amendment to the amendment. [applause] [cheers] do you have that? you will do it from there. >> mine is really simple. "just want to add the words that's why we oppose the tpp." [applause] >> pursuant to agreement, we have 15 seconds. pursuant to agreement, you have five minutes to speak to the issue. jealous and iben

am a lifelong civil rights organizer. i was trained by congressman thompson. cie.s trained by bill ludi unity in thisthe room and the unity in our party and the unity between mr. sanders and secretary clinton in opposition to the tpp. let me be very clear. and all my years campaigning against dad trade agreements we have never seen before. a republican opponent who inte nds to run clearly against the tpp. we have under clear authority that the draft gop platform

speaks clearly against the tpp. we must encourage every member of the democratic party to speak clearly of the tpp. we have the unity in this room against the tpp. allow the auto parts industry to go the way of the southern textile industry. we know that we cannot afford more the unum -- more vietnam, and all the other countries to finish the job that nafta started and destroy the manufacturing jobs in the united states. we are democrats because we believe in the power of organizing and uplifting regular people to improve their

destinies of their families. everyer to empower democratic organizer across this tontry, we must empower them say clearly that democratic party is opposed to the transpacific partnership. >> let us be very clear that if it were not for the sanders campaign, we would that even be having this kind of debate. [applause] g "bernie"] >> let us also be clear that the tensions between the corporate wing and the populist wing of his party are one where we do not want windows dressing

talking with people. we want something concrete. sisters,rothers and whom i love so much from the labor movement, would support a candidate who was not so clear about tpp in the way that bernie sanders was. we do not want to the backs of working people. tpp in opposition to this platform. [applause] >> one minute. >> are we done? you have one minute left if you want it. sisters and brothers, i want you to know it doesn't take all that just to say we are against the tpp. thated to leave no doubt the credit stand up for the working men and women in this country, and their babies, and their children's children.

leave no doubt that we are against the tpp. to my sisters and brothers who live in western states who know clearly what nafta is, we need to leave no doubt that we stand up for the everyday momma's and daddy's in this country. that we stand up for generations yet unborn in this country. .ote no on tpp [applause] >> thank you. pursuant to an agreement already reached, the opponents of the amendment to the amendment have five minutes to speak in opposition.

that clock begins now. >> let me say this. i think that all of you saw this when both parties came up. we are friends. we know each other well. i want to make it clear that the trade union movement does not take a backseat to anybody regarding its opposition to tpp. up constantly, fighting our enemies and sometimes our friends, because we understand how this hurts working families and how it hurts our communities. i would urge you to look once again at my ammendment. everything that these sisters and brothers did is included in my amendment. i would urge you to support my amendment and not the amendment provided by ben. thank you very much.

>> good morning sisters and brothers. i stand in front of you, not as someone that is dressed and not aware of what it is to be a worker. i am that. i come out of the textile worker's industry. i know what nafta was all about. canow how a that agreement impact workers because i am a worker who has been affected. anders heard what the s amendment said. it said that we needed a platform to make things transparent. it also said we needed a platform that would make people accountable. arelso said that we fighting for things to be fair to american workers and make sure that jobs will not be taken

away from here. we have an obligation to make sure that what we stand on is unified and inclusive. what we read, at least what he proposed, you can see it is all there. we are talking about what we need to make it strong, not what we stand against. it is clear what we stand against. we have been there. i have not worked in a textile plant for all those years to say that we don't have a voice. we have a voice. we have a right. credibility -- i sonders amendment. >> 2.5 minutes. my name is david burrow it's

-- my name is david whirley from georgia. my hometown lost thousands of textile jobs. i spent years, 25 years ago, running for congress talking about these issues, running against the republican incumbent , losing by 900 votes to a dynamic newt gingrich. i have spent 25 years since holding corporations accountable. a backseat to anyone including my freshman philosophy professor, cornell west -- [laughter] saunders amendment is a remarkable achievement. anyone who has been involved for

this many years knows what a remarkable achievement it is. tpp it's a standard that will not beat. that other tpp deals will not beat. we have to vote for the saunders amendment, i urge you to vote against the jealous amendment. >> one minute left. >> my name is kevin williamson commercialited workers union who represents more than 1.3 million members of the united states. democratic platform is meant to be aspirational. it is meant to guide us tour what we want our nation to be. a roadmap for how we apply our principles and values through governance. ufcw opposes tpp.

this trade deal harms american workers at all whom we represent. supports thefc w saunders amendment which lays out the terms that must be met before any trade agreement can be met. that does not live up -- improving the lives of american workers. i encourage everyone here to think bigger to the opposition. >> just a point of clarification, i was added, not replacing.

>> we will prepare to have a rollcall vote. recesses over -- recess is over. please take your seats. we are still on the same section which is fighting for economic fairness.

the proposed amendment is on page eight, line 21 after the -- s equal justice under to adding theort statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial fraud. for providing them more resources to prosecute wrongdoing. >> mr. chairman, i am from ohio. i rise in support of the amendment. i am a hillary clinton clinton delegate. -- i am a hillary rodham clinton delegate. workingortantly i was in the holder and lynch justice department. i saw firsthand and we all know there were corporate abuses that happened before and after the financial crisis.

too often people did not have the tools they needed to hold people accountable. these are two specific ideas that helps to hold wrongdoers accountable to make sure that our free markets are also fair markets. the first was to extend the statute of limitations on serious fraud cases. effort to do and it in five years are not enough. the second is to increase the resources available to the drg and other regulators to investigate these crimes. sequestration, our great attorney general tony webb had to see 4000 employees leave the department of justice during the

prosecuting these crimes. >> thank you, are there 15 seconders? does anyone wish to be heard in opposition? if no one wants to be prosecutin opposition, and there appears to be no one, without objection, i believe i can proceed to a vote. i think we can do this with my cards. all in favor, raise your white cards. a majority has been had. anyone in opposition? congratulations. [applause] 19 monthent number sponsored by dennis of dusky -- dennis -- the proposed amendment is to add the following. there is no doctrine that are justice department should apply that takes collateral consequences into account when

conducting an investigation determining whether to bring charges and negotiating plea agreements. >> the proponent has one minute. 1999, deputy attorney general eric holder penned a mem o saying prosecutors needed to be cognizant of collateral damages to prevent corporate instability and collapse before deciding to prosecute financial institutions. the criminal division said it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry and the markets deciding to file

charges. more corrupt financial institutions were prosecuted during the crisis during ronald reagan than any other corruption that brought our country to its knees last decade. it was just the cost of doing business. i don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors but we need to be clear that justice trumps money. >> do we have 15 seconders? there are. is there anyone who will want to be heard in opposition? 's begin with the proponent arguments. does anyone else wish to contribute? you have five minutes. the proponent will speak first. >> i am kylee stevenson from

indiana. i think that we need to send a strong message. arrested andman is incarcerated for having a small amount of weed on him and is not able to get gainful employment prison, ands out of is unable to support his family -- if we are not going to look at the collateral consequences for the hundreds of thousands of people who are incarcerated for small, low-level crimes in this country, many of whom -- this disproportionately affects committees of color and african-americans, if we are not going to look at the collateral consequences of their lives and their families, that we should not provide the same privilege to white-collar criminals who steal millions of dollars from regular working people.

>> anyone else wishing to be heard? this is out of the five-minute proponents. >> i am jane mr. scher: i am from oregon -- i am jane. i am from oregon. i wisht an attorney, but i -- i wish they had the concept of economic malpractice. i think it could be applied to corporations who loot people's pensions and those who devastate communities by -- >> anyone who is an opponent, we will go to the opposition argument. >> >> my name is mark and i am from philadelphia. wait to seea cannot you all and a couple of weeks. all of us together. delegate and i am

standing in opposition to this. make no mistake. onare completely together the spirit of prosecuting white-collar principles to the fullest extent. through twoone amendments which increase the resources, increase the penalties and look for better laws. unanimously, and in unity, and together. we're strong statements. they are not just words. they are words that need to apply to everyone. there is no white-collar criminal individual who should get off in a crime because of the collateral issue, period. it doesn't happen to the extent

that you all think it does. oing]o seeobody here wants to anyone get off of a crime to some excuse -- because of some excuse. out ofea is borne frustration with this system. if you think of the idea, it is an idea that is actually going to have collateral consequences that none of us want to see. supposing there is a hospital executive in a community hospital who ripped off the system and commits a crime, he needs to go to jail, no problem. now the prosecutor has to look at the institution. if iis he can look and say prosecute that hospital, they lose their license, jobs are

lost and medical care in the community can not be served. plus they can waive those issues and decide whether or not the hospital also gets prosecuted, you have bad collateral consequences, things you don't want to have. you don't want to take that discretion away from the prosecutor and it is strongly the idea of it goes too far. that is why we're asking you not to vote for this but to stand changeshe very strong to stand behind the platform of strong white-collar -- the rules are now, they were read this morning it is five minutes -- did you want to speak on the same side?

if you want to speak on the same side, go ahead. >> why would you want to assume i would be on the other side? >> no, no. [laughter] >> usual suspect. [laughter] pennsylvania.m my colleague and i have been voting on opposite sides of most of this but the same side of this one. i am a criminal defense lawyer. that says there is the doctrine that should apply that takes collateral consequences into account when negotiating plea agreements period. it says in anything. tell you, prosecutors take a lot of things into consideration when determining what to do. away from prosecutors

their ability to consider anything when determining what plea to offer, the entire system will come to a halt and the system of justice will be a disaster. >> i think we can call the question. cards.do this by everyone in favor racer hand. it represents the majority. everyone voting against the majority? let's go on to the next one. amendment number 144. the proposed amendment was on page eight.

proposal to admit the words "an historic." >> even as we agree there is a lot more work to do, we democrats recognize that dodd frank was a major achievement. these reforms were not just monumental, they were historic. the most significant reforms we have put in place since the great depression. recognizes that. i urge its approval. >> the amendment has been made and spoken to. ?o we have 15 seconders

if no one wishes to be heard in opposition, i will call the question. all those in favor of the amendment, please raise your cards. anyone wishing to be noted as having voted against, there are roughly 20. let me just say -- we will have coffee, soda, bottled water, and cookies. kathleen kennedy and the campaigns and i want to thank all of the platform committee members for their hard work. >> thank you mr. chair,

amendment 159 sponsored by maxine waters. the proposed amendment is on page eight, line 24 after the words stopped dead in its tracks every republican effort to weaken it, insert the following. we will ensure that our regulators have the resources and independence that they need to fully enforce the law and hold both individuals and corporations accountable. >> the opponent has one minute. >> i am maxine waters. i am the ranking member of the financial services committee. the republican spend a great deal of time trying to weaken our regulatory agencies.

that is why we have dodd frank reform. if you can recall what happened went08 when this country into recession, almost depression, regulatory agencies work not funded, they were supposed to be a lot safety and soundness but they did nothing. they tried to weaken these agencies by underfunding them. sec is our cop on the block. they are concerned about derivatives and banker transparency. you know what they are doing to the cfpb. that is the consumer financial protection bureau that we created. dealing with the fraud that has been committed by some of the automobile dealers. looking at all the fraud going secondaryr post

financial education institutions. they cannot do what they are doing to weaken this oversight that we need. >> some of their efforts give us a new senator in the commonwealth of massachusetts. do we have 15 supporters? this is how it works. the proponents go first. five minutes for the proponents and then we will hear it in opposition. >> ladies and gentlemen, this is all about whether or not we are going to have the oversight agency that will protect the citizens.

this is all about whether or not they will have the resources to do this job. the way that you weaken them is by denying them the appropriations and that is what the republicans do day in and day out. they have the majority and they undercut their ability to do what we would have them do. i do want to call your attention not only to the sec and the cftc, the commodities trading commission. i want to direct you to the financial protection bureau. that is the greatest thing that came out of the dodd frank. we were supposed to have oversight for consumers in law, ped off there drop agenda. reform, the dodd frank we had nobody looking out for average consumers.

fact that weke the have one director. they want to create a commission so they can have the majority and kill what he is doing. what they would like to have done is have him come before the appropriation's committee where republicans have the majority so they can deny them the funds. >> anyone else in support? i am embarrassed to admit that our republican congressman andy barr serves in the financial services committee and i can testify to the fact that he has been dedicating his career to weakening dodd frank and even to limit it out right. congresswoman waters is absolutely right. this is something that needs to be safeguarded against because a lot of the efforts are not direct. a lot of them are in direct

efforts to do everything they can to weaken these regulations. i would encourage everybody on the sanders and clinton platforms to support this piece. >> additional support? >> i am merry from the state of wisconsin. one brilliant thing that was done for the consumer product safety commission, the cfp be -- pb, is that the budget was linked to the federal reserve in congress. they have been trying to kill it by putting it under the budget. it is important for folks to which has on the cftc brought new authority to put over-the-counter derivatives on the transparent market so we can see what is going on with crude oil speculation. in order for these agencies --

you may want glass-steagall, you may want to break up the banks, so do i am a but we need to defend some of these important gains we have made. x anyone else wishing to be heard? we have 40 seconds. that ast want to say democrats if we do not give the tools to enforce regulations, it discredits the regulation. if dodd frank doesn't work because we do not fund the regulation, it will be blamed for the next financial collapse. we need to make sure the have the tools and i want to thank congressman waters for putting this forward. >> for those wishing to be heard in opposition, please step forward. [indistinct yelling]

>> all right, thank you. [inaudible] >> all right, thank you. do.ave work to . mr. chair, my name is igor emery and i rise to very specific opposition in this particular amendment. like for them to consider removing objectionable words. i would like to see the words "of the other party" removed from this amendment. this is the democratic platform i don't want to spend time advertising for other parties. if we could strike that name i would be happy. >> anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? no one else wishing to be heard. we will do it by white cards.

all in favor of the amendment, racer cards. it passes overwhelmingly. number 20 sponsored by dennis on page eight, line 20 it -- line 28. we embellished that there is room within our party for a broadery of views on a financial transactions taxed. tokets will quickly adapt any sort of financial transactions tax which will provide stability in the marketplace and fund necessary programs which will ultimately help all businesses. >> the proponent has one minute. time for our party to be firm with policies related to the financial services industry. to not be willy-nilly and to

say, nothing. we acknowledge the diversity of the language as it is written says that we need to take a stand at this point. ers?e there 15 second anyone willing to be heard in opposition? does anyone what to speak in support? in support. person

>> as democrats, there are certain things that we stand for. any kind of financial transaction tax is something we would be agreeing on without so much room for wiggling. when the voters look at this , they say to us that we are waffling. we to be a strong democratic party that stands for real things, clearly for what it believes. the kind of language is not conducive to a strong campaign. we can tell people that they need to vote for the democratic party, that we are strong.

thank you. >> this is not my favorite language. improvementt is an over some of that line was that exists. there are thousands of people across the united states, including a large group of nurses who are campaigning for a robin hood tax as a way to bring financial stability and a great way to raise revenue for all sorts of programs. thatamendment acknowledges the market will quickly adjust to the financial transaction tax. it will not collapse the global economy. europe is already slapping one on and it will be a mechanism for funding future programs

without giving any specifics. >> any other speakers? we will now go to those opposed to the amendment and after that we will take a vote. i am a hillary delegate standing in opposition to this. allbasic principle that we agree with is embodied in the platform and the two sentences before. i think it is important for all of us to take a look at that. it says that our goal must be to take a financial system and an economy that works for all americans, not just a handful of billionaires. we support a financial transaction tax on wall street to curb high frequency trading which has threatened financial markets. there is diversity of opinion on a broader tax, when everyone supports a financial transaction

tax and tie for 20 trading. unity language. this was an effort to litigate what was carefully worked out by sanders and clinton drafters. this is an effort at unity. one thing that you need to think when you try to figure out how broad the tax should be is do you want that tax on middle-class 401k's do you want that tax on union pension funds. you should think about that and that is why there is a diversity present -- position. money that isn of behind the unity amendment that i asked you to support. this amendment and

support with a unity folks did in drafting this platform. the imf estimates that a financial transaction tax of 0.1% which is a 1/5 of the parties proposal in the campaign would reduce market values by 7.6%. if you translate that to a reduction of wealth, it means a family that would amass $250,000 of assets for their future would see the value of those assets decline by $20,000. that is why how broadly we make this tax needs to be worked out. i urge you to stand behind what the brilliant drafters did and defeat the amendment. >> anyone else wishing to be heard, we will do this on white cards. everyone who is in favor of the amendment to raise your card.

everyone who is against the amendment, race your card. have won.nst we will take a very short break. hang on. there is a reason. to cochair and i have asked have a meeting with both campaign staffs. it should not take long. a break to meet with those campaign staffs, i would like to do a quick survey. how many people in the room would like to complete the double -- their deliberations tonight or the early morning hours? we will go have a meeting and we will be back very shortly. don't wonder away. we will come back. i promise.

>> we are printing you live coverage of the democratic platform committee meeting in orlando. they are in their second day of their meeting and will take a break right now. we will show you some of president obama's news conference in warsaw earlier today. he opened by talking about the police shootings in dallas. >> this has been a tough week. first and foremost for the

families who have been killed, but also for the entire american family. the justice department and our federal government should continue to do everything that we can to assist the investigation in dallas and to support the police and the city of dallas as they deal with this tragedy. my call to chief brown. i commended him for showing outstanding leadership during an extremely challenging time and i asked him to convey to all the officers and their families how the american people are grieving with them and that we stand with them. will have the opportunity to convey our condolences and show our solidarity when i visit dallas in a few days. let me just make some very brief points. all, as painful as this

has been, i firmly believe that america is not as divided as some have suggested. americans of all races and all backgrounds are rightly outraged by the inexcusable attacks on police whether it is in dallas or anyplace else. that includes protesters. it includes family members who have grave concerns about police conduct. they said that this is unacceptable. americans of all races and all back runs are also rightly saddened and angered about the andh of alton sterling philando castile and the larger

persistent problem of african-americans and latinos being treated differently in our criminal justice system. is angersorrow, there and confusion about next steps. there is unity in recognizing how we want our communities to operate. this is not who we want to be as americans. that serves as the basis for us in a able to move forward constructive and positive way. actions of a the .ew defined all of us

the demented individual who carried out those attacks in dallas is the more representative of african-americans than the shooter and charleston was representative of white americans or the shooter in orlando was revisited if of of muslim americans. that speak for us that some who we are. one of the things it gives me hope this week is seeing how the overwhelming majority of americans are reacting with empathy and understanding. we've seen police continue to reach out to communities that they serve across the country and show incredible professionalism as they are protecting protesters. we've seen activists and

grassroots groups who have expressed concern about police adamants but are also in their support of the dallas police department. appropriateularly because the dallas police department is a great example of a police department that has taken the issue of police shootings seriously. it has engaged in an approach that has not only brought down their murder rates but also drastically reduced complaints around put -- police misconduct. that is the spirit that we all need to embrace. that is the spirit that i want to build on. why,one of the reasons forceeek, using the task

that we had to set up after ferguson, but also building on it and inviting both police and law enforcement and community activists and civil rights leaders, bringing them together to the white house, i want to start moving on constructive actions that will make a difference. that is what all americans want. >> we are back live in orlando where we are back to the democratic platform committee's second day of their meeting and they are resuming after a break. >> how many more amendments do we have in this arena? >> we have eight in this section. >> eight in this section and then we will go to voting rights. courtney, would you please read the next amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair.

amendment number 42 sponsored by rcf. the proposed amendment is as follows. democrats will support laws that prohibit public officials from working for the industries they regulate for at least four years after they leave office. we will also support for hitting lobbyists to work for wall street and corporate interest from serving on public boards and regulating industries that previously regulated them. >> the proponent has one minute. >> if you could put the amendment up on the screen? with thedment deals revolving door of lobbyists in washington, d.c. it is sickening to see people who are regulating wall street, regulating our environment,

regulating industries. then they leave government jobs and work for the people they were regulating. is if you'reng going to do that, wait four years before you do it. wait four years before you can get that job so if a corporation can buy you, they have to wait four years to get their return. [applause] >> the one minute has been spent. do we have 15 seconders? anyone wishing to speak in opposition. can we get it up? who does that? we are having a technical difficulty. >> amendment number 42. >> we are not playing any games

we are having a technical faculty. can everyone find it if you need it? courtney, would you read it a second time? >> yes, mr. chairman. amended 42 sponsored by domingo garcia. and the proposed amendment is for that section to read as follows. support laws that will prohibit public officials from working for the industries that they regulate for at least four years after they leave office. also support prohibiting lobbyists who work for wall street on public interests from regulating industries and agencies that previously regulated them. >> is or anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the amendment? going once, going twice. do we need further discussion in support of the amendment? there is. go ahead.

this is limited to a five-minute discussion. >> i am from new york. i think this amendment is crucial for the democratic party platform because it sets the precedent for things like overturning citizens united. allowing lobbyists back into the dnc which we once banned, something president obama campaigned against and we are now doing again. we're setting the precedent. this platform is being labeled as progressive. there are many people in this audience back there who do not agree with that because the language has been weak and it is code. it is code because it is a living platform for the lobbyists who now own the party. againstnt to stand up citizens united like we are

campaigning on, this is what we need to pass. it,very person votes for you are a democrat. if one post -- one person votes against it, you're not a democrat. as toan make an argument why we shouldn't agree with this , i would love to hear that because i am not hearing that. anyone else wishing to be heard? those in favor of the amendment, raise your white cards. those against, raise your white cards. we will do a 32nd vote. set up the vote, please. don't start until i asked you to start please.

those in favor of the amendment will vote yes. those opposed will vote no. you may start voting. 10 seconds. the amendment fails. booing] >> we needed to get going. amendment number 211. is onoposed amendment

page nine line two to replace current federal reserve era graph with the following. we will protect and defend the .ederal reserve's independence for full employment and low inflation against threats from new legislation. we will also reform the federal reserve to make it more representative of america as a whole. to ensure that executives of financial institutions are not allowed to serve on the boards of regional federal reserve -- i urge the adoption of amendment 211. to ensure its mission to seek full employment --

[indiscernible] >> do we have 15 seconders? does anyone wish to be heard in opposition? white card.our passes -- courtney, good job, courtney. [indiscernible] must be supported and nourished -- [indiscernible] and judicialative branches -- [indiscernible]

--suant of our governmental [indiscernible] that have allowed media ownership to be consolidated. we support increased funding for public broadcasting and federal laws that guarantee and encourage the absolute freedom of [indiscernible] critical oversight of government activity [indiscernible] information. we support the requirement for broadcast media to support some level of public broadcasting and a return to the principles in this doctrine, providing free substantial airtime to all qualified candidates or issues, and terms of quality and quantity without artificial or

arbitrary exclusions or limitations. >> the proponent has one minute. this has been in the colorado platform for several years now. i am a proud journalism school graduate and former news major. the founders understand that a free press was important. we are seeing how donald trump will handle the press. he has already bend the washington post and then held a press conference. control andzations increasing share in mass media. 20 years ago, president clinton signed the telecommunications which radically opened the floodgates to mergers. regulations and is wildly considered to be the media -- one of the top five

federal law changes. my father is a lifelong democrat and taught me many of my values. i got quite a chuckle from congressman cummings at the drafting committee when i told >> thank you. seconds. are there anyone who would like to be heard in opposition? proponents of first, please. your five minutes have begun. >> robert craig from wisconsin. i want to praise the gentleman for offering that thought. you that in southeast wisconsin that the two dominant am stations have two right-wing

hosts that dominate. there would be no attack on scott walker in wisconsin without those two hosts. with the public airwaves, we need some balance. totrongly endorse returning a modernized version of the fairness doctrine. thank you. >> thank you. additional proponents. and for me personally this is about transparency. think a lot of people are feeling disenfranchised in this process. they feel everything is opaque, why? why? what are we hiding? we know we are not getting equal time for all of the candidates. we are funding donald trump's campaign in the media.

not to mention the fact that time warner and comcast are contributors to campaigns. they have a reason that they want to cover certain candidates and certain issues because it makes the money. >> thank you. additional proponents. >> you know me. came to the states in 1976, i came as a journalist. one of the things that fascinated me was the freedom of the press, the way that at that time i was able to write, express myself, information i 1976and how i that time in the rules of equal time allow for a a really good discussion.

i didn't know that. time, years start passing and i saw the decline of that. that is also the decline of a free, vibrant press. and theiving the press power of the press to big corporations, and the few corporations that really own most of the newspapers, radio stations, and tv stations in this nation, you need these to have a free, vibrant press. if we really believe that the press is fundamental for our democracy, that is what we need. thank you. proponent.one more >> hello again. so one other aspect of the media

not discussed when it is privatized, a for-profit institution, other than everything driven by ratings, is that when you are trying to make profit off of the media, you're not spending your money and the right places. most newspapers across the country failed after the economic collapse. cut was a thing called investigative reporting. there is a direct correlation between the wealth of investigative reporting and the rise of corruption in politics. the second thing was state house reporting. state house reporting is how we find out what is going on in our state. you don't think there's a correlation between the rise and corruption documented everywhere and the fact that we don't have a free press, that most people are watching donald trump speeches on cable news all day long because it is ratings

driven. it is a direct correlation. unless we want to play the funding game of raising a billion dollars every year to defeat the republicans, we could soe policies that could help that the republicans are disarmed. we can do this. if that doesn't work, we have the internet. a lot of progressives are not .atching they are organizing online, live streaming, and hundreds of thousands of people are watching this. i urge all of you to take a stand. >> time. >> thank you. he was up first. we are going to go to oppose. you are up first. virgin islands will be second. he was up first. >> mr. chair, john lavelle from pennsylvania.

i'm going to urge my fellow members of the committee to vote against this amendment. we stand strongly for a free and keependent press to government and its proper position, but the context is important. i would urge the members of the committee to look at where this amendment is proposed to be added. this is not a section that talks about the media. platformon of the concerns stopping corporate concentration, and what the text is here is democrats will take stop corporate concentration in any industry, any industry, where it is unfairly limiting competition. i would submit that that is the language we need. it is not limited to the media. that the first platform this party has passed since 1988 that addresses antitrust enforcement. it is an important priority for

democrats, and that language is what we need. i would urge you to vote down this amendment and support the language that the drafters put together. >> the gentleman from the virgin islands. >> good afternoon. my name is emmett hansen. i'm from the u.s. virgin islands. i have been a journalist, but also a law enforcement officer. the thing i want you to look at is that when you see full unrestricted access, are you ready to give the media the right to identify an abuse child? are you ready to get the media the right to identify someone who has been raped? because this is what you are doing when you say that there will be full, unrestricted access to court records. -- shut up andon let me finish -- there is a reason why these things can be

sealed. people have the right to do these things, to say i don't want my child to be identified as the one who said that guy shot someone. [booing] >> stop. >> you cannot do this. there is a freedom of information act, but you cannot say that every single thing that happens belongs in the public to main. there must be some responsibility for these persons. live in a country where people don't trust the police. if you come and talk to me and say will you tell me who did this and they know that some journalists is going to have your name and your address on cnn, would anyone -- {indiscernible]

[no audio] >> we are expensing technical difficulties with our live video feed from orlando on the second day of the democratic national committee platform meeting. we will resume its soon as we can fix the problem.

>> they have to be able to be as objective as they can and have their deliberations made public. has been completed. if you support the amendment razor white card. -- raise your white card.

support the amendment. nays have it. >> amendment 157 on page nine, line 17. the proposed amendment as as follows. on line, delete the word unfairly. online 17, after the words in their areas of jurisdiction at the following, we believe that concentrated economic power resulting concentrated political power incompatible with democracy. we support the historic purpose of the antitrust laws to disperse power to preserve democracy. under president bill clinton, the department of justice brought a groundbreaking sherman act case against microsoft. -- in theallowed market to emerge in and of foreclosure or exclusion by an

incumbent player. that was and still is good policy. we believe in reinvigorating section two of the sherman act to address abusive behavior by dominic companies. we will have the sec aggressively use it section five authority to protect the public interest against abuse of discriminatory and unfair methods of commerce with special attention to the use and control of data. we will revise the department of justice is horizontal and vertical merger guidelines to refocus them on market structure and potential market power in -- aries and adjacent >> ok. thank you. i just want to point out that only the first appeared on the screen. i don't know whether we have the first paragraph on the screen. >> thank you very much. thank you for reading that long amendment. there was some confusion because

the amendment was misprinted, then we try to shorten it, then my colleague has introduced language from the state of operationallyis at exactly the same, and so i would like to withdraw this amendment 157 and move amendment 178. >> without objection we will remove the prior amendment and proceed to the prior amendment. >> i like that. i like that. go ahead. can you read that. >> and minute number 178 on paged by mark pryor nine, line 17, the proposed amendment is to insert on page nine, line 17 the following, we support the historic purpose of the antitrust laws to protect and against this sort of excessively consolidated economic and political power

which can be corrosive to a healthy democracy. support reinvigorating enforcement of antitrust laws to prevent abusive behavior by dominic companies, and protecting the public interest against abusive, discriminatory, and unfair methods of commerce. we support president obama's recent executive order directing all agencies to identify specific actions they can take in their areas of jurisdiction to detect anticompetitive tyingces such as arrangements, price fixing, and exclusionary conduct, and to refer practices that appear to violate federal antitrust laws to the doj and ftc. in an effort to preserve courtney's voice, if we will do that again, can we do it up front? >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would like to do my one minute, get some seconds, and turn it over to my new best friend mary here.

let me say this. and just as part of the introduction, this is an amendment, and this is a concept that the two candidates, senator sanders and secretary clinton can agree on. senator warren and president obama agree on this. i am a glad we have agreement today on the floor, so with that -- >> do we have seconds question mark we do -- seconds? we do. is anyone going to be heard in opposition? do you still wish to be heard? please. thank you very much for hearing us today. recently elizabeth warren gave a speech about the problem of the -- america's monopoly problem she called it. first she said strong healthy markets are a key to a strong and healthy america and she warned that competition is dying in america and to many industries. -- cited statistics

like a number of major airlines have dropped from nine to four, and complaints are up 30%. control 82%insurers of the market. three drugstores control 99% of the market. comcast controls half of all internet and cable subscribers in the united states. google and amazon are stepping all over small tech companies, and for too big to fail banks are even bigger than they were before the financial crisis. consumers feel it, innovation is harmed, mainstream businesses take a hit, and when mainstream businesses take a hit, it exacerbates and feels inequality , so we thought this was an important amendment to bring forward. busting era int the state of wisconsin. there are many trust busters across the country. we believe it is a new time and a new age for trust busting and i hope everyone can support this moment. >> german, let me just say one

quick word if i may to the bernie sanders supporters here. i am a lifelong democrat and glad to have you here. we are glad to have you in the party. you have made a big difference in 2016. thank you for being here today. thank you for participating, and thank you for the unity. thank you very much. [applause] [cheers] >> very good. if you make it really loud, they will hear us in the back room. there we go. [applause] [cheers] >> all right. discussion, that

not being required apparently, i will call on the question. white cards, all in favor, please razor cards. anyone wish to be recorded as opposition? i do not see any. it passes. courtney. >> amendment 43 sponsored by domingo garcia, page nine, line 18, the proposed section read as follows, democrats will at all times support laws that break up monopolies and industries that undermine competition in the park in place -- in the marketplace. >> i withdraw my amendment. >> thank you. it is withdrawn. courtney. >> amendment to 15 sponsored by joseph smallhover, the proposed amendment is for this section to read as follows, democrats believe that no one should be able to avoid paying their fair

share by hiding money abroad and that corrupt leaders and terrorists should not be able to use the system of international finance to their advantage. we will work to crackdown on tax evasion and promote transparency to fight corruption and terrorism, and we will make sure that law-abiding americans living abroad are not unfairly penalized by finding the right solutions for them to the requirements under the foreign account tax compliance act and foreign bank account report. >> you can use up to one minute to introduce. , i rise toair support the amendment on behalf of the 8 million americans who live outside the country. i am probably the only one representing them today. i grew up in pennsylvania. we pay our taxes in the united states as a country of residence and many of the laws adopted by

the united states affect us. the foreign account tax compliant act was designed in cheatso catch fatcat tax , but unfortunately congress forgot there were 8 million of us living outside the country, and when it requires reporting of those foreign accounts to the irs and penalties of up to 50% of holdings in those accounts if you fail it even by negligence, the effect on us has been tremendous. in addition, foreign financial institutions are required to rat on everybody from overseas to the united states with the results that they are closing bank accounts of americans all over the world, denying us financial services, and making it impossible to live normal lives. >> thank you. 15 seconds. there are 15 seconds. i'm just inquiring. does anyone want to be heard in opposition? we submit a question? , i wanted to ask

the sponsor if you would consider recognizing that there are folks who are hiding money in this country. there are a number of states that have laws that allow people to have corporations that hide their identities and therefore hide money and i wanted to recognize that. and i appreciated it, but the amendment was submitted in the appropriate time and it is deserving of being taken up and less there is some other way to do it, and i don't think there is. anybody else wishing to be heard in support? carly stevenson from indiana. i want to speak in support of this. who is ofunt middle-class dual american-canadian citizen and unfortunately middle-class americans who live abroad, they get penalized deeply. i've seen this in my own life. likedon't have the money

wealthy people to hire teams of lawyers to help them avoid taxes , so this would help a lot of middle-class people who live abroad. >> the motion has been spoken to. there is no one in line to speak for or against. i will call the question. we would do it by white card. all in favor the amendment raise your white card. anyone wishing to record and the negative? almost unanimously. thank you. courtney. >> amendment number 135 on page 18, line nine, the proposed amendment is to move the sentence starting on line 10 from current section to subsection on management of the federal government where appropriate. >> good afternoon. >> one minute. and you have to speak right into the microphone.

can we get the amendment up on the screen? one second. it is 135 in your book. we will get it on the screen as soon as we can. go ahead. >> the language of 135 is actually found on page 23, line 10, talking about the aggregation of data -- >> get closer to the microphone. there we go. >> that happens when you are height challenge. basically it starts on page 23, line 10, what were trying to do is move this line that talks about the disaggregation of data collected from asian-americans of pacific islanders and to move it to a section that talks basically to all federal governments where appropriate. the present section where it is found in basically talks about health issues. we believe that the ability of the federal government to make good decisions as it affects

asian-americans and pacific islanders, it needs to be available to all branches of the federal government. thank you. >> are there 15 seconds? there are. is there anyone who will want to be heard in opposition? absolutionnce of any -- opposition, i will call a question by white card. all those in favor of the amendment, please razor cards. anyone wishing to be recorded in opposition. it passes unanimously. thank you. courtney. >> mr. chair, there are no more amendments in this section. >> there are no more amendments. [applause] [cheers] >> thank you for your patience. i turn it over to my colleague. >> we are going to move to the next section, which is protecting voting rights section. we will hear from our vice chair

, who will introduce the section , and then we will move to the amendments. madam chairwoman, it gives me incredible pleasure that the secretary state of great state of rhode island to introduce protecting voting rights section in our awesome platform. democrats, we are committed to making sure all citizens can participate fully in all the rights of our great democracy. securing and protecting the franchise so that the voices of the people, not corporations, are heard and valued. our vision for american democracy is a nation where citizens united is overturned and no one is discriminated against or burdened when it comes to voting. [applause] thank you very we will move straight to the amendment. we start with the first amendment. >> thank you, madam chair, and

amendment 49, page 17, line eight, the proposed amendment is to insert after voting rights act the following, and ensure that election officials comply with the protections that remain, including provisions mandating bilingual materials and voter assistance. >> thank you. is there a sponsor? you have one minute. i rise as the sponsor for this amendment. i very much appreciate the already strong language in protecting and defending the voting rights in the platform, but one to make it clear that this amendment would be added to the sentence that says we must try to restore the sections that

were taken away by the supreme court in the shelby case, but we also want to acknowledge that the remaining provisions that require strong enforcement, particularly in this election where there are many efforts to suppress the vote of minorities, women, and youth. so all this is doing is acknowledging that there are thee sections, including bilingual ballot sections, which are particular important to native americans, asians, and latinos. >> thank you. are there 15 seconds to this amendment? there are. is anyone prepared to speak in opposition? if not, we will vote on this by a show of hands. all in favor indicate by holding their card up. all opposed? next amendment please. >> amendment number 89 has been withdrawn.

amendment number 138 sponsored by nancy jacobson on page 17, line 11. the proposed amendment is to delete the following, ending partisan and racial gerrymandering and in the sentence after the word holiday, then add the sentences we will bring in into partisan and racial gerrymandering nationwide by supporting state redistricting standards similar to those adopted in florida and by removing redistricting from the political process through independent redistricting commissions. that publicderstand confidence in our election process is critical to increasing voter participation. we will improve the integrity and security of our voting systems and procedures by supporting strong voting equipment standards, testing, audible paper trails, and random audits. >> thank you.

the sponsor has one minute. that,, since i submitted i was not able to get them i copy earlier.a -- i inserted a phrase among other things in the first paragraph. in the first paragraph it is after nationwide by among other things supporting state redistricting stammers -- standards similar to those adopting -- adopted by florida. in the second paragraph, i've inserted among other things after in the third line procedures five among other things supporting and then. >> can we leave that to the technical committee. >> that's fine. >> i just wanted to make it as broad as possible. >> is there anyone prepared his peak against this? sorry -- ares, i'm there seconds, i'm sorry. anyone prepared to speak against it?

if not, we will move to -- all in favor indicate by a sign of i by raising your hand. all in favor, all opposed? all in favor. all opposed. board,ing it on the 1 138, 30 seconds. 30 seconds.

11 number 64 sponsored by chuck pascal, 17 line 12. the proposed amendment is to add the following after the word holiday. the sponsor was one minute. >> thank you, madam chair.

restores two things, the language in the 2008-2012 latforms having to do with independently audible, accurate and secure voting systems. secondly, it acknowledges that we under the health act in 2006 voting y replaced every system in the country and that's now been 10 years and those outdated.are becoming we need to have modern systems ballots, iable paper which are independently, audible, accurate and secure. >> thank you. there are 15 seconds. yes? prepared to speak in opposition? in opposition? the proponent goes first. identify whether there was anyone, yeah. >> there's not much more to say

this other than i guess the controversial part would be to some -- would be the paper ballot verifiable paper ballot. in many of our states and my county in my state, we have are -- do not have any sort.le paper of a recount basically means asking hey, computer, were you right the first time? of course it's going to say yes. cannot recount our elections. if there's a dispute, if there's way tooversy, we have no know whether the count is accurate. we are goings that to help counties and states to replace their voting machines when they wear out. ith a verifiable paper ballot hat is recountable, that is verifiable, and that is auditable and secure. >> thank you. next.

>> my name is christine kramer. i'm from the state of nevada. am proud of ings i my state for doing is we do have in addition to our electronic equipment, we have an auditable paper ballot. as democrats we want this door towhen we're going door and voters think we're voting electronically, it doesn't matter. show them able to through our public communications you vote, you see verifyceipt pull up, you your receipt and you know should there be a recount, it could be auditable. we had this for more than a decade in nevada. he world will not fall apart when we have the auditable trail and we need it because we need to increase the trust in our election. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, sisters and brothers. i'm nina turner from the great state of ohio. i stand up in support of

thaement as somebody who ran for secretary of state in 2014 in great state of ohio in the depression in the great state of understand how important it is to make sure we have money for the mission and investing in america vote act is the right thing to do. we ask people to come out and won't make yet we the requisite investments necessary to make sure they have working machines at each of our states. this is the least we can do. is the greatest equalizer than we have. t is the only space where your socioeconomic status, who you matter, where you come from doesn't matter. it is the only place where we democrats weand as must affirm not just in words but in deeds that we really want to invest in voting, and this amendment affirmed that and i urge support.

yes, i am a sanders sue are the ositivers since the other side keeps affirming their support. [applause] -- i do want to want to welcome the secretary's supporters to the new democratic party. i have talked to election officials across the country and many of the systems they have outdated and breaking down often and makes longer lines and

makes it more difficult. being updatedd of after 10 years. some are running on technology --m 2003 and 2004 >> excuse me. just a minute. one conversation here? thank you. >> although they purchased the equipment in 2005, 2006. it's very important we ave funding and local election jurisdictions, really, it's very difficult. so i think we're in support of it. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else on the proponents' side? on the proponents' side. >> ok. one minute. berger.me is mitchell i represented al gore in the recount. i'm a clinton supporter. to ink we have permission say we're all for this. >> thank you. >> this is bush versus gore. need a verifiable paper trail on ballots. >> thank you. >> any opponents?

a show of will go to hands. all in favor indicate by raising hands. all opposed. thank you. it carries. amendment. next 91, sponsored by nely gorbea, on page 16. proposed amendment is fools -- we support fully funding the help america vote help assure the promise of election reform including fighting to end long lines at and ensuring all registration materials, voting and ials, polling places voting machines are truly accessible to seniors. disabilities and citizens with limited english proficiency. local and state governments in their effort to odernize and upgrade old, outdated and even obsolete

voting equipment to ensure all able to exercise this sacred right and the quickest, more convenient and secure and accurate manner possible. >> you have one minute. >> thank you. sounding ahis may be little bit repetitive but i hink it's a strong, bold comprehensive statement that builds on the conversations we already had. first of all, i want to give a credit to the drafting committee for putting together a really strong voting rights platform for us to work on. second, i'm here on the behalf of the association of secretaries of state and looking one piece uage and missing was this part about the voting equipment and we wanted o make sure as democrats who were secretaries of state and on the front lines as many of you modern equipment that is safe and secure and accurate and can be verified. this you can support amendment as a more comprehensive version. know the drafting committee might be able to do technical word smithing of putting it all

together. it's important that the secretaries of state in this country that are doing this and this battle at the local level with each and every one of you. thank you. 15 seconds?e yes, we do. do we have anyone prepared to opponents?st it, if not, we will go to a vote. favor. hands, all in all opposed. it passes. next amendment. >> amendment number 72 has been withdrawn. by number 112, sponsored brent welder on page 17, line 32. amendment is on word17, line 32, after the citizens united and buckley vallejo, insert the following. the amendment should contain these core values. corporations are not people,

they have none of the human utional rights of beings. orporations are not allowed to give money to any politicians directly or indirectly. over itician can raise $100 from any person or entity elections must be publicly financed. [applause] one minute. >> hi, my name is brent welder. for the y counsel weigh-in, of division of the teamsters. i will put together kind ceptions sparse this of stuff in the way of unions go. but i'm from st. louis, missouri, which is home where black lives matters movement started. eventse tragic, horrible in ferguson. as we've seen all too well this

last d and over the several years, millions of people have taken to the streets across this country for years now. i saw in my own neighborhood and has been done, nothing -- done and we're all in this room in agreeance people have less of a voice now than they have for decades long, long time. [applause] millions of people marching in the streets unfortunately have a voice than the 900 illion dollars that the coke brothers and the republicans are using to drown out people's voices. >> anyone speaking in opposition? second. 15 seconds. we have it. proponents have another five minutes. > i worked for president obama and he's fond of quoting martage luther king jr.

the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. is that overeality the last decade and because of horrible supreme court we have actually gone backwards on this issue. that the arc of the moral university, unless we do something here today, will bend away from justice as opposed to towards it. can is something that we change that i know we're in agreeance with. right nowual platform t. does say we support a constitutional amendment to disastrous supreme court decisions that have caused the moral universe to stray. however, you know, i'm an attorney. those decisions are. i have read them. but we are not writing this for attorneys. for the ting this millions of people that are marching in the streets as we right now. to understand what we stand for.

mitt romney famously said, are people, my friends. warren, the h senator from the great state of no, chusetts, responded, governor romney, corporations are not people. eople have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, get sick, they cry, they dance. hey live, they love, and they die. and that matters. that matters. she said that matters because we run this country for corporations, we run it for the people. illinois r from sponsored the fair elections now act that has been co-sponsored democrats in the united states senate. his act defines low dollar

contributions as $100 or less. our are the leaders of party, and i think we should give them a round of applause for taking a strong stance on this issue. [applause] i am mendment that proposing that has support, i now in this room among both supporters of bernie sanders and hillary clinton makes clear that corporations are not people, not speech.s [applause] nd that we hear all of the millions of people that are marching in this country that want those of us, leaders of the party to state, we hear you, millions of people in more than means millions of dollars put into the pockets of republicans by the brothers and the corporate special interests. left.o minutes >> thank you. i hope this can be supported

unanimously so we can send a strong message to the people of our country. thank you. >> two minutes left. let's get some real talk here. so in the past 10 years, we more moneyave raised than ever. congratulations, bundlers here, doing really been good jobs. we have to take on republicans. not a joke. a joke. seriously, it's hard work. we have to he coo up with republicans. told.s what we have been they're raising more money than ever. our congressman has to raise to keep up. average congress race is $82.2 million, average time on the phone e raising money for themselves and other congressmen. lost over is we 10,000 seats the past years as we're raising more money than ever. the business model is broken. now, i don't know what the answer to that business model s, but i can tell you one thing, when you look at a congressional campaign budget,

ost of that money is going to television ads. raise your hand. how many of you have cable? minute. >> seriously. those are the people watching those ads, we're spending all of raising money for. the business model is broken. reason why bernie sanders' campaign worked so well with oung people is they were putting the message in different ways. i'm not saying you take it all and put a budget into the online reads, but i'm saying our model is broken. raising so much money and we're losing more than ever. n the state level, the local level, local cautionouses, u.s. senate and congress -- >> one second. >> and if it weren't for president barack obama we could have very well lost against mitt romney. we have to rethink this. this is who we are as a people. ere the jack stonian party, we're the party of f.d.r. this is who we are. we're not republicans. their t have to play

games. >> time. time for the opponent. five minutes for opponents. exhausted five minutes on the proponents. >> ok. mark errington again from philadelphia. once again in a spirit of unity, welcome you to philadelphia, all of you. here's the tough spot that i am in, but i think i convince you why i am on the right position that this particular amendment should be voted down. a hillary person. but what fundamentally, i'm a democracy person. i will tell you why. for -- for 23 years, i have been reform. on election when howard dean was the head of special ., i was on a commission on election reform. when mitch berger was down on ush versus gore, i was also down there in palm beach wailing

county, alm beach trying to defend our candidate, who should have been the president. no one in one but this room, i guarantee you, who to rstands more and wants work harder to get rid of a that as my fellow colleague from new york, i guess hat's where she was, said doesn't work. nd in this particular platform we recognize fundamentally that proposition, and i need you to what or a second and look we have already said as a matter of unity. just consider this, you have in a democratic platform. we support a constitutional overturn the supreme court's decisions in citizen united in buckley versus valeo. great. to end secret account money and politics required through executive order and egislation significantly more disclosure and transparency by

utside groups, contractors, public corporations to their shareholders. voices of amplify the the american people through a small donor matching public system.g pretty strong. overhaul and strengthen the f.e.c. so there's to enforcement and need fight to eliminate super pacs and outside spending abuses. extraordinary statement of election reform. [applause] >> two minutes left. pardon? >> two minutes left. >> the people who have come up efore me have expressed as deeply emotionally as i can and will that we have problems we need to fix. but once again, we have to be in what we propose and whether it will have unintended consequences. there are two propositions that miss the l ma

mark. we just talked in amendment 21 importance -- the importance of protecting first for media, full transparency, full accountability, but also full access. when we say corporations are not eople, and don't have constitutional rights, the media does. they have first amendment rights. proposing in this broad, sweeping language to take away is what this language says. that's what it says. they don't have constitutional rights. that's what it says. i didn't draft it. the proponent did. and in the section that talks limits, you need to think about this and study it this is an incumbency division. incumbents all over the united states in elections everywhere are re not bernie sanders going to start off through name

recognition, through their and will amass many more than $100 ontributions than their opponents could ever, ever amass. there probably are limits. that makes sense. not been studied in connection with this proposal nd they can be studied in connection with the platform proposal -- minute. >> -- that this group together has already proposed as a unity provision of language. i urge you not in a emotional reaction to accept what's in ront of you because you will get it but to vote it down and live with this broad, powerful language that we have in our platform. thank you. [applause] >> time, time is up. >> i would like to devise a question, please. this time is up on question. >> we have two separate issues here. i would live to divide the please., we have two separate issues here.

i would like to divide it after they have none of the constitutional rights of human beings. split it into two so the first the amendment should contain these core values. corporations are not people. of the e none constitution rights of human beings. that would be the first one. and the second one would be corporations are not allowed to give money to any politicians, or indirectly. no politician can raise over 100 from any person or entity and all elections must be publicly financed. chairwoman -- >> just a second. just give us a second.

all right. the question was to divide it. >> correct. vote on whether to divide. >> a point of order. earlier yesterday the same exact motion. it was called out of order that we can't do at this point in the process. >> not divide it. >> when the chairman was presiding. there was -- we didn't divide -- divisible.'t we made a determination it wasn't divisible. you're saying you don't want to you -- we bloofsh you can divide the vote but we would body vote on his whether they want to divide it. >> thank you, madam chair. that was m saying called out of order before and would i like an up-or-down vote

way we have been conducting these proceedings. > i would also like to make a point of order to complicate things even more, i thought that there was some super agreement between the two campaigns that, you know, they agree and here we have a sponsor that doesn't want it. so -- >> we're with you. we have a sponsor. >> ok, we're taking a counted vote on whether we're going to divide this. that's the decision that we've made. where we're as to dividing it, madam chair. >> excuse me? >> where are we dividing it?

the proposal? >> if i can please have an opportunity to speak in opposition to this as well. >> it's not an amendment. united, all the way down to constitutional human beings period. one, second. are not allowed down to publicly financed period. choose hoose -- if you to divide it, you are voting yes. to divide it, ot you're voting now and you have 30 seconds. can we get that up?

if you choose yes, if you choose no.to, 30 seconds. start. 15 seconds. vote is closed. vote is not to divide. on as printed number 112. would m chairwoman, i just like to say since there was a distortion of what i said there, i think everyone in this

the incumbent retention system is and that's the one we have right now. >> you're out of order. we're out of order. we're going to a vote. the pros and cons. ready? we will go by clicker. 30 seconds. ready, let's go. 60 seconds.

10 seconds. vote fails. we move to the next amendment. amendment number 88. amendment number 88 has been withdrawn. amendment number 7 has been withdrawn. amendment number 205 has been withdrawn. no more ir, there are amendments in this section. >> thank you. we are going to a -- we're going to a 15-minute break.

15 minutes. >> coffee, doughnuts, sodas on side. don't wander too far.