sorry about your family, but i don't think this is the answer. >> seeing no additional discussion, all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying "aye." the amendment fails. the next amendment is from the delegate from rhode island. page 13 line 2. the delegate from rhode island to please address the issue. >> thank you, mr. delegate. giovani from rhode island. i do not have a copy of the amendment. . ok -- page 13, line 2 i'll read what i have. and then we'll get it all up on the board. you say on page 13, line 2 after the text public health and

see.y -- let's ine 2. i don't see the word public health and safety online 2. -- on line 2. let's see if we can get that up because this doesn't comport -- the page and line number doesn't comport with the pagiation that i have here. do you have a copy of your amendment? >> i do not. >> as we're working to make sure we have that right number, let's move to brandon smart from america samoa -- >> we're ready to go back to this one. >> in a second. yeah, we will. to brandon smart to america

samoa, page 6, line 5 about faculty lounges as you're working to find -- and then we'll get back to the rhode island because this is -- i'm just trying to figure out -- ok. >> i don't have that in front of e. ok. all right. what people do have in front of them though is what was passed out, which is from the delegate from massachusetts, del yeah carnival who recommend striking on page 10, lines 13 to 39 and inserting an attached page. does everyone have the attached page? yes. all right. so there's no one without it. so could i call on the delegate from massachusetts? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think everyone will see from reading this attached language

very similar concepts in the existing text in the platform just raised a little differently. i do have the support of conservative leaders in congress who work very closely on issues dealing with people with disabilities and so i would urge the support for substituting those existing paragraphs for the new section. delegate from california. >> andy posner from california. could i ask that the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this action chime in on this? because i know we go through the language in the committee draft very thoroughly and this is language that we have not gone very thoroughly. but i would be interested about what they think for the additional language. >> delegate from oklahoma? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. most of this was drafted by our editors and not touched by us

today. and i would like to see if the -- if the person bringing this amendment would give us the gist of what she's changing so we don't have to read it all. >> again, mostly it's just the way things are said. for example, we talk about federal programs that focus on can rather than can'ts. the only substantive change -- and if this does fail i'll offer an amendment to remove some language in the text is to remove the ability one program. my understanding, i'm informed that there are multiple investigations into that program for fraud. do i don't think -- while that's underway, i don't think we should be highlights that in our program. that's the one sub stan tiff change. everything else is more how it's

said. >> yes, the delegate from mississippi. >> yes, i want to speak in favor of this amendment. we are starting able in mississippi this year. we'll be put it before the legislation. this is a tremendous asset for those of you who may be familiar with autism. it allows for the creation of basically an i.r.a. account and that language should be aprooed -- approved by us because there are limitations on medicare, medicaid. but the tremendous cost for people who are -- would be supported by the issue -- these contributions would be made for anybody who are designated to save by age 26 and family members. so it is a way to pass on to family members the ability to help pay for themselves in the future. so i encourage the adoption. >> additional discussion? yes, the delegate from kansas.

i believe able is in both things. what he's saying that it's right, it's in both versions. >> the delegate from virginia. >> i'm trying to find clarification because there are a lot of lines changed. one thing i'm finding in the motion to amend that i'm not finding the original language is about federal contributions and funding. so can the person who made the motion clarify does the existing language that's in the platform currently have anything to say about federal funding? >> i'd be happy to respond to that. no, the existing language does not mention the federal funding. the new language simply points authorizes a. federal contributions about 40% but the obama administration has

underfunded these priorities. we can do better to these false promises. the obama administration has underfunded it and it's a false promise. i would add laettner the section we do make the contrast against with the democrats in terms of the hope that we provide with our programs as opposed to their vision. thank you. >> there's light on in the back row, are you looking to speak on the issue? >> yes, i am. this is brian disher from nebraska. with regard to the irshoes that we go through on this platform, we have the r.n.c. draft some original language that we're discussing today and that language that it is vetted by or nominee and what we should be standing for. and the concern i have is a carte blanche replacement of four full paragraphs because we haven't had a chance to have our

staff look at this and to make sure it unifies with the rest of the documents and quite frankly, i really believe the reasons behind offering this amendment are noble. i don't know that for sure because i don't really know where all this came from. so my preference and my position would be that we reject a wholesale rewrite of a section when we haven't had a chance to do a full vetting of that section and that would be my position. i would encourage the body to reject the entire amendment and instead make small adjustments if so desired by those bringing this motion. >> delegate from indiana. >> thank you, jim bob from indiana. i have an inquire to the maker of the motion. m examining page 10, line 27 and i notice there is two sentences there that do not

appear in your draft, but do appear in the stheaks you are amending. did you intend to delete that -- those two sentences. those are substantive sentences in terms of opposing the nine consensual wall with care and treatment with people for disabilities? did you intend to delete those or would they still be in the document and you would only amend lines 14 through 36? >> yes. the amendment is only lines 14 through 36. >> thank you. >> delegate from minnesota. >> andy again. i don't mean to sound like a broken record but for 10 years in minnesota we worked to streamline or party platform to an actual marketing document, and some of the debates we had are don't drag me into your argument with your legislator

and your congress. and this feels what that is. i would encourage you to say no. >> if i could respond to that -- >> the original author. >> i think the reason for the rewrite of this section is to convey language that republicans can talk more easily about people with disables. and -- disabilities. it's a more friendly language to talk. to the community as well as the stress and that was the intent of the rewrifment i also shared this language with the trump campaign as well as the platform committee staff. so they have had it for at least month if not longer. so it's been out there. invisible. >> seeing no additional discussion, all those in favor with the addition of the new pages which has been dribbed, all those in favor of the

amendment please signify by saying "aye." all those opposed say "no." the motion is defeated. you had the next amendment and it has to do with the specifics line 1.10 >> it said this amendment would delete the reference to the ability one program and those words, i've been informed that there are federal investigations into that program on the basis of fraud. i don't have any confirmation but on the basis of what i've learned unless anybody can vouch for that program, i would urge the sletion of that section. >> any discussion of the deletion or just those words? is there a second. any discussion? seeing none, all those in favor please signify by saying "aye."

opposed "no." [laughter] do that one more time. all those in favor of striking the ability one program line, aye. signify by saying and those not in favor say no. the amendment passes. i think there was a misprint and we're still on page 13 and i think we're online seven, is that your understanding? >> yes. that is correct. >> this is page 13, line seven where after the words "public health and safety" and we're working on putting this up now. you're deleting the words and prepare to deal with the problematic consequence. you're deleting that and you're inserting -- you read what you're inserting as they'll -- and we'll make this bigger so

everyone can read it. to at they would allow it read. and fairly assess the social and economic cost of the failure of drug prohibition and recognize that our states are sending a clear signal a new approach is overdue. >> if we make a little bit bigger. these would be the words online eight right now. i understand that this may be a step for this platform. but, you know, drug abuse is a horror. d as often the case with government unfortunately, sometimes the solution is worse than the problem. e learned 100 yoors years woog -- years working with the

regulation, i think we see it every day the damage that it causes. i'm not suggesting that we need to legalize drugs but what i am suggesting that those who are federalists, we need to give the state some room to figure out how to fix this. right now we heard discussion already on certain components of medical use of the marijuana plant. i believe there are a lot of other tons the other states are looking at. there's no denying that we created a system where you have states that are actively controverting federal law that is not healthy for our judicial systems and our republic. we did with alcohol prohibition. the federal government recognized that it was long overdue for repeal.

i do not suggestion this language to endorse that. but i do believe we need to recognize that the states need to be allowed without threat of federal punishment. the states need be allowed to figure this out. >> and i really do believe -- i was not intending to submit this but the more i thought about the events of the last couple of weeks, the more i felt strongly that we needed to start this conversation. we have created a multibillion dollar under ground economy and a generations of al capone. if you want to respond to the black lives matters protestors if you want to respond to the families of the police officers d to the family of alton sterling and fi lando castille, we can't do that. you can't answer these questions without explaining how we demean and weaken law enforcement by

forcing them to enforce unworkable laws and forcing them to have it on a federal, state level. it weakness our system and it leads to 84 people being shot in chicago over the course of a weekend. this is a problem i don't offer a solution but i do believe this party is ideally suited as the republican party to embrace those laboratories of democracy in the theme we can do better. >> discussion? yes. senator from north carolina. >> yes, ron raven, i'm strongly aposed to this amendment and i would ask if the states are allowed to do it, that means myself and north carolina could be surroundly southerned by folks wrfment the use of drugs is legal and they would come in what we're and

saying is if we can't enforce the law, we just forget about the law or we're tired of fighting the drug warsed so we're not going to fight. that's the wrong answer to the problem. >> delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. you know, my understanding is that we are the party of the 10th amendment which states that if a power is not delegated expressly to the federal government that it rests with the states and the people. back in the early 20th century , it was known that the federal government had no authority to prohibit oklahoma. what do they do. they pass the constitutional amendment. >> they recognize they needed to change the discussion but when it came to these other issues, hat approach hasn't taken. just like so many other laws we get under the burden of -- all

right. every -- so this -- this amendment is -- i think a very moderate amendment. any ot prescriptive in way. all it said is look at the 10th amendment principal. it's going to be the state where is the solutions from. the federal government has failed time and again over the -- over the last several decades to come up with any real solutions to the problems we're facing. >> the courage of dugs -- and this is the policies that the federal government has put into place. so i strongly support this amendment and i happy to we don't it. >> delegate from colorado. i'm sorry, california. >> i would strongly oppose this nd i would recommend that we

read about the opium words in china and in the 19th century. what that did for the pa brick of the country because it is with that kind of -- if anything we need it stronger. the only way we could eradicate like and they have places sing poor. and it is to be telling our young and allowing young people to become more and more believing that it's ok for them to do drugs which i guess it leads to a major heal issue. and just to mention the -- what happened during ohm yum words. it's an example to us if if we don't take action. the opposite of what she is proposing. >> mr. chairman, what i particularly like about this approach is that it's asking for

means testing if i read it correctly. and we as conserve fives and republicans are constantly -- and conservatives and republicans are asking for liberal programs to be means tested. i don't know why we wouldn't have applied before this situation. i would urge you to prove them. >> i am definitely post this. and i would appreciate that from my leagues? >> let's be honest about this. this is legalizing drugs. it's a state by state it sounds very attractive to us. but i'm from minnesota. we can't have any of the fun fireworks. right across the border they have the good stuff. guess what happened to minnesota? we have the good fireworks. so this is where this is a federal issue and i think the slow rolling back of basically -- means we're going to have the

same type of illegal activity that's used drugs. instead of the u.s. boreder. .> delegate from illinois stephanie holder sales. chicago is the murder capital of the world, anymore. nd so i would have to accept this addition. i feel like sometimes in fear of what we might find, sometimes avoid these issues or how they might be interested it. we need to be as republicans be able to boldly question any policy that we have. and any stands that we have. and there's been other bag passenger added to this by both the author and discussion. but the actual amendment discuss this just to fairly assess it. >> the delegate from north

carolina. i call the question. >> the question has been no debate and all those in favorite of moving immediately. please signify by saying "aye," opposed aye. please si any fy by saying aye. oppose, nai. the motion is defeated. . next the amendment on page 6, ine 5. >> i don't have that in front of me. mine it until it's -- ill be after the lounge.

page 6, line 5. you said not a faculty lounge then you had inseard new sentence which sizz edge indication nal institutions to do have the able or means to properly investigate sexual assault. are those your words? >> correct. and this comes after college athletics example baylor, not only was that an athlete debacle. one of the players that were

there. block to the office because they did not want the situation to go out in the media so they released him from his scholarship also. there's no reason why any educational institution from the president to the football coach to anybody should be investigating any of this. >> what's on the screen is not the part we're talk about. . 's the addition of that line end of page 6 line 57. yeah, we just want to blow up with everything that you have in the gray area. and then that line that you're just highlights there. girls in additional america samoa. the they do not have means that

properly investigate sexual assault. that's an accurate reflection of what you're proposing. >> it has been moved and seconded. the delegate from north carolina. >> mr. chairman. the property should be properly. >> this is the second time, thank you. we're going to put her in front of all that money. discussion nal discussion. yes, sir, the girl from massachusetts. i'm also going to offer an amendment following on this section. i spend quite a bit of time with members of congress, senators, ayotte and others of sexual assault. the legislation that's being considered and proposed by senate.ans in the some faulks that i need to

understand, probably about 3% of the ople commit 90% of sexual encountering. this can only save the girls. they would recognize that a college career would be only last one year, two year. but the ability to move those cases through the criminal ourts is not feasible. it's also a standard of beyond a rnl doubt which is more than necessary for an educational institutions which has contractions wall rights with tudents. so the idea of taking that right away from him. we commend their earths. e commend the good faith educations not being able to dards these crimes.

in a responsible way and then to turn around and the next sentence is, i'm calling this addition and the guy to be able to do that is raw. it's allegation because this being in a marketing long. for the idea that we're going put in ways for the sexual spreadors. they continue to stay on campus. is a -- is a really bad idea particularly whether you believe the polls right now. and it's also not something i would be supported by many of our leading -- people running for re-election. i not only oppose this. i'm going to be making your amendment to strike lines 4-7. incombluding this people as well. your amount -- the delegate from

california. > know well-from california. for more experience in california, date wramp is very, very rampant. it's not only on nrc but it's also amongst people know each other. friends. there's a recently caught hem. it happened to be the three girls saw. the boy put the drug into the gerl's drink and reported it him to the waiters. and he was arrested. -- because -- i think we need language that we strongly condemn as a party. date rape. and -- and when you speak to the balls you find out that the dinner are always like the victims. they're treated like -- they blame themselves somehow.

also threw up on rape counseling. and so the more the weak we with sure. about young women in their aste. >> delegate from florida. >> the recent title nine cases that have come it and indicates. it's a problem covering up for athlete. obviously the yufertse especially when you're talk about a statement, university. >> i didn't mean to defer you. places get an attitude. >> i said not in the individual. or whatever. they need be enforcing the laws just like they enforce their law. the problem with title nine as it's brought up here is that the women don't get a farpe shake. we need to take some parts parts

of this platform and fut forward a new idea of. and that's been enough the problems that we could take a stance on this. thank you. >> yes, there's a disconnect etween commanding the good faith effort and the amendment of the motion in the 15th of may. there should not have a prab. of course, say hi. a conflict of drest because of wantsing to create a space campus and not allow these greats and assaults to actively be documented. and st was a he's apete, it doesn't mean that you're tside of the jurisdiction of goift. nd don't see there's any reason to allow them a way of escape

rom the regular -- law enforcement nan any'res would be shot. >> i think there's some confusion about either or. this is not an either orr. yrks yes, of course, prosecute these things, people have committed sexual assault in rape. these are horrific plans could be lex tri cuted. that has a high standard of reasonable. ok. he was only convicted on a lower standards. so the universities and the colleges while they have not done extremely good jobs historically. you know >> they are moving mrd of a wrestling. you should pout them to do the right thing. and the are not.

doesn't make years when a american only hat three or four yeemplets they can tact fact oy. and i've talked with the major title line officers. they know. 3%, they commit 90 prts. 'em powiers. the way things are. so it's not changing ways. it's -- and expel, three 58. their take different kind of actions that deent -- to puts people in jail. but jew have to protect the two omen on their come basses. too. . . other delegate

i think i'll say two words that will put this into perspective. duke lacrosse. if they're so rell equippeded. why did they have to be such high visibility. the people are not well equipped and they do have a conflict of interest. i think it has to go to the courts. no matter what it takes. judd udy, sheast didn't is the question. > all those in favorite. surgesemmed second. please signify by all everything. "aye." no. >> now it's the american by. as stated on the screen. all those in favor please say aye.

and his moment six line 4. >> yes. if you have it up there, i'm strike the pose zornte when ever reported it must be probably prosecuted. not a -- and then continues questions of guilt and innocence. with gilts determined ona reasonable doubt. i would strike that and insfead, insert the legal an con frag chule right. who will including a dressing, the problem of sexual assault. colleges should be encouraged.

so as i said earlier, i think it's not either or. ol should be done. there's clear evident that one is a perp trayors. and i will remind ourselves again that this is simply leaving things the way they are and is not trying to come out opposed to actions that would protect women on campuses. so i would strongly recommend that we strike the language and replace wit this new language. >> the screen reflects everything that you said? it crosses out the things that you want crossed out in it. and it has the new language that you've recommended. . >> the delegate from iowa? tamara tam ax ra -- scott. you're saying that college could

decide whether or not, you know, we have headlines full of women who have been wraped who have feared for years to come forward and tell the truth about independent. because they don't want to go. there. there's definitely a conflict of interest in school. a theme makes him great. we have headlines, a woman 16 years old back. when they tried and the race was processed, it was hidden even through a system judicial system. the victims are up. most colleges do not allow their security forces to carry weapons. >> if they don't trust them.

in an emergency situation, why do we think that they can proclaim and define and investigate the case on their own as well. i think that the court -- i don't think colleges should get to decide whether or not or how something turned over. a crime is a crifmente -- crime. >> delegate from minnesota. >> i thank you the very first lawyer, the work behavior that's a nice thing. >> and putting assault in quotations, pile it it up. oim a man. that offense me. we're saying assault with air quotes. that we're not taking sexual assaults and these type of things. we cannot put this on the flat. they were not part of mine. you can take those off. because the handwritten part actually is -- there's a

quotation mark put in here. to zpwo in. land, we should require it. >> i would accept that second part to my amendment that college universities should use the courts to prosecute these crimes. maybe if you're suggesting is that the first part instead of saying respect also could say require them. because if they weren't doing them, the legislation that is moving through the house and senate. >> and they're probably under current law. i'm so -- if those friendly amendments i would accept them. >> so there's a second degree of amendment. that's makes. and respect has changed that to

require. i would not want mine considers friendly. >> he would accept is that it changed respect to require in that location as well as at the end where a group changes the words encourage is that a correct reflection from the two? that has been accepted? >> i believe that's correct if we could read the first sentence. did i read correctically? >> we require the league and contractual rights of colleges and universities to have rights an behavior of their campusing. the problem with sexual assault. that's how it would need. to >> we require -- we require colleges and universities to use their legal and con tradge wall right.

conduct. so we need to relocate those words. i'm going to go back to the amendment on the floor. >> i am not trying to fix this. i opposed this from the beginning. i will be voting no on this. ok. already rt. as now stayed. he dely from kansas. delegate from kansas. now we've got two sentences that are somewhat contradictory. i have a contractions right right be we want you to use the court. for it's legally problematic. the prosecutors, d.a. uses the court. i think it's problematic with a lot of reasons. >> the amendment on the floor is

the amendment as originally tied because the gentleman did not offer a simple lokeses. so we're doing it floor. which is in the end it is encurged. >> the delegate from hawaii. >> as a former prosecutor. appear ose pose. . a crime is a crime. and if there was a rape or sexual assault it needs to be immediately reported and. that was the problem. their moved one guy to the next guy. if it wasn't reported -- that there needs be a reporter. and property cuse it. what the college are doing, who know one thing or another. this is what a's happening at the colleges -- > delegate from texas? >> david barton. just to remind us about the

30,000-foot view. everyone else. please powers and education. we would normally hold that these were not federally touched issues and the fact that we used were required with issues that are noter numb rate. delegate from ohio ohio? >> yes, dave johnson from ohio. with all due respect we are getting so far astray from the fundamental principles and the guiding. ly be opposed -- how do you explain this? we all want to prosecute criminals. doesn't belong here. delegate from wr. concerned of others. its doesn't salvage this amendment. the first sentence maked it sound that sexual assault.

i think the original language is -- much better. those in favor say "aye." opsed "nay. >> the amendment is defeat. next we have an temperature from the state of colorado on page 1, and 2, and 3, and 4. should we sever all three amendments? >> probably simpler for the purposes of turning the pages and understanding what's up first. >> so the first one is page one, line 27. work with children in a two-parent household.

that's been a fee. and i think from this committee as well. we want to have some sort of the specificity as to what council we're endorsing now. >> we are insurting one word on case -- and it's been moved and second. so that the word at the end of that line 27 after two-parent, ou would insert the world that additional is that correct. in a traditional two >> parent household? >> yes. >> delegate from new york. >> thank you mr. chairman. andy dickerson here. on this another poke in the yea. . she said that it's a traditional

parent household is without and the club had an oshenally. last night could he used drugs. omar of language. and current -- horrible research because but that was. freedom was love low in this case. the research has been again. >> this he has to claim and are you continuing to suggestion at a gate married couple who would get married. . help. recent children of a gay couple. be criminals and -- i moan, this

is so provocative. and i. and i will not support it. that's i'm telling you sbu now i want to continue to do what i mean. >> if you want a party like this. then we'll not find contraption. some propeling dave's. i mean, honestly a day and. so i >> i hope i'm sup pord. >> delegate from kansas. >> again, and again in a committee. she's wrong about the research. and this was, you know, talked about at length and the committee inside it. >> delegate was in the committee. >> yes, i liked this dude different. people who we've been lied to by many, many people. but this is the right friends.

lol. not to surprise and call an amendment right now. was not decide to end traditional two-parent in this list. again, this is just nugging it n, slap of the face and love who happened to be hug who happened to be gay. >> the other dahl gat was important. >> this is intended. whenever every r ever you get a phone call. it's positive tism it's why they have poor education because you're poor. and i would say, no it's because in single parent homes. the everyday did not say they're better. . still refueling that. i says pop this. and the gay community it's real

broken. t has always worked for munya. >> a discussion from nevada. >> you long nevada. i'm going to speak in favor of any parent who wants to raise a child. you want to provide a loving foundation for children. and so i actually do speak against that. discussion nal discussion. . rachel hoff. thank you. in addition to the portss that have been made, and simply not being there to support this claim that's a sflap the face. and i would encourage you to look at this. from the eyes of a child who was raised out by a same sex couple. you would. yeah, i just have a question

because i do understand and i've seen a lot of the research about single parent and a two-parent household. but i haven't seen any of of the same sex two parent house old. that the -- the fact that hey're both mail or different. and that growing up with a, i would not see any indians. if it is by the -- he hadn't got up. >> starting by last. >> traditional two-parent. in terms of the social science research, the longitudinal studies for individuals such as judeish waller and others who have looked at the determine effects upon children. the evidence is overwhelming.

the child does better in every social category. there is no strong to compare. and quite frankly in this country. where it has existed the numbers do not bear out that claim. so there was. there are there is volumes -- volumes of social science that points to the fact that children do better when they're in a home with a mother. mother and father. a deli to nebraska. >> hi. do you have any prim? not only do i think that this is an insult of the gay. i think it's important. i was a single parent raised two kids. citizens excellent

and might find it offensive that just because i was a single parent and my kids -- and not with two parents that they are more likely to use drugs. they never used drugs. they don't abuse alcohol. they never engage in crimes. and so i think this is -- snage certainly cannot support. >> delegate from indianaiana. >> you think. >> thank you jim back from year-old. the republican party has supported traditional marriage nd family since 19667. woe would have the reofficial. and don't and slavery plig my was viewed as an attack on tradition marriage. throughout our history, we have supported and defended the idea that the best outcome both for

society for the members of the family. and particularly for details from children. .nd it was created by this does not have anything to do. perplexed the idea of same sex marriage which is now legal in our country. may involved 1.52 hrs. ahead of sexual assault. some of those want to get married. but i think the focus should be not on them which some people steam be obsessed with. was on the 40% of girls and women that are having children now, not having formed ay effectnot direct and the

of that on mother on the children and on the sotes. there's no question as this says that a better yot council membering to occur in a two-parent man and woman family raising children. that is a scientifically established gap. that we have public poll stacey: encourage the best tonight. >> >> no ona action bowl. when you do not form that family. we cannot clothes our eyes to the effect of having children out of wed like. on those smores. simply cannot live themselves.

when we're talking about a began right. before she's been called as -- there a second? which calls for a vote immediately. all those in favorite siing a. opposed. his is on page 1, line 27. all those innying. oppose nape. should it i -- and here page 3, line 11. >> i ulled i want to strikes the national pering if low. . i don't think we should naree when it comes to the fight. sool choice should be available

to all hispanics. no matter if you. >> any qugs? please signify by saying aiye. and opposed may. . is is lying 11 o and her. you would i do not want to regulate private schools because we're opening it up from the underneath the thent there. >> we done want to regulate private schools but schools are. to have clarification. is there a second? >> the amendment is on the screen. you see where the word "public is inserted." discussion, delegate from rhode island. >> it's an error. and he held to the highest

standards. >> corrections have been made. > yes. this is weird. >> i don't like -- i'm going oppose having that put in the. . . i want background checks on anyone working with their children. . and so i'm not going support -- because i don't think we should consider that. nd her ex-husband made it. -- because i always put him on the line. >> the word public separates folks up. i don't want to protect all men from tretors.

>> >> ladona rigs. south carolina. . most churches and more schools in order to even work with young people today did have to pate the. the question has been called all those in favorite of winning? >> can you may. and entity you cannot speak. the delegate from texas. david barn nexts. zwaw have their. and if we're going to. we're conducting now you're in the home school. now we're playing that's the object ev that we're uffs. . what d all like to to

move wow would want to have. >> and come ball. and ca we smoth two delivers and 10 to force an organization that takes no tax play we are money . just because commonly double. it does not mean that we should get the information. means. that their uncle pal. and background check. they use to spend their own mother. then that -- we've lened it to. . so i like support the language. >> that would be great if you get the risk. i've never been on there committee before. had been hearing levated to copping or my

favorite legislature. . thought what we were doing a eaten.s happens if we're all of a sunday sunday they will, we'll see how i get there. >> and we're going in a new direction. > delegate from louisiana. >> many of our private schools have received state and federal funding because they're accepting vouchers and the school program. therefore if you're going to pass this particular amendment, you have to recognize that we've already said we're for school choice.

louisiana is an experiment in that you have to exclude private schools because they'll be receiving money. >> i would like to call a question. >> a question's been called. takes 2/3 all those in favor voting immediately signify by aye. we will vote immediately. page 4.part 3, all those in favor, say aye. the amendment fails. it's about 6:30. we are planning to continue and finish this point of the platform this evening. we will not go to the economic plank, we will wait for the morning, but we will take a 10 minute break. people have been coming in and out. we want to get everyone to have a chance for refreshing. >> and again, we all your amendments for this section

tonight, because we will have them copied and punched in for easier process. please submit your amendments now. we have to close it out, thank you. >> ok. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> as you are taking your seats, we are getting ready to resume. the first amendment that we will be considering is from philip wilson, the delegate from the state of washington. ask delegate wilson to be ready to present.

asee the microphone is on people are getting to their seats. , line 5.ne page 2 the delegate from washington state. >> actually, i'd like to insert it to between8 and 9, a . new paragraph. ahead. now that everyone is here, we have about nine more amendments to go, i appreciate your patience and your willingness to work into the evening. nine to go before we adjourn. we have on the screen the amendment from philip wilson of washington state, from page two of health education and crime link, please proceed. >> ok. children have a

natural right to be raised in an intact biological family. acknowledge that children are made to be loved by both natural parents united in marriage. legal structures such as no-fault divorce, which divide and empowers the state should be replaced by a fall-based divorce." would you like me to speak -- >> please do. >> a lot of our focus in this marriage issue has been on the adults, and very little has gone to children. although some of it is addressed in other areas. a child is not going to go into court with their parents

are taken away from them at five years old. they're not going to be found in court saying my dad has been taken away and i have a right to my father, or that sort of thing. the structure that we put in place here for the state are really important to protect children. the adults will be able to take care of themselves in ways the children will not be able to do. the legal structures we have should be those that encourage families to stay together, rather than the state coming in on the side of splitting of families, because that is what happens in no-fault divorce. the state comes in on the side of the party that is least committed to split it up, and what happens as a result of that is that the state gross figure, because now you have all those other people to take care of. a philosopher from a hundred years ago said, "frivolous divorce will lead to frivolous marriage." that is where we are at today. i'd like to submit the amendment. >> the amendment is on the

floor. the delegate from kentucky. >> thank you. i would like to speak on this quickly. this amendment is nothing new. it was proposed during the subcommittee level of this process and failed because it never even received a second. the subcommittee felt there were a few problems with it. i'll raise one as a for instance. it talks about an intact biological family. this does not account for the vast number of adopted children that are in our families all across the country. so because of that, in the interest of time, that since it never received a second and committee, we might want to just move on from this. >> and the chair needs to apologize for not asking for a second.

is there a second? it is moved and seconded. from new york? i'm sorry, from ohio. i'm very pro-marriage, but i don't think this is for the platform. right now, people aren't getting married. 72% of african-american children are raised by single family and thed never remarry, number is growing. we believe in traditional marriage. we don't want people to have divorce, but in the times we are living in, it is what it is. this should not be a part of our platform. we need to get to the nuts and bolts of this platform, so we can advance our party, because we have a lot of work to do. this is not something we can legislate today. it's not legislative; it doesn't look that way.

you can't tell people who to live with, who not to live with. we just want people to take care of the children that they have. i'd ask that we please not get into this type of conversation and move this along so we can get to it, so we can fill out the party and move forward for a victory in november. >> [applause] >> from south carolina. the question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately, signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. all those in favor signify by aye. the amendment is defeated. the next amendment is from the delegate from new york. >> thank you. welcome back to the 21st century, we are glad to be here.

so let's put up -- ok. my -- theet to historic language, i just want us to keep in mind addition versus attraction to start off. we really need to track more people to the republican party and not cause people to sleep in large number. millennials who by and large support nondiscrimination and even marriage equality, this is only going in one direction. we are all for adoption. families line says formed by adoption strengthen our communities. so far, so good. i have two adopted boys; they are fantastic. my eldest boy was adopted on the same day that a gay couple

adopted a little girl. she's now a young woman and she is strong, healthy, and was raised in a very stable and loving family, which is the hope and dream of every american. so far, so good. bravo, yes. then we get into this -- we support measures -- i'm advocating that we strike this language -- we support measures to ensure that they do not face government discrimination of their views on marriage and family. while we have got here -- first of all, i agree that religious freedom for private organizations, absolutely, amen to all. however, we need to distinguish and thoseivate orgs

that receive public, tax funded dollars, right? this language is not just asking for religious freedom. it's asking for taxpayer-funded organizations to turn away people. to turn away gay couples. when itis not freedom abridges the rights of others. we are a party that was billed on freedom. we are built on a free society. let's not lose that. it seems like it has gone out the window today. now, this was tried specifically in mississippi recently, and it was struck down by the central court. so i moved to strike this because it is both not constitutionally upheld, and it is blatant discrimination on our loved ones, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, neighbors,

coworkers, and some delegates anin this room and everywhere in america that we know and love and that we do not wish to discriminate against for the very fact that they are gay. and again, this does not pass the smell test o. this is blatant discrimination and blatant subtraction. thank you. >> discussion on the amendment on the floor. is there a second? the motion has been made and seconded. delegate from virginia. >> thank you. i really don't appreciate the lady from new york implying that the rest of us are bigots because we don't agree with her view. >> [applause] >> it is certainly not helping wants to, and if she employ anyone is a begich should talk to them personally -- >> do not use that language; i reject that language. >> i have before. -- the floor.

this amendment does what it says -- it prevents discrimination against those who believe in natural marriage. thisominees have endorsed act. i think it is something we are in agreement on. i think most people here support this. >> the delegate from maine. >> just a point of information. adoptions received taxpayer money? that was the point that was made. >> no. >> delegate from south carolina. the question has been called and seconded. no discussion -- all those in favor of voting, say aye. the vote will be immediately. all those in favor of the amendment, clay signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is defeated. the next amendment -- we have two from rachel hoff, from

district of columbia. oneone i have first is the that is striking parts from page one and two. page 1, line 17. then the top of line 2, and replacing with language that will appear on the screen. >> testing the ayes. this first, three paragraph section on marriage, family, the three that deal primarily with marriage. if i might read the language that i am proposing instead. i don't have a copy myself -- >> it is now on the screen. we want to make sure it's what you wanted. >> i will read it and let you know. --believe that marriage is both as aage matters,

religious institution and is a fundamental personal freedom. because marriage, rooted in love and lifelong commitment, is one of the foundations of civil society, is marriage thrives, so thrives nthe nation. ofbelieve the health marriage nationwide directly affects the social and economic well-being of individuals and families and that undermining families leads to more government cost and more government control over the lives of it citizens, therefore we believe in encouraging the strength and stability of all families. we recognize that there are diverse and sincerely held views on marriage within the party, and that support for allowing same-sex couples the freedom to marry has grown substantially in our own party. given this journey that so many americans, including republicans, are on, we encourage and welcome a thoughtful conversation among

republicans about the meaning and the importance of marriage and commitment are party to respect for all families and fairness and freedom for all americans. i'm honored to be here with you as theand to be serving first openly gay member of the republican platform committee. >> [applause] >> thank you. this amendment that i propose today is simple. it'd knowledge the diversity of opinion within our party on the issue of marriage. i'm not here asking you today to endorse my own constitutional right, which has been made clear by recent supreme court decisions. i'm only asking you to recognize many ofy republicans, the republicans that sent us here to do work this week in shaping our party platform, agree with me. and we should not be excluded from our party. as a committee member under the

age of 40, i represent the majority of millennial republicans who support the freedom to marry. i'm also proud to be joined by 64% of young evangelical republicans who support allowing same-sex couples to marry. future,arty wants the we should be mindful of these statistics, and we must evolve. thing: thee on one importance of the institution of marriage to our society. gay and lesbian americans like me are simply asking to join the institution, to share in the institution, and to strengthen the institution. we are your daughters, we are your sons, your friends, your laborers, your colleagues, the couple that sits next to you in church. and one day when i am ready to marry the woman i love, i hope it will be me. freedom means freedom for

everyone, including gays and lesbians who should have the freedom to enter into relationships and receive the same protections as heterosexual couples. in high school, i chose to be a republican. my parents are not republican, so i wasn't born this way. [laughter] i chose to be a republican because i believe in the same principles that you do. freedom, individual liberty, an limited governmentd. stillre, 15 years later, in this great party, despite the hurtful rhetoric and stands on these issues. today is that you included me and those like me and not exclude us by simply acknowledging that fossil republicans represent multiple views on the definition of marriage. thank you. >> [applause] >> is there a second?

the delegate from oklahoma. >> thank you. the sincerity of the maker of this motion, however this issue was thoroughly discussed at our subcommittee, and the majority opinion and position is in the current language that was presented here. >> the delegate from virginia. >> thank you. i call the question. >> the question has been called. is there a second? all those in favor of voting immediately, signify by saying aye. proposed? i believe that's 2/3. all those in favor of the motion, please signify -- >> by call for a show of hands. yes.

all those in favor of the motion foplease raise your hand to signify aye. -- let me go back. on the vote? ok. this is on the final vote on the adoption or rejection. all those in favor, please raise your hand. thank you. all opposed? defeated,ent was thank you. amendment ater this point, from the same egate, referring to pages 5 and 6.

>> can you please scroll through? it begins with deleting on page 5, lines 30 to 37. then the first two lines of page 6. so on line 30, after the word "denied to them," it deletes the same provision of law, all the way down to the end of that page. and all the way down to the 6.st two lines of page >> what is shown on the screen is deleting further than the first two lines. >> already.

-- all right. let's make sure we have that right. this should end with "gender." i want to make sure we have it correct. so it deletes -- i want to make sure we have accurately pretrade on the screen. so we strike starting at "that

same provision of the law is not being used by bureaucrats." through the rest of that page. pagethe first two lines on 6 to the word "gender." that is what -- >> i didn't submit this amendment, mr. chairman. think perhaps it's a delegate from rhode island. it says rachel on it. we can withdraw the amendment, if it's not yours. we won't -- >> i will withdraw the amendment. >> i will be happy to share the paper i have. the next amendment is from connecticut, the delegate from connecticut. >> mr. chairman, a quick

amendment. requires no conversation. >> [laughter] >> page 5. line 37. beginning with "we support and" -- and onto page 6, the first two lines. is a duplication. it's the same information about privacy and locker rooms, et c etera, that has already been stated in the sentence before on page 5. >> we have a motion -- yes, ok. seconded.ade and would you like to discuss it any further? an it hasd been seconded.

delegate from louisiana. >> mr. chairman, i second. it is duplicative. are inmitteee i agreement. i support the motion. >> the delegate from vermont. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we thank the delegate from connecticut and tony perkins for offering this. >> someone else would need to call the question -- i think the delegate from west virginia's hand was up as well. >> i'd like to cover question. >> the question has been called. and seconded. all those in favor of voting immediately, signal. we're voting immediately on the motion from the gentlelady from connecticut. all those in favor, aye. it is adopted. next, we have an amendment from

the delegate from florida. page 5, line 35. i ask the delegate to address the amendment. >> thank you. please take a look at page 5, line 30-33. i propose adding a period after categories and the leading beyond a person's biological sex at birth." the purpose of this amendment is to follow the general principle of keeping language general rather than alienating one specific person. i urge everyone to support this. >> discussion? seconded? ok. additional discussion? >> mr. chairman, i call the question. >> all those in favor of voting immediately, please say aye. the motion is now on the amendment. all those in favor signify.

the motion is approved. maine. have eric from an amendment for page 13, lines 3 and 4. i think we have on the screen exactly what you have, but i would like you to go over your amendment. >> thank you. this amendment would strike out tes thatuage which sta wouldvirtually legal and replace it with many states wrestling with questions of legality or illegality of cannabis for both medical and adult use, as is the right of states under the 10th amendment. >> it has been moved and seconded. additional discussion? the delegate from california. i believe that language needs

to be left in, that says it is reminding people that it's illegal under federal law. >> additional discussion before going back to the original author? the delegate from maine. >> i'd say that the language is, in that federal law this case, precedent over state law, and that is a misleading of the supremacy clause. the supremacy clause states that federal law is supreme when the law is constitutional, and i would challenge anyone in this room today to look under article 1, section eight of the constitution and find a place where the federal government was granted authority to prohibit and decide the legal status of marijuana. if anyone can find an enumerated, i will withdraw the amendment. but other then that, i would suggest that this is a state issue. this language is not prescriptive.

it clarifies that states can decide the legality or illegality. if states want to have harsher penalties and harsher laws in place that with the federal government has, that is their right. this just clarifies that we recognize, we the party of the recognize that the 10th amendment applies in this issue, not just those where it is convenient to us. >> from minnesota. >> let's be clear, we are asking to support marijuana legalization, which is a divisive issue. >> from south carolina. the question has been called. is there a second? all those in favor of voting immediately, signify. we will vote immediately. all those in favor, please say aye. opposed? the amendment was defeated. the next amendment is from the

delegate from louisiana. page 8. people are turning the pages. line 23. after the text "health care professionals." we respect the rights conscious of health care professionals. and there is an addition. we add doctors, nurses,. and pharmacists. in keeping with legislation that will be voted in the house. it simply states that they have their conscience protected under the law . is there a second? all those in favor, please signify. this is adopted.

that is the final amendment of this, the second plank of the republican platform. >> [applause] >> i'd like to call on carolyn from oklahoma to make any final comments or to ask for an adoption. >> yes. i make a motion to adopt the reform of the subcommittee on great american families, education, health care, and criminal justice, as amended. >> all those in favor, signify by saying aye. the second plank is adopted. before you get up to leave, we will be handing out -- and the staff is ready to come through -- to hand out the final three planks that you approved today in the subcommittee. we've completed two. the one on the economy you got earlier. the deadline for linens is going to be 7:30 tomorrow morning. you have time to work on this. we want to make sure that we get

those in so we can get them typed, and you have all the amendments in your hands. we are going to continue to provide them to you on screen, which is i think very helpful to understand exactly what is going on as to try to shuffle through the papers. ok. we're also going to have a benediction in a few seconds. a couple extra comments from ben. then where going to have a benediction to close the evening. >> andrew grinberg will walk you through the timing. we have economy and jobs closed. >> we will begin tomorrow morning taking up the economy and jobs sections first. the filing deadline was closed previously. we have all of those movements and will have them ready tomorrow morning. immediately after the benediction, we will have the new draft of the three remaining subcommittees brought in.

you can change out the old language and we will again have a 7:30 filing amendment deadline for tomorrow morning for those three remaining sections so we can have those presented to you in hard copy. if there are any questions, we can follow up afterwards. there are amendment filing forms by the basket. and immediately after the benediction, you will receive language. >> is chairman -- mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> you were accepting today amendments for the first 45 minutes when the sections open. i assume you will be permitting that tomorrow, as we open each section, you will permit amendments for the first 45 minutes. >> those were only available -- those for new sections that had just been done by the committee today. that is why we extended those

filing deadlines, because that was brand-new language that those subcommittees have just reported out. it was literally only a couple hours available. now you will have the three full subcommittee reports and be able to have that language all evening and tomorrow morning so those amendments can be filed tomorrow morning. 20. tillairman, it is 8:00 we are being given, what, three sections that are all new, two new to me, that we are going to be expected to read and prepare amendments before 7:30 a.m.? that is unreasonable. >> the delegate from maryland. is this the same -- >> just echoing his statement. >> the delegate for michigan.

.et's --all right go right ahead. tomr. chairman, i apologize to part from the conversation at hand, but i wonder if my colleagues in the committee, as they lay their heads down tonight, we have yet another couple of folks in the law enforcement community that lost their lives again today. within the last few hours. two bailiffs, both retired police officers, in the courthouse in southwest michigan, my home state, lost their lives and the shooter lost his life as well. as well as a deputy sheriff, shot and injured today. there is more information coming, up please keep those folks in your prayers. thank you. >> let's spend a moment of

silence and reflect on the loss these communities have suffered today. >> thank you. we absolutely want to be reflective of what the committee needs. i think it's reasonable to say 7:30's early, but you can see the needs of everyone who'd like to have written copies of the amendments. i think we can set a time for tomorrow, naked at 8:00, 8:30, as far as 9:00, but we will be going through four sections tomorrow. to make a deadline well into the afternoon, when people have had these copies for almost 22 nors, is not reasonable something that the staff can handle. it can go to age: 30 if you think that would be more reasonable, to push back that deadline from 7:30 to 8:30,

9:00, it's just a matter of making sure you have in your hands, and the staff is able to have in front of us on the screens, what the amendments are. that is the best way to give people who are going to have to vote on the amendments a knowledge. if we can find a common ground in the middle, if i could call on the delegate from rhode island. the firsto be clear, review that we will do of the plank on the economy jobs -- the amendments have been provided to staff. i wouldn't want to see the delays on at peace, if we have a later start. >> yes. it's these other three that staff is ready to hand out now. so we will be doing that one well we could be bringing -- please. is that we doking the same thing tomorrow that we

did today. that is, once you open a section, whatever you have is notearly submission, i'm talking about that. some people will be able to meet at. at least partially meets that. what i am talking about is the 45 minutes, once you open a section, that we have 45 minutes to do additional amendments. i have not seen an amendment except for this one in front of me. what i have seen is on the screen, that can be done by the staff. in the past, past committee meetings, we got paper amendments and we were submitting them during the session and people were copying them into stripping them. i am fine with what you are doing now, putting them on the screen. that is a much less irksome task for the staff, to type in an

amendment. if you could give us 45 minutes at the beginning of the session to submit additional amendments, i am going to have to kill myself. trying to deal with sections that i have not read, and i am exhausted right now, to deal with, that i can deal with them -- that is not unreasonable. >> i think it's also not unreasonable to say you will be given 25 to 30 pages to read tonight or tomorrow morning, and to have amendments done by a finite time tomorrow morning, but to say that if we aren't going to start the final section until 3:00 or 4:00 tomorrow afternoon, that it would be a 4:45 -- there will be adequate time. it would be my recommendation that we set a firm time of 9:00 a.m., which are give people

plenty of time to read the number of pages, come up with amendments, then get them distributed to every member of the committee. if there is no forceful objection to that, that is my plan and recommendation as chairman. the delegate from arkansas. >> if we are starting at 9:00 with all the amendments, i would say that i like having all the amendments first thing in the morning. i don't like having 45 seconds to review something, which is what happens is we are reading on the screen. thank you for being reasonable and accommodating all of us. >> thank you. the delegate from north carolina. >> yes, thank you. of the national defense and security subcommittee, the comment just some kind of

terrorism -- i won't get into it -- there is nothing strong enough in our document that i have seen come through the whole weng just now that i think have to go ahead on and put something in here about how this party intends to deal with terrorism across the board, in a .oncise, one part section i am available to work with staff or anyone else to try to get an insert for this document, if everyone agrees. i move that we do something to get something in there that focuses on terrorism and how we are going to deal with it as a party and as a nation. >> [applause] >> the delegate from virginia. atjust briefly, the deadline 9:00 -- are we convening at 9:00 or a different time? we are going to convene at 8:00. ok, thank you.

>> and the deadline for amendment is passed. if there are no other questions -- the delegate from north carolina? >> maybe i was unclear. i made a motion that we do that and someone join me in writing the documents and we insert it someplace in this document to let the people of this country know that we are absolutely down on getting rid of this terrorism threat that we face in all its forms. i don't know who the staffers are that would work with me but i'm willing to do it through the night to get it done and get something out there for us to consider. it's not done well right now. >> as the chairman of that subcommittee, i would welcome anyone who wants to join one of the chairs of that subcommittee to work tonight, to look at what your subcommittee has passed and find additional language to offer as the first amendment tomorrow on that plank. thecan look at that and

chair will call on you when we open up that part of the hearing tomorrow. >> senator, we can offer stats that work on the committee. or do you want to put it in your own report? >> we have national security staff -- >> i would need some help. >>. that's available thank you. the delegate from michigan. sorry. >> preaching for the microphone. from idaho. we did have several hours to talk about national security and the subcommittee. to do with aay has perpetrator stealing a gun from someone in the court. i think it's a perfectly fair amendment to be made, but there is a lot of national security material to digest tomorrow when the subcommittee reports. not directlyay is related to terrorism unless we

are told otherwise. >> thank you. the delegate from north carolina. >> i don't mean to get into an argument with a gentleman. whether or not this was terrorism, we have a terrorism problem and and caused me to think and look through the book. we do not in that national security document that we have done focus on and direct a specific package or passage that deals with how we intend to beat this threat against us as a nation. somebody has to stand up and do it, it might as well be us. thank you. >> the delegate from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chair. i move we adjourn. >> the benediction and adjournment. i will call him a delegate from new york to lead us in the benediction, if you'd all please rise.

>> let's bow our heads, heavenly father. we have had a very long day. we have worked for the future of our country, for the future of our party, for future generations. we have done it respectfully. please give us the strength to unify as a group. give us the wisdom to continue our debate. give us the strength, knowing that we will have disagreements within this group. give us the strength to heal as a family, so we can come together as a family, so we can elect a true leader who will timeus in a very troubled after the last eight year mass that this country has been in under the failed leadership. please give us the strength, dear lord, to unify and to

support each other as we support our party as we go forward with our platform and our discussions. dear lord, please give us the strength to unify as a group. in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, amen. >> breakfast at 7:00. we'll start at 8:00. deadline for amendments at 9:00. today's session is adjourned. >> make sure you get all three copies of the session. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> please stay in your seats of a can find you, or near your seat. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> yes? >> this is a suggested on

logistics. we have to get three new sets of material instead of handing out and waiting for them to deliver one at a time, i suggest everyone put version one on to three sections we are going to get, because we are not going to use those, and then they can stand at the door and give us the new copies without having to take time to put them in an out-of-the-box, and we will labor the new copies on the first page. >> thank you for the suggestion. we arty have people fanned out and people picking up -- any thing to add? >> yes. i think it would be easier if you can begin taking the old sections out of your binders so when you receive any sections you can put them in. the want to make sure there is no question around the version.

these questions have subcommittee report types on the header or footer, so if you remove the old sections of your report right now, it will make it easier for you to adopt new sections. >> road to the white house coverage continues thursday and friday as republicans determine the rules for next week's convention. live coverage on c-span.

>> our road to the white house coverage continues tonight in westfield, indiana, where donald trump holds a rally with governor mike pence. watches live at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> now, a discussion on unemployment insurance with the chair of the white house council of economic advisers and the house ways and means ranking member representative. is is hosted by the center for american progress. the georgetown center of poverty and inequality, in the national employment law project. it's about an hour and a. >> good morning. my name is carmel martin and i am the vice president for policy here. thank you for joining us for this critically important conversation on improving unemployment protection.

i would like to thank our partners, the georgetown center on poverty and inequality and the national moment law -- for cohosting this event for all the work they do to promote economic security for all families. at some point in their working years, two out of every three americans will experience at least one year of unemployment for themselves or the head of their household. as the tens of billions of americans who lost their jobs during the great recession will tell you, unemployment can be painful for families. it also has enormous cost for our economy, eroding the skills of our workforce. unemployment insurance was created to minimize the risk of hardship in job loss. ui kept more than 5 million americans out of poverty and saved more than 2 million jobs by boosting demand. the system has not adjusted to dramatic changes in the american workforce. globalization and technological change mean that many laid-off

workers will need to retrain in new sectors. uis reemployment services are sorely underfunded. women are now primary breadwinners in 40% of families with children, an increase since 1960. yet you are women qualify for ui because they are more likely to work part-time, have caregiving responsibilities or face low wages or erratic schedules. 16% of the workforce in 2015 is in an alternative work arrangement, including gig economy workers and independent contractors. these workers are systematically excluded. many states have made cuts to the ui programs in recent years. as a result, only about one in four unemployed workers receive ui in recent years, the lowest in history. the new proposals we are discussing layout a comprehensive roadmap for reversing the shortcomings.

it includes a job seekers allowance would extend job-search assistance to returning caregivers, independent contractors, younger workers and gait economy workers. shoring up and expanded critical unemployment protection must be -- must be a priority for a new congress and administration. we hope that today's conversation will inform those critical preparations. we are lucky to be joined by two of our nation's most important thought leaders and advocates for strong unemployment protection systems, chairman of the council of economic advisers, jason furman. we will hear first from the congressman who represents michigan -- michigan's ninth congressional district. he has been a tireless champion on behalf of working families and was one of the key architects of reforms that enabled ui to be such an important part of our country's response to the great recession. as the ranking members of the

house ways and means committee, he has continued to be a fierce proponent of modernizing unemployment insurance. please join me in welcoming the congressman to the podium. [applause] >> good morning. i am glad to be here with georgetown and cap. looking back some years ago, this was such a pressing issue, and it tends to have been forgotten. the agony there was for millions of people in this country. the controversy that often the

set this program. i want to say briefly why it is vital that we are here. first of all, as mentioned, what this program meant for people in our society, i used to call back home to michigan, sometimes every week, to see what was going on. for example, in the construction industry, in southeast michigan, when often there would just be a couple hundred people on the bench, and many of the trades, most of them, there would be thousands of people out of work. the impact it has had on the

lives and the way that this prevented people from falling into poverty, a 11 million. also what it meant to the economy, where we would have been adjacent -- in jason furman is going to talk about this, without the impetus that came from the unemployment insurance program. that is the first reason i think it is so important that we be here. the present structure is a mess. you covered some of the inadequacies of the program. only a quarter of the people covered, and that is likely to become even more so if we don't change it.

the problem with the state system and the number of states that are deeply in debt. i read this, and i had to reread it again. three states have $3.4 billion in debt. three states? the state of michigan has been going in the opposite direction, and what it did some time ago was to cut the minimum benefit from 26 to 20 weeks. it is important because there will be another recession. i just want to close by saying what i think this proposal were really mean. -- will really mean.

it will open up the debate, once again, about what unemployment insurance really is. people who are employed think they work for their unemployment insurance, that it is paid for in part by the employer in lieu of wages. they think they earned this. and yet, when we had the battle over long-term uninsurance, there was a feeling that it was a disincentive. i remember a report being issued in 2013 and it said this, this program which is already adding too much to the deficit and help keep unemployment to high for

too long should be allowed to finally come to an end. we need to have this debate once again. i remembered two of us going down, christmas eve. christmas eve, to urge there be an extension of unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed. and we failed. jason furman is going to touch on how much the lack of unemployment insurance essentially leads to people dropping out of the workforce. we have every reason to be year, and my hope is that this

proposal, plus that of the administration will once again foster a debate because we talk about today, the disenchantment of people of government and one of the reasons people feel that way is they work hard, are laid off through no fault of their own because of what happened in japan or china, they are looking for work, they cannot find it. essentially, the message to them is tough luck. this country cannot operate on the basis of tough love. it will not work.

jason furman is now going to take over. the agony with which he and i and others as we struggled as we maintained to sustain a program to help them keep their spirits and help them continue to look for work when so many of them had never done anything but work all their lives. there were so many people that would tell us at the age of 18, they went to work and worked all their lives.

they worked when the worst recession since the great depression came, and they were out in the street. this country must do better and i pay tribute to all of you who came here today to join in this effort that has to be renewed. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much for those kind words. speakand i used to times a dayltiple on this