leave we will be hand think out and the staff is ready to come through and hand out the final three -- the final three planks that you approved today in the subcommittee. it has a number 4, 5, 6. we've completed two. the one on the economy you got earlier. the deadline for amendments is going to be 7:30 tomorrow morning so you have time to work on those. we want to make sure that we get those in so we can actually get them typed and you have the amendments in your hands. we're going to continue to try to provide them to you on the screen which i think is helpful to understand what's going on as we shuffle through the papers. we are also going to have a ben

diction in a few seconds. we're going to have a couple of extra comments from ben but then thomas from new york is going to give us a ben diction to close the evening. >> yes. our policy director will walk you through the timing for the final three sections. we have economy and jobs closed. andrew would you share with the group. >> we will begin tomorrow morning taking up the economy and jobs section first. the filing deadline for that was closed previously so we have all of those amendments and we'll have them ready for you tomorrow morning. that's the first section we'll take up. immediately after we will have the new drafts of the three remaining subcommittees brought in to you here in your seats so you can change out the old language and get the new language and we will have a 7:30 filing amendment deadline for tomorrow morning for those three remaining sections as the chairman said so we can have those not just owing on av but also presented to you in hard copy as well. if there are any questions we can follow up with any delegates

afterwards. there are amendment filing forms by the filing baskets outside and immediately after you will receive the language for the final three sections. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. you were accepting today amendments for the first 45 minutes when the section was open. i assume you're going to be permitting that tomorrow as we open each section you'll permit amendments for the first 45 minutes. >> those were only available -- those are were new sections that had just been done by the subcommittee today. so that's why we extended those filing deadlines because that was brand new language that those subcommittees had just reported out. so there were only a couple of hours available. however, now you will have the three full subcommittee reports and be able to have that language all evening and tomorrow morning so those amendments can be filed tomorrow

morning. >> mr. chairman, it is 20 'til 8:00. we are being given three sections that are all new, two of them are new to me, that we are going to be expected to read and prepare amendments before 7:30 a.m. that is unreasonable. >> the delegate from maryland you want to comment on the same topic. >> just echoing that statement as well. >> delegate from michigan. all right. the delegate -- go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just -- i apologize to depart from the conversation at hand bult i wanted my colleagues here on the platform committee as they lay their head down on the

pillow tonight we have yet another couple of folks in our law enforcement community that lost their lives again today and just within the last few hours two bailiffs, they were both retired police officers in a courthouse in southwest michigan, my home state, lost their lives and the shooter lost his life as well, as well as a deputy sheriff was shot and injured today. there's more information coming, but please keep those folks in your prayers. thank you mr. chairman. >> well, let us spend a moment of silence and reflect on the loss that this country and these communities have suffered today. thank you. we want to be reflective of what

the committee needs. i think it's reasonable to say 7:30 is early but you can see the needs of everyone who would like to have written copies of the amendments so i think that we can set a time for tomorrow. we can make it at 8:00, 8:30, you can go as far as 9:00 but we're going through four sections tomorrow and to make a deadline well into the afternoon when people will have had these copies for almost 22 hours is not reasonable either or it's something that the staff can handle. so we can go to 8:30 if you find that would be more reasonable and would work better for the members of the committee to push back that deadline time from 7:30 to 8:30 to say you need 9:00, that's -- it's a matter of wanting to make sure you have in your hands and the staff is able to have in front of us on the screens what the amendments are. that's the best way to give people who are actually going to have to vote on the amendments a knowledge of looking at them

ahead of time too. so i think if we can find a common ground in the middle of that, if i could call on the delegate from rhode island. >> just to be clear, the first review that we will do of the plank on the economy, jobs, that is closed. the amendments have been provided to the staff. >> yes, sir. correct. >> i wouldn't want to see the delays on that piece if we had a later start for the other sections. >> we were going to keep that. it's these other three that the staff is ready to hand out no so we'll be doing that one while we can be bringing in. mr. bob, please. >> all i'm asking is we do the same thing tomorrow that we did today, and that is once you open a section, whatever you have as the early submission, i'm not talking about that, some people will be able to meet that and at least partially meet that, what i'm talking about is the 45

minutes once you open a section that we have 45 minutes to do additional amendments. i have not seen an amendment except for this one in writing in front of me. i what i have seen is on the screen. that can be done by the staff. that is not -- in the past -- past committee meetings we actually got paper amendments and we were submitting them during the session and people were copying them and distributing them. i'm fine with what you're doing now. you're putting them up on the screen. that is a much less irksome task for the staff to type in an amendment. if you can give us 45 minutes at the beginning of a session to submit additional amendment i don't have to kill myself trying to deal with sections that i have not read and i'm exhausted right now to deal with that i

can deal with them tomorrow and that is not unreasonable. >> i think it's also not unreasonable to say you're going to be given 25 to 30 pages to read tonight or tomorrow morning and to have amendments done by a fine ooit time tomorrow morning but to say if we're not going to start our final section until 3:00 or 4:00 tomorrow afternoon then it would be at 4:45 with a deadline there's going to be certainly adequate time. so it would be my recommendation that we set a firm time of 9:00 a.m. that would give people plenty of time to read the number of pages, come up with amendments and we can get all the amendments distributed to every member of the committee. if there's no forceful objection to that, that is my plan and recommendation as chairman of this committee. the delegate from arkansas. >> if we are starting at 9:00

with all the amendments, i have nothing to add mr. chairman but i would say that i like having all the amendments first thing in the morning because i don't like having 45 seconds to review something which is what happens unfortunately as we're reading on the screen. so thank you mr. chairman for being reasonable and accommodating all of us. >> thank you. the delegate from north carolina. >> yes, thank you. as co-chair of the national defense and security subcommittee, i end with the comment just made about a more casualties due to some kind of terrorism. there's nothing strong enough in our document that i've seen and i've thumbed through the whole thing just now that i think we have to go head on and put something in here about how this party intends to deal with terrorism across the board in a

concise one part section. i'm available to work with staff or anyone else to try to get an insert for this document if everyone agrees. i move that we do something to get something in there that focuses on terrorism and how we're going to deal with it as a party and as a innation. thank you. >> delegate from virginia. >> thank you. just briefly, if the deadline is 9:00, does that mean we're convening at 9:00 or a different time. >> we are going to convene at 8:00 and we'll start economy at that point. >> the deadline for that amendment has passed. if there's no other questions -- yes, the delegate from north carolina. >> maybe i was unclear. i made a motion that we do that in someone join me in writing the document and we insert it in

some place of this document to let the people of this country know we are absolutely down on getting rid of this terrorism threat that we face in all of its forms. i don't know who the staffers are that would work with me but i'm willing to do it through the night to get it done and get something out for us to consider. it's not done well right now. >> as the chairman of that subcommittee, i would welcome anyone who wants to join one of the chairs of that subcommittee to work tonight to look at what you're subcommittee as passed and find additional language to offer as a first amendment tomorrow on that plank as these are being handed out. you can look at that and the subcommittee chair will call on you as we open up that part of the hearing tomorrow. >> we can offer staff that worked with him on the committee to help you write the amendment, do you want to put it in your own report. >> we have national security staff. >> i would need some help.

>> that's available. thank you. we'll get that to you this evening. >> the delegate from michigan -- idaho. >> reaching for the microphone. steve yats from idaho. we did have several hours to talk about national security on the subcommittee. the event today has to do with a perpetrator stealing a gun from someone in a court. i think it's perfectly fair for an amendment to be made that's germane but there's a lot of national security material to digest tomorrow when the subcommittee reports and the event today is not directly related to terrorism unless we're told otherwise. >> will relevant. thank you. the delegate from north carolina. >> i don't mean to get into an argument with the gentleman. you know, whether or not this was terrorism, we have a terrorism problem and that caused me to think and look through the book. we do not in that national

security document that we've done focus on and direct a specific package or passage that deals with how we intend to beat this threat against us as a nation. somebody has to stand up and do it. it might as well be us that gets this started. thank you. >> thank you. the delegate from virginia. >> thank you mr. chair. if there's nothing further i move we adjourn. >> we'll go with the ben diction and the adjournment. thank you for that motion. would you all please rise. >> let's bow our heads. heavenly father we've had a very long day. we've worked for the future of our country and the future of our party for future generations. we've done it respectfully. please give us the strength to

unify as a group, give us the wisdom to continue our debate, give us the strength knowing that we will have disagreements within this group, give us the strength to heal as a family so we can come together as a family so we can elect a true leader who will lead us in a very troubled times after the last eight year mess that this country has been in under the failed leadership, please give us the strength dear lord to unify and to support each other as we support our party as we go forward with our platform and our discussions, dear lord please give us the strength to unify as a group. in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit, amen.

>> breakfast at 7:00. we'll start at 8:00. deadline for amendments at 9:00. today's session is adjourned. >> make sure you get all three copies of the sections. thank you. please stay in your seat area so they can find you. please stay seated or near your seat. >> mr. chairman -- mr. chairman. >> yes. >> this is a suggestion on logistics. if we have to get -- it's the delegate from minnesota. if we have to get three new sets of material, instead of handing out and waiting for them to deliver them one at a time, i suggest everyone put version one on the three sections that we're

going to get because we are fot going to use those and then they can stand at the door and give us the new copies without having to take time to put them in and out of the books and we'll label the new copies v2 on the first page. >> thank you for the suggestion. we already have people fanned out and we have people picking up cards but andrew do you have anything to add to that? >> yes, i think it would be easier if you can begin taking the old sections out of your binders so when you receive the new sections you can put them in. we want to make sure there's no question around the version. that's a good point. these new sections have subcommittee report typed on the header or footer of the section. if you remove the old sections of the report right now it will make it easier for you to adopt these new