lynching. they were not right to lynch people, though. it highlights that the laws are racist and protect a set of people in ways that are unfair. when i think about the police, it is a similar circumstance. the laws are saying -- no judge has said the police were not involved in any capacity in these people's deaths. says the police's involvement was not criminal because we have a system that protects the police at all cost, and that is not ok. the acquittals do not push me to think that the officers had no culpability. it is about a broken system and we need to fix the system. in terms of him suggesting that we jump in to conclusions -- i will not accept that might brown should be dead -- that mike brown should be dead or that freddie gray should be dead. toe and time again, we have have officers who do not kill black people.

but when we see a 12-year-old boy in cleveland get killed, standing still with a toy gun, offices are choosing this time and time again. to ignore the racist element and this is to live in a wonderland. the severald about dozen laws that are out there these days, to address police violence. is there one piece of legislation you can point to out there that you think might make a significant difference moving forward? guest: president obama could signing executive order, or congress could put legislation forward. the national level, that could have a demonstrative impact, if we had a standard that highlighted the preservation of life. you think about places like baltimore, it was until recently, like the last few choke hold people.

it was not against the rules. that is true in cities across the country, and that is ok. -- that is not ok. there is negative discipline, and that does not make sense. it is not a system designed to make officers accountable. it would be around a use of force standard that was really robust. using deadly force as a last result. from sean is calling inglewood, ohio, a democratic caller. caller: first off, sir, you are nothing but a racist or that his point-blank simple. host: let me jump in and ask you why you are saying that. caller: i have worked in the urban setting for the last 20 years of my life. i am disabled now. these police have a split-second

over 10,000think things of what they are going to do in that split-second decision. sir, have you ever been placed in that situation, where you have a split-second decision to think of over 10,000 things that you are going to do, and have you ever been put in a situation where you have to make that decision whether you are going to take somebody's life? host: let me jump in and get a response from our guest. guest: i would ask you -- have you ever been a doctor? i worked in the medical field for 17 years. guest: have you been a dr.? doctor?are you a guest: have you been a doctor, sean? i am asking you.

you know your argument is faulty. you know you have not been a doctor before, but when you go to the doctor's office, you have a set of expectations of how your doctor functions. same thing -- i am not a police officer, but i have an expectation about how officers behave in society. it is disappointing that you offer a set of opinions, and you are unwilling to be challenged on them. i would push you to think deeper about the thoughts that you put out into the world, and that you reflect on your arguments. host: sean, anything else? ?re you still there you caller: yes, i am still here. i challenge you, sir, to go take a police exam and work those streets. guest: again, you are deflecting. you are deflecting.

i do not have anything else to say. and argument fell apart, you are trying to put it back together. i appreciate your call, and i hope you reflect on the way that you construct arguments and put them in public. host: from nbc in chicago, here is a tweet. "suspect in dallas stated he wanted to kill white people before being killed by a detonated bomb, police chief says." guest: i have more questions than answers. most of the answers that come out in the immediate aftermath is just incorrect. i am holding off. it is important to note that the protest in dallas is over, and the media is reporting that this happened during the protest. i spoke last night to the people who put together the protest in dallas, and i know what is true and what is not about when these shootings happened.

host: we go to carl in dallas. caller: i would just like to say that when the shootings happened in minnesota and down in know,ana, i would like to where were the republican senators, congressmen? they did not make any statement of any kind. as soon as the tragedy happened over in dallas, now they are all tweeting, making statements. so it kind of goes to show that there is a we versus them or us versus the police and tally. police-- us versus the mentality. we all know that donald trump likes to run his mouth. as soon as the one happened in dallas yesterday morning, he comes out and makes a statement.

and the laws really need to be changed because that is a very high bar. any time a police is involved in a shooting, the first defense they are going to offer is, "i felt threatened, i felt for my life." in all these shootings, that is the first defense of the officer. "i felt threatened, or i felt for my safety or my life." those laws need to be changed. let's get a final answer from our guest. guest: these situations highlight -- i also agree with you that when we see lawmakers selectively choosing to speak out about these things, they have seen at least the videos from 2014. we have not seen trump or republicans acknowledge that

this is happening. the lack of acknowledgment goes with people's deep discomfort with talking about race, and also withholding police officers accountable. for so long, the police have been a group of public servants who have just been able to do whatever they want to do.

ladies and gentlemen, i refer to the section raised incomes and restore economic security for the middle class. as a democrat, i believe those who work hard and play by the rules should be able to care for themselves, their families and private communities. restoring economic security for the class can happen when americans earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form

or join a union. it can happen by securing equal housing, andve, supporting families as they care for children and their elders. platformion of our reinforces our commitment to programs like social security, ensure retirement security and champions the continued support of the postal service. thank you. >> thank you mr. vice chair. we will proceed with the consideration of the proposed amendment. clerk forognize the the first minute.

>> thank you. amendment number 57. sponsored by nina turner. line 33.page three the proposed amendment should the, democrats believe current minimum wage is the starvation wage and must be increased to a living wage. no one who works full-time should have to raise a family in poverty. we believe that americans should earn at least $50 an hour -- $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union. we applaud the approaches taken by the state of new york and california. we should raise the federal minimum wage to $50 an hour and index it. give all americans the ability to join a union regardless of where they work and create new

ways for workers to have power in the economy. we also support creating one fair wage for all workers by ending the moon wage for tip workers and workers with disabilities. >> daycare would like to thank to therk and now return sponsor for one minute explanation of the amendment. >> thank you so much. my fellow democrats,. me?everyone hear good evening, i'm nina turner. democrats, raising the federal minimum wage has the moral standard in this country. affirm over and over again that insurance that we don't leave a sister or a brother behind is how we roll.

of congresswoman barbara jordan, what the people want to simple. they want an america as good as promised and raising the federal minimum wage is the beginning to creating an america as good as promised. thank you. [applause] thank you. second? a >> second. >> were back. -- we're back. we have 15. recognize mary kay henry. [applause]

>> i rise to submit a second-degree amendment on the vitally important value to all democrats in this room. you have contributed to the most movement thaters this country has ever seen. each and every person in this room has helped expand the fight for 15. we believe that an amendment that incorporates what my sister nina turner just offered it also expands to incorporate been able to win $50 and the union and city council through the ballot initiative by insisting that every employer raises wages to $15 but not just that, the democratic party is putting at the center of its economic revival ability of workers to join together and independent

organizations called unions. wages, but these fix everything that is wrong in america. this amendment will help make possible the power we need in this country to win every aspect of the democratic platform. pity. -- thank you. [applause] >> second? those who wish to second. 15. >> i thought the amendment would be on the screen. do you need me to read the amendment to the record? >> yes.

>> democrats believe that current minimum wage for the starting wage and must increase a living wage. no one who work full-time should have to raise a family in poverty. we believe that americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form and join a union and work in every way we can in congress and the federal and states and the private sector to reach this goal. we should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour overtime and index it. give all americans the ability to join a union regardless of for their work and create new ways for workers to have power in the economy. every worker can earn at least .15 an hour we applaud the approaches taken by states like new york and california. we also support creating one

fair wage for all workers by ending the sub minimum wage for tip workers and workers with disabilities. >> you read something different. >> this is what you gave me. this is a secondary amendment. >> the second-degree amendment has in capital letters the additional point. ok. you agree to what i read is what you were presenting? >> correct. >> i've gotten the second. turner, you would like to recognize annette turner. -- nina turner.

>> i accept this amendment to my amendment and an vitally proud that the democratic party is affirming that the federal minimum wage should be $15 an hour. [applause] >> please vote by a show of hands. all in favor of the secondary amendment substituted with the amendment. votes.ority, no

we will record the notebooks. -- no votes. the amendment passes. [applause] >> will the clerk read the next amendment. 136 sponsored by mary kay henry on page four, line 30. the proposed amendment is after the worst home care workforce -- words home care workforce. raising wages, improving access to training and giving workers

the opportunity to come together to make voices heard in response to a stronger system. >> you have the language before you, it has been read by the clerk, to we have seconds? seconds.ufficient are there any additional discussion required? i'm trying to streamline this. we have seconds. are we ready to vote? by division, all those in favor of this amendment, please raise your white card. i find a majority. any wishing to vote against, i find none. next, will you read the one. ? >> amendment 102 has been withdrawn.

amendment 64 sponsored by chuck paschal on page four, line 14. the proposed amendment is to amend the paragraph to read democrats believe so-called right to work laws are wrong for .orkers and wrong for america we will continue to vigorously oppose those laws and other efforts that would eliminate jews, checkout procedures, attack prevailing wage standards, abolished fair share requirements, restrict the use of voluntary membership payments for political purposes, a texan yorty, restrict the process, and require annual recertification efforts. we oppose legislation and like regard versus

teleporter which would strike down laws protecting the rights of teachers and public employees. the chair recognizes as a sponsor. >> hello. this amendment merely adds a tack -- a texan yorty and due process protections to the list already in the paragraph. we oppose legislation and lawsuits which would strike down laws protecting the rights of teachers in public employees. the justification for this is clearly that public and teachers in particular are under a continued attack from our opponent, from anti-labor forces and others who seek to weaken the profession and weaken public employee unions and who seek to weaken education. i would ask for support of the amendment. boats the second -- are

there votes to second? seconded. for a is now open for debate. open for 10 minutes. five minutes in favor, five minutes against. beginning with proponents. all in favor? vote by show of hands. majority has it. the amendment passes. [applause] >> amendment>> 167 has an withdrawn. amendment 106 has been withdrawn. a memo on 25 sponsored by -- amendment 125. is thisosed amendment

amendment will make it the policy of the democratic party to guarantee workers at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave through an insurance fund. this amendment will also guarantee workers seven paid sick days. insurance.r, at page four, line 31, delete allow and insert guarantee. insertur, line 31, annually. the revised thing which should read democrats will make sure that the united states finally enact national paid family and medical leave by passing a family and medical leave insurance fund that would provide at least 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a new child or dress and personal or family member's serious health

issue. we will fight the guarantee the right to earn at least seven days of paid sick leave annually. >> thank you. from the great state of scotland. this amendment is a simple clarification. adds three little words. across the country people are fighting for paid sick days and they are winning in cities like san diego, newark, philadelphia, inner-city, heating and states like massachusetts are carving and you. opened --tates have have found that mark -- funding mechanism by opening their current disability fund. that is the group -- they want to go in and see this type of mechanism created at the federal level as well. senator gillibrand have offered

andll called the family medical leave insurance act. this would accomplish this at the federal level. insertnted to ensure -- these words. i moved to adopt the amendment. second? that is sufficient. we are now open for debate. yes. getting aneally amendment we have agreed upon. on the particulars of the amendment, there is no disagreement. workers should have sick leave and, of course, after we have been tried to get in a

congress of the united states, family medical leave. to issue comes down particular rising how this is done. example, the attacks workers. there may be other ways to do it. fore might be other sources right or important benefit. way't, given the in which all of us to the allow, i hope we don't this particular notion how to do it whether through an insurance fund or an act of congress or through other ways of taxation.

such a taxing businesses and corporations, that is the kind of leverage that should be left policy is a. >> the proponents. bill has over 20 cosponsors and the other bill has 120 cosponsors. the 2000 campaign to been working on this issue feel it is , i hope we can back them up on that. many states have this a type of insurance fund and they differ. some states with employer contributions and some places employer contributions. i believe washington, d.c. is moving next on this issue cut it create this on the civil level -- city level.

these can be greeted in any way that corresponds to create them. we are not tied them exactly how to do it. we are them in the right direction. -- pointing them in the right direction. we cannot recognize this. anyone else in opposition? pro. >> robert hurt, wisconsin. we agree strongly. there is no dispute about that. we know we don't have paid sick days and family medical leave. there will never be true economic high-quality in this country and that we will also never deal with the pay gap for the fact that we have four children. poor children.

this is a cutting edge approach. reason, by having a shared insurance fund, you make sure people work so all employers get covered. cost and ofading covers all employers making the more competitive. it helps workers who are low-wage workers and have no paid leave at and need a shared pool insurance fund to do so. the best way to do is to accept the cinnamon. thank you. -- this amendment. thank you. >> i have a parliamentary question. wheree are in a situation we have several on one side and one on the other, >> we're getting ready to go back to the one on the other. you can come forward again.

the gentleman has just made approachent for an that does not signify whether would be an act of congress. for example, very low workers. you take out wages of high income middle income workers, they don't feel it. but if you take it out of the wages of a minimum-wage worker, that meets all the difference in the world. that is exactly the kind of issue that should be left to the states. yes, this is a good way to do it. but when you consider the workers we represent, do you really want us to say that we look to deduct something else from your paycheck? maybe so, maybe not. give us that possibility. [applause] >> in favor? >> my name is eric kingston.

it is hard to speak in opposition to one of your heroes comments. i want to just insane. i'm a social insurance expert. the risk of requiring support for caregiving or loss of income because you are sick is a human risk, the same kind of risk that we insure under the social security program if a parent dies and leaves young children. we have life insurance social security. if a working person is disabled or fortunate enough to reach retirement. i see this as a strong addition to the nations social security program. the concept is that we ought not be one of only three nations in the world that do not provide a maternalenefit for care. we are in line with pop new suriname.wering on --

this is an insurable event. it is appropriate to ensure through social security and if we made this argument and held that we should do it, we would then say we should not to social security either. this is basically a way of saying this is a public responsibility. sensors to a brand has talked about. -- senator gillibrand has talked about. bring in caregiving out of the as the misogynistic weight has been kept in the closet. this is something we all face as human beings. i think it's important. >> we have reached the time limit. opposition. >> the platform should be aspirational. the current unamended part of this platform is aspirational. details,get into the

you are on a slippery slope and you are hitting issues to our opponents were unprincipled. the family medical leave act which this would appear to amend a mineral number of employees in a certain area before you're even covered in that statute. is this country or local statute, we can't compel that. the federal government cannot compel that. would be a federal statute, this and on aerful idea practical basis, it is irresponsible for to do this type of thing in the face of an election. >> thank you. we have reached the time limit. limit 125. -- amendment 125. >> i would like to request a rollcall vote. >> a machine that please. please.

we have 20% as a rollcall vote, and we are using the clickers, right? does it everyone have a clicker? the polls are open? no? you need to vote. >> you need to vote. >> on the amendment. wrong amendment. it should be 125. clear it, clear it. star all over. 125, the vote is open. [indiscernible]

>> 15 seconds. five seconds. the boat is closed. -- vote is closed. >> the amendment failed. next amendment. >> amendment 151. four, line 48. following equal pay section. the title would be held more

workers share a near record corporate profit. corporate profits are near record highs but workers have not shared the rising wages. profit-sharing is linked to higher pay and productivity. that is why democrats will work to create incentives for companies share to profit with workers on top of wages and pay increases. working with business, labor and other stakeholders, we will develop incentives for companies that share profits with their employees while making sure we target the workers and businesses that need profit-sharing the most. in favor, identify yourself. >> kathleen kennedy from maryland. i very much in favor of this amendment. we have seen corporate profits

at record highs. executives, the top 1% had them very well. but the workers, they have not done well. their wages have not gone up. they are suffering. the federal reserve just had a report recently in which 40% -- 47% of americans cannot put together $400 if they needed to repair a car or a medical emergency. that is not the kind of america we want are the america we dream about. need to earn a much better wage. especially when the working of corporations morning -- earning so much money. this amendment says that earning -- corporations earning a lot should share some of those profits up with the workers in a fair amount. the democratic party can work with labor and heads of

corporations in the communities in which they work and say we're going to share with the people who actually do the work. when that happens, the studies have shown that workers do a better job and feel happier about their work and are more effective and innovative. it is better for them, better for the community and better for all of their families and country. >> thank you. [applause] amendment? the hands up your that is sufficient. -- hands up. that is sufficient. those who would like to speak in favor or oppose? are you ready for the vote? all in favor by show of hands. opposed? 1, 2. the amendment 151 passes.

next amendment. amendment 107. page four line 41. is tooposed amendment have the section read where the republican nominee rooted for the housing crisis, democrats will continue to fight for those -- >> my name is mark. this is a simple amendment. .erfect our vision and ethic a snapshot of us as a party at her best. unfortunately, by naming donald trump in our document 35 times, not once like we did mccain, not 22 times like we did romney, but 35 times, we are turning this

piecen elegantly written of attack literature. this is our aspirational document. [applause] mexican american. my grandparents immigrated and they do not immigrate as criminals as drug dealers, as rapist. they immigrated for a better future for our families. times,ng donald trump 35 we memorialize him in the document that was said earlier will be a document that we have used -- can use for generations to come. committee will move to strike his name because we him 35d 35 times -- times. [applause] and we list our candidate zero

times. >> what if the amendment number? >> 107. >> all seconds. debate, pro and con? ready for the vote. all in favor indicate by hands. all opposed. >> rollcall! >> machine vote, please. 107. 30 seconds for a machine vote. not yet. now that.

[applause] aye's have it. [applause] next amendment. amendment 69. page four, lines 19 through 22. the proposed amendment is to have these lines read the democratic party believes consumers and workers pension

funds and investors who have been mistreated should never be denied the right to fight for fair treatment under the law including meritorious class actions. that is why we will support efforts to limit the use of restriction clauses in employment, service contracts, corporate bylaws or other agreements that unfairly stripped workers, consumers, and students of their right to their day in court. [applause] >> thank you, madam cochair. this amendment expands what is already in the draft by extending the scope of what is there to additional classes of people. as you know, big business through the chamber of congress -- commerce has been at having deny access to the court by virtue of pre-dispute,

arbitration clauses. these clauses have two effects. number one, they denied the right to a jury trial in villages in the constitution. second, they make it very difficult to bring class actions. the one leveling device the judicial system provides that puts us on an even playing field with wall street. what this amendment does is it expands the number of people and the kinds of people from the graph. it expands it. i've been asked to read this, consumers, workers, students, tengion funds and investors. union pensionver funds, public pension funds that provide benefits for state workers, cops, teachers, firefighters, investors and others dependent on the financial system and need to address in appropriate cases. >> thank you.

>second, raise your hand. sufficient number. the speaking in favor. we have some of speaking in favor. would you like to speak in favor? >> is there anyone who was to be heard in opposition? do you still want to speak? >> no thank you. [laughter] >> all in favor of amendment do? >> five in opposition. >> thank you. you amendment passes. 69 passes.

next amendment. >> amendment 30 has been withdrawn. >amendment 16 has been withdraw. 233 has an withdrawn. by bennie96 sponsored thompson on page five lines 15, the proposed amendment is to have this section read we must make sure that everyone has a fair shot at homeownership. over the next 15 years, approximately 74% of all households will be from communities of color which typically have less generational wealth and fewer resources to put towards a down payment. we will preserve the 30 year fixed rate mortgage and the government guarantee that makes it possible. we will reduce taxpayer exposure and lower barber cost. borrower cost.

we will lift up more family thank you the housing market robust and inclusive by defending and strengthening the fair housing act. resources on those who really need it. we will also support first-time homebuyers, implement credit score reform and encourage the alternativemodern credit score and models to make the credit industry work for borrowers and not just lenders. we will prevent predatory lending by defending the consumer financial protection bureau and we will help byerwater homeowners expanding mitigation counseling. the single largest investment most people make in america is in a home. if you can afford it. but we are proposing is creating vehicles so that we can begin creating wealth in this country for everyone.

the vehicles that you see, a lot of those tricks have been used to prevent people from owning a home. this amendment addresses. very simple. ought to to own a home be for everyone. [applause] >> thank you. second. pro and con? 96 in favor of amendment indicated by a show of hands. all opposed? >> three. >> the amendment passes. next amendment. 190 on page five, line 17. the proposed amendment is on page five line 17.

the place by defending and strengthening the fair housing act. by putting more americans to the financial position to become sustainable homeowners defending and strengthening the fair housing act, clarifying lending rules and ensuring that regulators have been clear direction, resources and authority to enforce those rules effectively. i would like to speak on behalf of the sponsor. as well an, i am sponsor of number 190. the clinton campaign, i support this amendment. the current draft reflects the democratic commitment to putting more families in positions of sustainable homeownership. it makes clear that we need a housing and mortgage market that

is more robust and inclusive than it currently is today. the purpose of this amendment is amendment isth to chart a path forward it builds on the language. to increase the resources that regulators have complete determination and abuse. it call for clear rules of the road so that good lenders can lenders can make loans to all sustainable borrowers and bad ones will think twice before violating the rules. urge a vote of yes. >> they have said homeownership is the key to prosperity. i would hope they would vote on this venture.

those in opposition would like to speak. indicate in favor with a show of hands. oppose. next amendment. amendment 17. line 21.ive, the proposed amendment is to add that we also believe that property and mortgage ownership belongs in the public domain, not a privatized database controlled by the financial industry which help lisa that secure errors, robust signings and improper foreclosures

throughout the country. property ownership is one of the highest values for most and asual citizens stewards of the public record, we must ensure the sanctity of these records by public officials, not corporations. >> with the sponsor like to speak? >> i'm honored to be the chair of the colorado platform. this comes from that platform. issue affect, health of the people in this room. 62 million mortgages are transferred into the domain of an organization. took control of copy records out of the hands of county clerks and reporters across the country. put them into the hands of the banks.

that is when they have trouble sending problems. and it created a number of problems around the country, most states lost a lot of from filing fees. there have been a number of lawsuits filed about the. the bottom line is that i'm trying to get, property ownership records blog in the public domain, not the domain controlled by the banks don't always have good information. >> thank you. are therends -- seconds? .he speaking in favor labor opposition, stand on one side or the other. favor or opposition, stand on one side or the other. >> i'm speaking in favor. this amendment help support local communities in combating

light. when they don't have the owner or record for property, the government is prohibited from holding somewhat accountable for this home next door to you which may have overgrown weeds and broken windows. this is a commonsense measure to help increase visibility throughout communities in the nation. thank you. >> thank you. opposition? i'm from the state of north dakota. i understand the bill sponsors beingn with mortgages privatized. the opposition comes from lack of clarification on how the public domain would treat those consumers as well. we need to have some details on that to make sure those, i feel

that working close families should have those protections in place. i think it is an interesting premise but i would like to hear some more specifics for that put that into a national party platform. favor? >> the point is it would go back to housing. it used to be before the bank took over. it would be the jobs of counties, county clerk, whatever. summer jobs in every state. not asking to create something new, we are taking what we have. opposition. >> i'm from idaho. real estate is--

my business. frankly, i do not want my neighbor to know how much i/o, house. -- i owe. that is my private property. i don't want my next-door neighbor knowing how much i go on property and how much i pay. ownerships of the status is already in the public recorder in most states i know of. i am opposed to this amendment. >> anyone else in favor? >> i understand your point. i respected. the same time, we need to privacy with the real concerns of developing communities. when it comes to developing

communities with measures like this, there should be no doubt that we needed. normally, the corporations went to care. we know that they need to be public and i ask you to think about it and vote for the amendment. >> thank you. any further debate? ready for the vote. favor indicate by chopin's. -- show of hands. >> rollcall! >> clicker.

amendment 17. hands down. wait for the clock to be set. polls are closed. 77 yes. 100 know.

-- no. [indiscernible] >>, like to ask a question about the last book. it appeared to me that the screen was not empty yet when you call first to begin voting and i'm not sure if statistics of the previous but were mixed in. we will ask for clarification on that.

>> amendment 17. cleared out and wait. wait. 15 seconds.

100 days. two abstentions. next amendment. number 85.t amendment is to change the line to we will fight every effort to cut, privatize or weaken social security earned a benefit. max richman, washington, dc. the purpose of this amendment is to clarify that social security is a benefit that is paid for during a lifetime of work. it is an earned benefit. it is not an entitlement. tos distinction is critical the overwhelming support social security enjoys across all age groups. paid fored benefit is through the fica tax.

it funds the 08 survivor and disability programs. workers are paying for the insurance with each paycheck. and i security benefits think the amendment clarifies this, are not gifts from the federal government. the term entitlement undermines the earned right atrial social security. in the language around social security i believe is important. the bottom one, it is much more difficult to deny or diminish a benefit that is paid for and earned. buyers the platform committee to adopt be amended. hands.nd show of those in opposition or in favor. eddie to the vote. -- ready for the vote. all in favor? all opposed. abstentions?

the vote passes. amendment 85. [applause] >> amendment 28. line 26. the proposed amendment is on page five, line 26. change the following sentence. democrats will expand social security so that every american can retire with dignity and respect including women who are shortchanged by the current system because they are widowed or took time out of the workforce to care for their children, aging parents or ailing family members. it should be changed to the following. democrats will expand social security so that every american can retire with dignity and respect including those who have been discriminated against in the workplace. women and men have taken time out of the paid workforce to care for their children, aging

parents or ailing family members and widows and other beneficiaries who are disproportionately poor. >> thank you. would you like to speak to this amendment? >> eric kingston, new york state. this is a simple amendment which avoids us contradict in ourselves. tothink democrats are proud be the party that created social security. the we end up saying, women who have been shortchanged. that line is important to get out. it is a critical distinction. but we propose to put in is that women, including does have been discriminated against in the workplace and the other piece, and men. both men and women are often times women, i will admit that. but men and women and that if

the change. basically to clarify that the democratic party is not good to contradict itself into it is a great system, but we are toward changing -- shortchanging. >> thank you. seconds? 15. any debate? pros and cons. >> opposition. we had democrats have always fought to protect social security but that is not the issue of this opposition, the opposition is to the manner in which the changes have been requested and what it may do to the intent of the original platform. i will make a disclosure that i have one that further clarifies it. what we have here is we are taking away and saying those who

have been discredited against in the workplace which isn't necessarily a clear statement and we put men, not that they should not be treated as income up but this is an issue that has affected women threat the ages. this is something that has affected women. especially in hawaii where we have a high percentage of women who have worked who also leave the work force to take care of the elderly because of cultural reasons. this is been a major issue for that. say andon in get and other beneficiaries who are disproportionally poor. we're talking about so many different classifications which i believe, it is the intent to have a policy statement that is clear. beginning, it is for all americans. picky. >> you have -- thank you. >> you have more time.

this iseginning of democrats who would expand social security so that every american can retire with dignity and respect. that is a statement. this amendment as all these categories. the original platform calls out and i fully support is the fact that it is women who have taken the time out of the paid workforce to care for their children, aging parents and family members. that is so absolutely true. for that reason, out of respect, i would like to have this in the mid-receded because i think it takes away from the strong statement that we are making about social security and for the women have sacrificed all these years. [applause] anyone speaking in favor? >> from the state of nevada.

i'm speaking in favor because it goes forward to recognize that we are forming our families and many different ways that. we have same-sex couples. [applause] upre children are growing with two mothers and two fathers. we need social security to reflect this to reality. thank you. -- the reality. -- new reality. thank you. [applause] >> opposition. favor. >> i am in favor of this amendment. i believe that while it is primarily women who are affected, men are also and i feel that it is somewhat reverse discriminatory to just say women here. i'm asking for a second order amendment to split the question. i think some people like the first part and not the second part and vice versa. i'm asking if we can split the

question into the two different parts. >> wait one second. what are you asking to split? >> we vote separately on the first part of the amendment andh includes and men then separately which includes the language about this proportionally poor -- disproportionately poor. strikeamendment is to one section and insert another. disagrees, youir think that is out of order. of the biting is out of order. -- division is out of order. >> thank you. >> it had pros and cons.

ready for the vote. pros. favor ofed to speak in the amendment. it does include anyone has been discredited in the workplace, including women. the ting community the committees of color. >> full debate. more. >> i like to mention that the national organization of women. not like the way which in there now. respect toist -- talk about women primarily being caregivers, i totally agree. i've been talking about misogynistic of caregiving, but -- do also helped bring

with a white who had cancer for 3.5 years and then give care of to women. it is a human reality and that is why we put it in there. we biggest piece here is don't want to contradict ourselves and say this is a thenrful system and contradict ourselves in the next sentence which the existing linkage does. -- language does. i'm stephen woodruff. i'm not quite sure i'm speaking for or against. mostly for this amendment. womene of the men and portion. i think as a party we need to be very careful about as big a stereotypical classifications

between men and women. with the violence against women act, it is interpreted to affect men. men are and i am presently a victim of domestic violence. economiccerns, social concerns we have. we need to be sure that we don't inadvertently discriminate just because of historical patterns. i think that is very important to include meant as well as women. it also looks like the recommended to the same subject matter. if the book gets confusing, but vote that's confusing, we may need to break apart the amended. >> we have a little more time. >> said to have been raised, there is an amendment which will discuss how we are cleaning up this language. i think the policy statement is clear. democrats will expand social

security so every americans retire with bigotry. but the statement does is its beef to the special conditions of women. i think it is a policy statement and the public didn't we are making is that democrats stand behind social security and will expand it to that everyone can retire with dignity and respect. however, like many of the different issues we deal with, for times and times, we have to make up for those wrongs and women are the ones who have suffered, even the proponent says yes women have been the ones have sacrificed and that is what we're talking about. this a policy statement that should be clear, concise and to the point. that is why i ask that the amendment be voted down and i will be back with the next amendment. have concluded the debate. ready for the question. all in favor of amendment 28?

a show of hands. all opposed? details. -- it fails. next and women. -- amendment. >> amendment 204. page five, 926. the proposed amendment is to replace the sentence beginning with immigrants will expand with democrats will expand sick of security -- social security so that every american retires with dainty and respect including women who are widowed or took time out of the workforce to care for their children, aging parents, or ailing family members. with a sponsor like to speak? does wethis amendment have are discussed.

this also streamlined what was said before. it makes it very clear about the fact that democrats stand for social security and democrats will expand social security so that every american can retire with vicki and respect. and again, there is a specific reference to women who are will or took time out of the workforce to care for their children or parents. there is still a group out there who we have to make right. that is what this is about. it is qualified to linkage of the platform. >> anyone speaking in opposition? ready for the question? all in favor? seconds, sorry. we have seconds. now will have the vote. all in favor? all opposed.

it passes. thank you. next amendment. >> amendment 87 sponsored by max richmond on page five. the proposed amendment is to add after family members democrats will support a fully developed consumer price index for the elderly. >> the sponsored to speak. thank you. >> max richmond. this amendment deals with the cost of living adjustment. one of the most anticipated events for seniors is the announcement by social security of the cost of living adjustment. for the last few years, they have been disappointed with the announcement. the purpose of a cost-of-living

adjustment is for social ensure that social security benefits are not eroded by inflation. this is not happening. in 2010, it was zero. 2011, it was zero. this year, 2015, it is zero. based on that social security trustees report, announced a couple years ago -- weeks ago, it will be between zero and 2/10 of a percent for 2016. the reason social security beneficiaries are sincere or little cola is because the formula for determining colas is flawed. it is based on the consumer price index for wage earners. it looks that inflation as it impacts the weight under. it does not put the proper weight on goods and services that seniors rely on.

therefore, you get a zero cola. >> your minute has concluded. >> i urge the platform committee to fix this problem and have an accurate measure for the cola for social security. thank you. >> second? all in favor -- those in favor of speaking for the amendment? opposition. >> new york state. printing turner. -- francine turner. the platform party indicates it is very clear about a commitment on the part of all of us at democrats to expand social

security. there are many ways in which we can do this. it is a historic commitment because of the past two years come all we have heard about is privatizing and reducing benefits. there are many other aspects to the program that should be looked at in a broader base instead of focusing on this narrow proposal. favor. >> i'm from new mexico. also -- i'm a social security recipient. i'm disabled. i live in hot housing with elderly. we have not had any cost-of-living increase in several years while all of the cost of medical care is going up. i'm watching seniors asked her to me die. they are dying because we're not doing -- getting cost-of-living increases. it is ridiculous to sit in an

y of catholic in this. we do have time for that. there are people die now. -- dying now. [applause] >> opposition? in favor? >> my apologies for coming up again. this is an example of good policy, good politics and what is good for the american people. what is it this way. you go to any older american group, any group of people with disabilities and you ask them about the cola and they laughed. . popular in the democratic party will benefit. if the reporting party is smart, they will have it also. the technical thing is the idea of social security no matter

when you get the benefit. it should maintain its purchasing power the matter how long you live. it is not doing that today. it is falling a bit short. all this does is say, what have a better way of doing it. beyond that, the popularity of it is overwhelming. democrats should be working with all groups and also try to bring an some of those older folks who have been voting republican recently. about 60%. not all of them, but i'm an older folk. we to kill them off. peel them off. >> checking the time. opposition? you have the floor. >> i'm from telford appeared work for social security. friend forthank my bringing this up. we work with the folks that come

in and complain of the lack of the cost-of-living and inadequate cost-of-living increase. ofdoes not include the cost prescription drugs. include the cost of their medicare premium increases. eat that. it is a bad i've had people come me i'mows and tell eating cat food. they can't afford groceries. it is a hard thing to get by on, a penchant by itself. but when we don't get the benefit of a little bit to make up for the cost of rising cost of food and prescription drugs, it is a travesty. the democratic party, i think this is something we should get behind and change. [applause] >> anyone else in opposition?

favor? i just wanted to follow-up. a lot of the seniors i live with our getting one meals on wheels delivery per day and splitting it in half to have part for lunch in part for dinner. world war ii veteran died. this is not acceptable for america or for the democratic party. [applause] we have debate on amendment 87. all those in paper, indicated by a show of hands. all opposed. machine vote. it is close. .achine vote

number 87. don't want -- vote. wait until 30 seconds. you can do. 15 seconds. the amendment fails. next amendment please. >> amendment 33. five, -- taxing some of the

andme above 250,000 scrapping the cap on income above $250,000 a year. >> thank you. thank you for including language in the platform to support expanded. if years ago, the debate on social security was not about was about could -- cutting social security. but how much should we cut? >> just one minute. can we give our attention to the sponsor.

start again. >> thank you for including the language. if years ago, the debate on social security was not about whether we would cut social security, it was about by how much we would cut it. toldight wing republicans us that we had to raise the retirement age, they told us that cost-of-living adjustments for seniors and disabled veterans were too generous but thanks to strong grassroots movement, millions of americans have stood up and fought back and today, because of these efforts of many of the people in is notom, the debate whether we are going to expand isial security, the debate how much are going to expanded and how are we going to pay for it. that is what this amendment is about. this amendment for police as

that we're going to extend and expand social security by making sure that everyone making over $250,000 a year paid the same amount to social security as the truck driver or the nurse. >> second. we met the standard for debate. those speaking in opposition? i'm from illinois. opposition to this amendment. the platform already reflects our commitment to expand and not cut social security and we are asking the most fortunate to pay their share. there should be a lot of options on the tables in order for us to reflect our commitment to social

security. that includes taxing the income of those above $250,000 as the pot from already states. we should explore a range of options. that includes taxing sources of theme that are kept in current system like passive income. that is how we will expand and protect social security. >> thank you. in favor. >> from the state of nevada, and support of the amendment. our payroll system only allow us to collect social security through direct payroll. , use anare asking to alternate system for collection and funding of social security. those systems do not exist and we will end up waiting another forears, another 20 years

how long will we expand the extension of social security. where wen amendment have the opportunity to tax everyone equally. this is payroll. most of the income over $250,000 are not collected through payroll print their collected through capital gains. let's be brave, let's step up and vote for this amendment. [applause] >> time for opposition. speaking in favor. opposition. >> i think this is one of those situations where we faced earlier tonight. for the platform clearly already addresses the issue. we just need to leave our options open to ensure that we protect and expand social security. [applause] >> thank you. this, i servedce

as the staff onto presidential commissions, this is the simple thing. scrapping the cap only deals with a portion of it. the idea of bringing in passive income, that is terrific. the democratic party which has avoided going on record until recently and thank god it is on record, we can win the election with it, but it be pulled, have to be clear. scrapping the cap is a minor thing. republican talk about lifting the cap. make your member of covers talking about lifting it, it is some who does not want to increase benefits. i think the republicans will run right through it. we ought to be clear that we want to increase it. we also ultimately are going to have to do more than this. we can expanded. there are many ways. we delivered going to petitions on this issue to the white house , other organizations. the democratic party you to

stand strong and stopping embarrassed about the crown jewel of this a compliment and the past 100 years. , and don't support it we're not clear that we are in favor of this, we will lose this election. we can pretend that we're talking about all things on the table, but all things on the table means it contradicts the platform. let's cut retirement age, let's cut: again, i can talk about all the stuff. but the clear message to the lit the capc is, because -- lift the cap because that is what the public cares about. it aligns with the policy, good politics and what the american people want. [applause] >> time for the opposition. party has aratic

long and proud history of defending and protecting social security. we need to continue to do so as a member of the united workers union, and an officer of one of the largest private-sector unions in this country, i urge my brothers and sisters on this for to defend social security allowing us to have and explore all options to ensure that we have a social security in the future. [applause] >> proponents. >> new mexico again. don't get cost-of-living increase, that is cut. that is a cut. as democrats, do we really want to expand it? if we really do, the people onving, disability and social security,

you can't keep up with the cost of living. you can go out and work. canadian euro person go out and get a new job -- ken and 88-year-old person getting a job ? like everyone else in the country does? [applause] anybody against? against?rent person we have time. according to the rules. against?se for? >> i want to make a point. the cap now, probably a lot of people know this, it is $118,000

per year. after that, no more payroll tax. think about this, but from committee. there is a well-known basketball player come i will need him, but he was the most bible player in the championship just recently caped, this man reached the halfway through the first quarter of the first game of the season. no more payroll tax the rest of the quarter, the rest of the game, the rest of that season, the playoffs, but cap injured. that is not right. championship. that is not right. [applause] >> 30 seconds left. my name is carly stevenson. from indiana. i'm speaking in favor of this.

i don't think this amendment is precluding other ways to expand and protect social security. what we are saying here is that this is a simple fix that would allow us to continue to fund social security for many decades. i'm 32 years old. i have tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. i'm going to need social security in order to survive when i retired. this will ensure the survival of social security. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the debate. a show of hands, all in favor. show of hands. all opposed. >> rollcall! >> machine vote. , don't vote early.

i would to do this right. want to do this right. amendment 33. 15 seconds. five seconds. next amendment. >> amendment 108 has been withdrawn. 92 sponsored by clem

ballenoff. the proposed amendment is to delete the following. democrats will also fight to protect the earned pension innefit of americans multiplayer pension plans. democrats will also fight to enact legislation to make sure that the earned pension benefit of americans will not be cut. be, andslation would here there is a correction, insert the word paid and continues on as written. by closing tax loopholes that benefit millionaires and billionaires. >> proponent. i'm from illinois. this amendment simply says that we will do everything we can to make sure that earned pension benefits of americans of multi- employer pension plans will not be cut.

it basically strengthens the original language. the seconds. 15 have been found. proponent. >> more than 40 years ago, the made a solemnment commitment to the workers of this country. if a retiree is promised a certain pension benefit after a lifetime of hard work, the company would not renege on that promise. that commitment 40 years ago was exactly the right thing to do. when somebody works for their entire life, gives a pay raises, gives of health care benefits, in order to make sure that he or she has a secure retirement, it is absolutely acceptable to pull the rug out from underneath that worker. a couple years ago, departing, behind closed doors,

provisionals slipped into a must pass spending bill that makes it legal to cut the benefit of about 1.5 million workers and retirees with troubled multiemployer pension plans. as a result, retirees all over this country are waking up to the unexpected reality that the promises made to them to be pension benefits they are receiving today good to by 30-65%. that is unacceptable. we have to send a very loud and clear message to republican leadership in congress. when he promises made, the working people of this country with respect to pensions, promises cannot be broken. for this by closing to tax the post that allowed the wealthiest of americans to avoid paying their fair share. closing the tax loopholes will allow us to protect the earned

pension benefits of every worker and it retiree in a multiplayer pension plan in the country. at a time of massive wealth inequality when half of all older workers have no retirement savings et al., when 20% of seniors are living on an average , we have got to do everything we can to protect and expand the benefit tension plants in america. promises made and benefits earned must be protected. it's important that platform reflects this commitment and passing legislation. the currently is legislation in congress in both houses with 52 cosponsors in the house and 11 in the senate. it does exactly this. this is for the iron workers. the coal miners and many others. irish every other to vote for this. every others to vote.

>> opposition. all in favor indicate i. all opposed? when opposition. -- one opposition. >> amendment 86 has been withdrawn. 121 sponsored by mary botari. they have proposed amended is as follows. on page nine at the end of line four, insert the federal reserve should be a fully public institution that serves the american people and pursues a genuine: employment economy that creates good jobs and rising wages for all. >> thank you very much. you know the federal reserve is america's central-bank in a

single most economic policy making institution. unlike all the other central banks in the entire world, is currently owned by the perry financial institutions it is supposed to regulate. when congress treated the federal reserve in 1913, the private banks provided it in the form of stock. the federal reserve pays dividends and allows private bankers to elect the reserve board of governors. today wall street and commercial banks own stock in our federal reserve and they choose two thirds of the directors. this easy change for the federal reserve to be truly independent and to work on creating an economy that works for all of us to work on things like low employment which is one of their charges. the fed needs to be owned by an accountable person who is chosen by the american people we need to make the euros are of truly public institution. federal reserve a truly

public institution. [applause] >> shorthands. -- show of hands. those in favor and those opposed come forward. delegate from arizona. i can opposition to the enemy. we will be presenting an amended shortly which seeks to competent number of things. to make sure the federal reserve remains independent from the republican efforts to politicize it. second, to restore its public mission both to full employment and to ensuring that we protect against if i share third, we have to make sure that we will address competent interest where bank executives are being put on federal reserve board. will be doing that an amendment to 11 and as a result, we will

extended opposition amendment 121. favor?ne speaking in anyone speaking in favor? come forward. anyone speaking in favor? >> from iowa. in a fortune amendment. right now, you have heard. those who control the money control history. reserve is a bunch of bankers, yes we select some of them, but is a private institution. a constitution that clearly state that customer has the right to the side about our money. when the congress does not do

that, the bankers do it. i understand our worry about republicans. we have a public and ideology handling the federal reserve. it is up to you. theemocrats, to restore fundamental rights of the people of this country who have control of our money. that is all. [applause] >> thank you. want to say i appreciate a lot of things about amendment to 11. , think one of the core issues the deep held suspicions and worried that people have about the federal reserve out there in america is that it is controlled by bankers and the fact not a ton of stock, but they do own it. to be truly independent is not

about reforming the board, maybe a bit more democratic, but about severing the ownership relationship. so i feel that my amendment is cleaner, simpler, and i urge folks to vote for them. [applause] >> thank you. i will call the vote. 121,n favor of amendment please indicate by raising your hands? allpposed? it fails. no, it fails. >> no. >> next amendment, please? >> madam chair, no other amendments for the section. >> thank you for your patience. will now hear from the vice chair on the section

of economic fairness summary, from the secretary of state of rhode island. oh, i am sorry. excuse me. excuse me, sorry. excuse me. we will now consider the create good paying jobs and a vice chair rosenbaum now introduced the next section. someone asked for a rollcall. so, how many did you have? >> mr. chairman? >> hold on a minute. we are dealing with an issue. just hang on a second.

>> they do now. >> rollcall. >> ok, we are going back. the last amendment, please put it up. 121. it was a request for a rollcall. [applause] there was a request for a rollcall that requires 20%. all in favor of a rollcall, please indicate by raising your hand. one hand, please. [laughter] [applause] >> we have a rollcall. thank you for the correction. we will call for a rollcall. is 60 seconds.

so, wait. wait. please., 60, on a rollcall. you can vote, if you are voting. [laughter] >> 15 seconds.

5 seconds. closed. is the vote fails, 71-100. >> question, do it to ask for a minority report? or do we asked for those later? [applause] that is good. >> later. >> that is fine. i want to be sure. >> to introduce the job sections, we will have greg rosenbaum. mr. rosenbaum: it has always been important to democrats for americans to be able to live their lives to the fullest and fulfill their hopes and dreams. when we work on the construction site, classroom, firehouse, or we can contribute to the long-term success of the family

by committing to the creation of good paying jobs, our party offers solutions to the nation's infrastructure, manufacturing, technology, and small business factors that must be addressed if our country is to begin moving forward. keep moving forward. we provide answers and innovative approaches for not only today's workforce but for the next generation of workers, employers, and entrepreneurs. do we have an amendment? 147.s, amendment number sponsored by robert martinez on page six, line 18. the proposed amendment is to add at the end of the final sentence, we will make the largest investment in good paying jobs since world war ii, and ensure we reach a full potential, full employment

economy that create good jobs with rising wages for anyone willing to work hard. >> proponents? >> my name is bob martinez. u.s. workers are still feeling the effects of the republican recession, created by george w. bush. despite significant progress made under president obama, more work needs to be accomplished to ensure that everyone can get a good paying job. the democratic party has always made job creation a priority. unlike those that only pay lip service to creating jobs, we mean what we say, and we will put in place programs to achieve this. this amendment makes clear our commitment to full employment and high-paying jobs, that will secure our economy well and into the future. i urge your support for the amendment before you.

>> the amendment has been offered. seconds? 15 is there anyone who wishes to be heard in opposition? i think we will call a vote on this. . our people comfortable? all those in favor, please raise your white cards. it passes. anyone recognizing? is there another amendment? >> amendment number 156, sponsored by lee saunders, on page six, line 21. putproposed amendment is to in place an appropriate infrastructure section, democrats continue to support the interest tax exemption on municipal bonds and will work to establish a permanent version of build america bonds as an additional tool to encourage infrastructure investment by state and local governments. >> we need the pronents.

the proponent has a minute. >> lee saunders, washington, d.c.. democrats continue to support the interest tax exemption on bonds, working to establish a permanent version of build america bonds as an additional tool to encourage infrastructure investment by state and local governments. >> we have 15 seconds. raise your cards, please. we have 15 seconds. does anyone have opposition to this amendment? i don't see any. you wish to be heard in opposition? you may want to answer. not really? go ahead. >> good morning.

to everyone. [laughter] >> we have to get done before the sun comes up. >> from the virgin islands, i only rise to make a clarification i made on an earlier call setting up, that anything like this as the state could include territories as well. >> ok, thank you. understood that the point being made, however we have an amendment before us. it has 15 seconds. it doesn't appear to have any other opposition. i will call the question. everyone in favor of the amendment, raise your white cards. it has a majority. anyone wishing to be registered as against, apparently one anti-vote. two, excuse me. and just to the virgin islands, we will take a look to the technical side. some of these questions do apply to territories, and some do not.

but we will ask someone to take a look at that. there are differences in various codes. ok? > can we include that language? >> what i am representing is that we will have the committee look at it.we will make the amendment , where it is appropriate. there are differences however in the tax code applying to territories, versus states. so if it applies to both, we will make it as a friendly amendment. if it does not or appears to not, or there is confusion, then we will address it in another way. i am excepting what you are trying to do, we're going to take a look at it. is that sufficient? ok. thank you. is there another amendment? >> yes, amendment number 224. sponsored by russell green, on page six, line 23. the proposed amendment is to make the section read as follows.

the reality is that the climate emergency and the objective of expanding the middle class demands that we make the most ambitious investment in american infrastructure since president eisenhower created the interstate highway system. >> the proponent has one minute. >> thank you, governor. good morning, democrats. i submit this draft, must be considered to the lens of legacy to our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. to me it is more than a blueprint or map to guide policy, to me it will serve as a testament to this committee's willingness to the truth for posterity. i have submitted multiple amendments for your consideration, all with a shared objection to share the truth about the emergency of climate. this particular amendment is easy to adopt, the section of the platform is about jobs, greeting good paying jobs. we have heard both senator sanders and secretary clinton

say we need a rapid transition to 100% clean renewable energy. there is no greater opportunity to create millions of good paying jobs than a response to the climate emergency. we have opportunities throughout this platform to declare who we are and what it is we believe in, and we should do so baldly, honestly, eyes wide open. i submit this easy, noncontroversial amendment that strengthened the platform. >> thank you very much. [applause] are their 15 seconds, yes, there are. is there any opposition? we will start with the proponent, then. did you want to say something? >> kristine cramer from the state of nevada. i would like to make the motion specifically to recess, until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. >> that is order -- that is out of order. we called and said we would get through 38. that is out of order. we're in the process of calling a qst