tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 12, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
language is not broad enough. regulatorynot have when they do. if the federal government that does not have. there's no enabling legislation. even allows for snap. needsk that part of what to be done is addressing the authority of the states themselves to try to regulate whether or not they will allow the funds to go up to the federal government in the first place. i'm looking to support this because i don't think it is a guiding principle of the republican party. >> any other discussion? back to the author of the amendment. where we oversee a lot of the welfare program, let me speak to this, when individual say this
is what michael luber caps on, i have to very strongly contest that. what michael bloomberg tried to do was tell people what they could purchase with their own money. passed provision restricting people from buying things like alcohol or cigarettes with welfare dollars. these programs are supposed to be for helping people cover their basic necessities as they get through a tough time in life. programs that are supposed to enable people to live unhealthy lifestyles at the expense of the taxpayer. there's a big decision to be made between some of spending their own money and someone spending their taxpayer money. a program designed to give people in poverty nutritional a misuse of taxpayer dollars.
>> any additional discussion? those in favor, signal with i. ay., signify with ne amendment defeated. next amendment, page four, line 37. it is on the screen. >> i noticed they do not seem to be a strong statement about nuclear energy. you is that we suggest that restricted to allow responsible developer of nuclear energy and research into alternative processes. right now, there are so many
restrictions that it is impossible to do any additional development and i would like to see that on the table. the amendment does say exactly what you said. but we are try to do is impose on the verbiage, a picture of who is speaking. you're coming up your own amendment. at least he chose something attractive. [laughter] any additional discussion? the amendment is adopted. i do want to remind people deadline.bee this plank as was the next week.
>> this is a simple on the meant to indicate a level of support of the important policies listed in the existing light of the subcommittee port. the amendment would change the existing liquid on page five, line 10 to read, energy is both economic and national security issue. we support the amendment to increase domestic energy production, including on public lands and to capture market manipulation by opec and other nationally on oil companies and reduce america's on her ability to energy price volatility. >> any discussion? amendment is adopted. alaska and sheto has an amendment on page six.
>> congress shall merely pass universal legislation providing a timely and orderly mechanism requiring federal government to convey certain federally controlled lands to the state. >> delete the line crossed off their and instead you insert congress shall it merely passed. >> this is a topic we discussed in great detail. the language that is been crossed out was language that we worked on with both counsel and members of our subcommittee. this is a very passionate and
important issue. i certainly respect the notice from alaska and the wish to do this. understand that it is a very broad brush. the base we say that we will turn over all federal land to states. some states don't have the resources to handle it. this does not necessarily mean federal wilderness or encompass some of the other processes that are in place today. i would oppose it. i feel the language we crafted was carefully crafted and spent quite a bit of time on our subcommittee to find a proper compromise that reaches the process of, so many of the state of so much federal land and at the same time, not just willy-nilly turning it over to states. i don't think we want to support that. i hope the full committee would , or thelegislation
discussion the way we crafted the wording. >> delegate from california? >> i think the problem is that is so certain federal lands. does not even say all. we don't know what federal lands it is talking about. i'm not sure how we could include something in the platform that isn't more definitive. >> from delaware, the platform committee look to the next sentence that is ari contained in the proposed draft. it deals with the issue addressed in the first amendment we call upon all national and state leaders to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands
identified in the review process to all willing states for the benefit of the state and the nation as a whole. the concept is already addressed. additional discussion? author would like a final word. >> the state of alaska would be 50% to afford their land ownership by the government. andeard urging an urgent they are taking more and more and we think it is time that togress passed legislation give the federal lands back to the states to manage. >> any other discussion? all those in favor? opposed?
the ayes have it. motion adopted. page six, line 32. >> thank you. federal control of land in our states has become a serious problem. we have evidence of this in maine and the former owner of burts bees, and extreme by medalist bought up a large swath of the northwoods with the intent of making a national park that would ban hunting, wood product harvest, snowmobiles, many of the things that make main main.
maine.e the intent was to make that a national park. the citizens of may have pushed back to the extent that we have stopped the idea of a national park and she has asked obama to designate the land as a national monument. to line 32 a provision that would state -- protect the state and give them sovereignty in the last action. it would have the last chance to stop a federal land grab in the wording would be to further require the consent of the state or national many montt -- monument is designated or proposed. >> thank you. any discussion? chairman, alaska, jimmy carter did exactly district --
this. set aside about 60 minute acres in alaska. it is tyranny. i think may would be much stronger off as will every state that has federal land if the state and the people who live there get to approve it. thank you. >> delegate from north dakota. i don't have any particular problem with the beginning of the language for national monument, that is presidential approval. my understanding, i have a couple concerns. national parks are designated by congress, not the president. there's a difference in how those occur. what, beforey sure this event proposed, i'm not sure how that language would work out in practice. term, but itlegal is also a fairly vague term as
to how that would be applicable. is it a state-by-state basis or some other thing about nature? the second part where it is designated or even proposed, i don't have a particular problem the first part of the second part is problematic. >> additional discussion? the gentleman from maine. >> speaking with my colleague if it would clarify the issue, we could say, and to further require the consent of the state by a vote of the legislature. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> going to propose that we insert the language after consent of the state that we insert language by a vote of the state legislature.
i do approve of my colleague's state legislature addition. >> yes, sir. the delegate from colorado. >> justin everett from colorado. i would substitute from the state legislature. i think this should be a very high standard that people from whatever state should have a say, instead of the state legislature. they should be a very high standard. with staff to clarify that as we go to the next amendment? >> absolutely, mr. chairman. >> are you all right with that? to get this clarified in a way that we get it right? >> yes. justayeat, well, let's lay this aside briefly. i did want to address the
committee chair. overrule thekin right of the states. in the future, there may be a congress that wants to overrule the rights of the states. i would prefer that it goes back to the states for a vote. we will work on that right now. we look at the completed as part of this. some related to endangered species. page seven. >> i don't have the exact wording that i turned into you because i rented a fee times.
i see you have it up there. there is certainly a need to protect certain species threatened with extension. however the federal species act have, not, this is what i the endangered species act should not include species such specieswolves and other if there is beauty is existing elsewhere in the country or other countries. to upset the economic viability of an area within undeleted -- unneeded designation cost jobs and hurts local communities. we must ensure that this protection is done effectively, reasonably and without unnecessarily and painting -- impeding the development of land and natural resources. the endangered species act should be ensuring the listing of endangered species and the
designation of critical habitats are based upon such science and balance that the protection of the endangered species with the cost of compliance and the right instead overwners the last few decades, the esa has suffered economic it on halted the construction of projects and heard and -- burdened landowner's. all with little to no success for the actual species. while species threatened with extinction must be protected under the esa, any such protection must be done with reasonable manner with stakeholder input and in consideration of the impact on the development of land and natural resources. any discussion on this
amendment? second? a the amendment has been moved to second. additional discussion. can you scroll back? >> just in addition? >> the red. she read the entire section. it is only the part underlined in red that is the addition. part underlined in red are on the screen? the rest is part of the -- ok. the addition of however, the endangered species act should not include gray wolves in this
piece is existing elsewhere and healthy numbers and other counties. to upset the economic viability of an area with an unneeded designation cost jobs and hurts local communities. any discussion on that amendment? all those in favor, signify by saying i. the amendment is adopted. >next amendment goes to kansas. page seven, line two. >> can you put the text on the screen?
this amendment would add two sentences. for those of you not familiar with this issue of the prairie it is havingrouse, a devastating impact on states and the planes and mountain west. if you have not heard of it, the plaintiff states affected arkansas, oklahoma, texas, colorado, nebraska. colorado, utah, i'll have a -- iowa, nevada, montana. you might think, this is just a narrow issue. it is not. it has had a huge impact on oil and natural gas and arranging. what happened was fish and wildlife seized on the drought of 2012 and saw the numbers of the species go down just like a president's numbers went down and everything else, and they use that as an exact --
excuse to listed as threatened. nevermind that two years later for the drought ended, this bc went back up because the ring came back. nevertheless, fish and wildlife is insisting on these drastic regulations. if you have never heard of them, pray chickens, and by you to come hunting with me in kansas. all kidding aside, is a species that are hunted. they are not species that are anywhere endangered of extension. on a serious note, if you're thinking, i've never heard of this, your member of congress has. the republican house passed an appropriations amendment that would have specifically done what this amendment does but it died for procedural reasons. i think it is important that we at this civic example of federal overreach. -- specific example of federal overreach. >> moved and seconded. any additional discussion?
senator, back row. thisshould have mentioned on the last amendment, get a little concerned, i will take you up on the offer to hunt prairie chickens, i get a little concerned with the platform if we are particular rising certain species, it is just like anything as good point to add them, it is hard to dig it out and the list gets longer and longer over time. any specific proposal against other than maybe some broader language that attacks the issue without naming pray chickens and sage grouse is and in the previous one holds. as a general theme in taking away the federal overreach thinking to a list of them at any point in time, they are reviewing 700 different species to go into weather threat or danger mode and each one of those, i'm sure creates its own
particularized set of circumstances and own environment. i get concerned with start adding specific species and keep going and going. >> gentleman from california and we will go from there. to reiterate what the gentleman said. the problem is getting to a lot of state and local issues that would be a good place for those issues would be in legislation. not necessarily in the party 54. we are not the party of the thought --and i pray chickens. the idea to do with the more general thought, given or direction to the party and a little less of what is going on in my state locality would be a good direction to take your we were getting kind of particular with the things we are targeting and i'm sure we all have a few love to target but it will be a very long meeting if we keep doing this. >> the delegate from michigan. >> i'm in agreement to oppose
the listing of the prairie chickens and sage grouse. i can't believe we have 700 other animals and i think that we should talk about eliminating the esa. the delegate from nevada. >> i believe they should name these. many states we just heard are now, targeted and right the target is obvious animals. we have been to congress and fighting this for years it is our duty to protect the states even if you don't have a chicken must come back at our government further intrusion into these many states on the specific
attackedt are being and the people of those tapes. >> for the benefit of the group that wants to regular on these issues. i think in the constitutional government subcommittee, we did a fairly good and consistent job of calling into question and opposing any executive overreach particularly regulatory overreach on the part of the administration. i think it is well covered under that section as well and i would propose and back not going to this level of detail. >> jonathan gardner, new mexico. i am from one of these western states that deals with these sorts of issues.
we do want to keep the platform at a level of generality as a declaration of principle. amendt spirit, i move to the proposed language, striking "specifically," and inserting instead, "for example." >> is the delegate from kansas ok with that? >> i am ok with that. >> is there a second to the amendment? seconded? ok. the delegate from minnesota. >> last night we discussed what we are creating here as a marketing document that we can use to talk to independent swing voters and convince people why they should vote republican. if somebody glances at this and see we oppose chickens, it is not going to go well for us on the campaign trail. problemsngs are real for people in regions of the country. we are talking about broader republican platforms, the things
that unite us all. it is not a statement against any of these specific issues. this document is not the place to do legislation. >> additional discussion on the amended version of the amendment from the delegate from kansas? yes, the delegate from utah. utah.d matheson, we are also a state that has prairie dogs, tiger beetles, and we deal with a lot of these issues, but i concur with the gentleman. this is not the place to have that discussion. this is about the broader, higher-level principles. >> additional discussion? i'm sorry, the delegate from california. >> i would just add that anything in all of these, if it says how it is going to help create more jobs, or help our
economic development in these areas, then, i believe it is worthwhile. it is part of who we are to promote jobs, jobs, jobs. but if it does not have that, then i think it is harmful to us, as you said, in attracting more people to join our party. >> theel chair. justin everett, colorado. this is about economic development. they use this for land-use planning and economic development in general. this is part of our platform. this is the opportunity party we have heard a lot about. i don't know if we want to adjust that specifically with language but what is implied here is that this specifically addresses economic development. >> is there additional discussion? i'm so sorry, let the delegate
from kansas. to close, if there is no other. >> yes, the fish and wildlife service considers many species. but they are not listing 700 in any given year. they list a very small number. you need to understand that. secondly, congress does not get up in arms about the vast majority of these species. the only one congress has spoken the house spoke on. this is a big deal. we need to single out this species where there has been overreach, and to a lesser extent, the wolf. i thought this was getting too specific, but then i thought references to the animas river spill. i have never heard of the animas river. i am sure somebody has, but that seems like a pretty granule
detail. i know oil drillers in kansas going out of business because they can't drill because they are in prairie chicken habitat. people cannot sell their land because it is in prairie chicken habitat. so, just because you have not heard of this, don't think, oh, it is granular. i understand we are doing a platform, but there is so much granular detail, hundreds upon hundreds of references in this graph. i know it is hard for me to tell you about something you have not heard before. this really is a big deal and the house of representatives has gotten involved. it is having a huge economic impact in the space of the west and i hope you support us. >> the delegate from colorado. >> justin everett from colorado. with the sponsor be willing to put some economic development language in it, number one? it is spelled wrong on page six, line two. "imas," just fyi.
>> we have to vote one two things. one, the second-degree amendment where we deleted the word "specifically" and inserted "for example." it would say, "for example," we oppose. the first boat is to amend the amendment. all those in favor, please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is amended. all those in favor of the amendment from kansas? all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." in the opinion of the chair, the aye's have it. the next amendment is from david barton from texas. this is page one, line five. the delegate from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a clarifying amendment. when i got to the point where it said, not long ago, i thought
"not long ago" meant "not long a go." i did not know it meant before the obama administration. i substituted "a few years ago." >> is there a second? all of those in favor please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. the next amendment from the delegate from texas again. this is page one, line 20. >> i also think it may reduce the possibility of adding shot at in some areas. we are talking about opening new markets for agriculture and through multilateral, and bilateral agreements given what we have just gone through with the obama trade and the sensitivity towards those multilateral agreements, let's just drop that phrase completely and let that be open for however they want to open those new markets. that way, we don't create inflammatory language that people are sensitive to right now. >> is there a second?
discussion? all those in favor of delegate barton's amendment, please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. the next amendment from david barton of texas, page one, line 43. >> a lot of people think it is a good deal. to explain it is not, i would insert two adjectives there. it is the intrusive than mandates that are a problem. >> i all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. the next amendment by david bartman the delegate from texas, . >> it deals with coal. we have a lot of coal resources and i would insert the adjective "clean.
so, the democrat party does not understand that coal is an abundance of clean, reliable, and a mustek energy sources. -- and domestic energy sources. >> we don't even know which line he was talking about. i just know the page. >> we will go back and ask to please put up on the screen page four, line seven. to page four,o go line seven. an abundant,, clean, affordable, reliable, domestic energy source. we are just adding one word and it is the word "clean" between abundant and affordable on page
four line seven. adding the word "clean." ok? moved. any additional discussion? all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." theaye's have it and amendment is adopted. we will now go back to the amendment that have come in from the delegate from maine. i would like to call on stacy geren to bring b ack her amendment from page six, line 32. >> just to refresh your mind, this is on the approval of the state before federal land can be put into national monuments or national parks. so, we came up with a compromise that i think everybody supports. and it would be adding at line 32, on page six. and to further require the
support of the state where a national monument is designated, or a national park is proposed. >> so, what is on the screen now is the original language. you know have new language that i will read again. to further require the support of the state, where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed. that's not what's no thon the screen. it is what the gentlelady has recommended and it is what i am reading. so, as they are working on the language, that is a discussion specifically to the amendment. yes, sir? >> thank you, mr. chairm. we feel it is a good compromise. it gives the option of the state out whate to figure
way they are going to support it, but it does still address the issue that it does need to come back to the state before a national monument can be designated. the subcommittee chair supports that amendment. >> any additional discussion on this amendment? yes, ma'am, the delegate from florida? [inaudible] >> my question is, does it require a vote forrom the state legislature? i am confused between what is appearing on the screen and what was read. >> what i have in my hand -- that is not what the author of the amendment read her understanding. let's have hear read, because
it is different than what is on the screen right now. >> and further require the support of the state where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed by not specifying what manner the support would be in. we would put that to the lawmakers to decide what the wording would be for the support of the state, how that would be determined. >> we are just catching up with the typing. to further require the support of the state where he national monument is designated or a national park is proposed. is on thelegislature screen, but it is not on what you read or on what i read. let's take that part out. we just have a couple of -- >> clarifications to the motion?
what do you mean by support? >> can you please identify yourself? >> judy from alaska. to the maker of the motion, how do you show support of the state ? maine.y geren from that was the compromise that we would not specify that it had to be a safe legislature vote. we will leave that to the lawmakers to decide how support would be gauged, if they would make a law, because we are not making laws here. we are making policy. they would determine, with that the a vote of the people in the state? a majority vote? or a legislative vote? >> the gentleman from iowa. >> i would propose that we change that to approval from support. >> can i ask the author of the original motion, is that
something you would be favorable upon? >> is, i would be in favor of that. >> will still have to come up with a vote. the gentleman from colorado. >> without the specifics, this is problematic. this is soe state," ambiguous. it could be the governor. in colorado, we have a liberal governor who is very close to the obama administration. a good sign off on that. the legislature is a medium sort of approach. but again, i would say to the vote of the people would be the best way to at least slow down the process and put it under close scrutiny. >> is there additional discussion? hearing on again, we will have two votes. >> timothy from delaware over here. >> yes, sir. first row. >> just to support the more generic, specific language, many states do not have a referendum protocol policy. so, the citizens of the state
could not vote on such. while some people might flavor the legislature, i like this language, which would allow each state to present its support in the way most appropriate to that state. >> the gentleman from iowa has suggested changing the word from "support." that would be up for a vote right now if there is no other discussion. all those in favor of changing the word "support" to "approval" signify by saying aye. it is adopted. the delegate from maine, all of those in favor, please signify by saying "aye." opposed, "nay." it is adopted. that is the final amendment i have for this section. is there anyone that thinks they have submitted a amendment on the section that has not been called upon? i just want to thank all of you for your incredible work.
title think anybody spoke for more than a minute. we got to hear from a lot of people. this time, i would entertain from the chairman, a motion that we adopt this portion of the platform, specifically, the one you have chaired. >> mr. chairman, i would propose that we accept the subcommittee's report and section of agriculture energy and the environment. >> as amended. >> all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." that portion of the platform is adopted. thank you very much. thanks all for your very hard work on that. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator. very briefly, at this point, we will take a brief break. as you are going out, you look at your third section, the economy. andrew and his people are ready
over here. as you go out for a coffee break and a snack, we will get you the third session. we will reconvene in 10 minutes. the health and education section is closed as far as the amendment. is that correct, andrew? are we close? >> yes. >> we will get started on page one and work back. i have your amendment in hand.
depending on how long it takes to get through this point, we might move to the third flank, the economy. as we finish this amendment process today, i would ask you to please put on amendments to the economy flank. please have those done by 5:30 so we can address those. with that, i do have some amendments here. the first is on page one, and it is from the chair of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this one had to do with the title of the committee and the section and the platform. we would like to update it from helpand we would like to the great american family, education, health care, and the criminal justice section. >> that is the amendment. is there a second? seconded.
any discussion? hearing them, all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. the next amendment, from the senator from oklahoma. this is on page one, line 17. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this will be after the text "for those, among those institutions is." insert "the american family," period. it is the foundation of civil society and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. we would like to submit this to get rid of a duplication we had in the first two sentences. >> is there a second? discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying "aye."
it is adopted. the next is from the gentleman from north carolina. page one, line 28. and if you could turn on your microphone and address the amendment. ron.microphone is not on, >> all i am trying to do here is to tie together the fact that where there is family, education marks. we have those in two separate parts right now. this was intended to be a transition into putting the education party in with the family, so we would recognize oft is the cornerstone getting success out of our education process. >> as it is coming up on to the screen, this is page one, line 28. can't see it. >> page one, line 28, which is households tend to be physically
and emotionally healthier. what i have down is you are inserting after "emotionally healthier," "more likely to do well in school." >> yes, the intent there is to simply link family and education as a transition into the later part on education. >> is there a second to ron's motion? any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." it is adopted. the next amendment is from mary frances forrester from north carolina on page one, line 29. can i ask the gentlelady from north carolina to please address the amendment. >> yes, is that clear? >> yes. >> we would like to insert after "give us these truths about
children raised in a parent household tend to be physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to engage in drugs or become pregnant outside of marriage. >> and you have inserted, which is underlined in red. it says -- >> we oppose policies and laws that create a financial incentive or encourage cohabitation. on the screen. is it clear to everyone? is there a second? a second. is there discussion? hearing none, all of those in favor please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. from deborah lamb montana, an amendment to page three, line 25. can i call on the delegate from montana? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i propose the addition of a ,aragraph following line 28 where we talk about the federal government not having a constitutional authority over education and before we go into the specific discussion about, an common core. i want to address the fact that we have had so many years now of progressive education, including big businesses that are taking over the education system, and i would propose that we add, as the heart of the american experiment lies the greatest political expression of human dignity, the self-evident truth that all men created equal, that they have surgeon and a legal
rights. tha-- that they have certain in alienable rights. thank you, mr. chairman. >> is there a second? discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying "aye." have it and it is adopted. next, we have an amendment from brandon smart, page four, line five throught eight. i would like to ask the delegate to please address the issue. i will slide over here. >> first of all, i do want to recognize that i do believe the bible is 100% the word of god, but as a public school teacher, i have some issues with how this is written. a good understanding of the bible would be hard to measure
in a public school situation. the bible as a literature curriculum, many states already allow, through the state department and the local department, the opportunity to teach history -- or teach the bible as history or in english lit class. but then later on page six, we get into professor bias. who was going to be teaching bible and what are they going to be teaching about the bible? army going to teach that it is a historic document that is no longer relevant? are we going to make sure that it is the actual word of god? thank you. >> so, on the screen, your motion is to delete the words "a good understanding of the bible being indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage state
legislatures to offer the bible as a literature curriculum as an elective in america's high schools." and your motion is to delete the entire area? >> correct. >> is there a second? discussion? the delegate from california? be concerned with just taking it out like that without replacing it with a different way of phrasing about the bible. otherwise, it will be viewed that the republican platform has thrown out the bible. >> additional discussion on the amendment? yes, the top delegate from minnesota. >> i think one of the things we have been missing is the absolute decline in the education program in the united states of america. if you go back to the following, it requires through george washington, a moral society.
this is not teaching the bible as a judeo-christian belief system. it is using the bible to understand that the values in the bible are the values that drove the founding of this order. if we ignore that, we run into reagan's problem. and so, we are looking at this as a religious thing, which is part of the reason the committee put it in as literature. but they get nothing in history anymore, nothing anywhere in the is the key component of what made the nut of dates what it was -- component of what made the united states what it was and hopefully, what it will be and that is the reason it was put there. >> the delegate from north carolina. >> mr. chairman, if you are studying literature and you are not allowed to read shakespeare, how are you going to understand it? the founding pillars of this
nation was founded on the bible. it was used as grammar, as a reading book, as a spelling book, and to be able to understand that if we are going to preserve liberty and keep our freedom, then, we should be able to understand how it was founded. >> the delegate from ohio. could you please turn the microphone on? >> i have a loud voice. and a broken microphone, y es. [laughter] >> we need somebody to go up and fix it. you don't have to pull it very far. just speak right there. >> dave johnson from ohio. i am a strong christian, but i do not want any state legislature teaching the bible. the churches should do that. i think we should stick with this language being stricken.
>> the delegate from nevada? >> juanita cox, nevada. i also agree that we have a big chance. stoppingis starts, some of that chance. we should strike this. >> the delegate from delaware? sorry. >> the microphone. >> could i get the microphone? >> i think we should keep the language to a certain degree, but i think what the language should say is, we encourage, but we are not dictating. we encourage state legislatures to offer the bible as a humanities curriculum. >> the delegate from kansas? hris from kansas.
i think we should keep the language referring to the bible. it is not duplicate if. ive. is not duplicate i would remind that the first body of the united states in 1789 called for the distribution of bibles to all schoolchildren in the united states. this is an important principle that our founding fathers chose to embrace any first congress of the united states. >> the delegate from louisiana. noticed i was sitting away from the microphone, so i am having to stretch. i would just point out that this amendment, or rather, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the language makes it clear that it encourages state legislatures. it is being taught as an elective in literature. there are a couple curriculums that have been tested that have
survived. it is the teaching of literature. a well rounded citizen, when you look at our founding documents and many of the phrases used in common language in the united states, would make for a better understanding. >> the delegate from california. i just suggest that we mit consider whether it would be thicsded with history, or e as a means of it being encouraged for the ethical basis and the historic basis of our nation. >> the delegate from alabama. >> thank you, i think the wording should stay as is. this amendment should not be adopted. i think americans have been thehing as we slowly eroded foundation of this country based
on the biblical principles that we all cherish. and to come in and have a chance to continue this is a great honor. notrongly urge that we do accept this amendment. >> the delegate from michigan. did you have your hand up in that back? >> yes, i just wanted to address the person who just said they do not know how teachers could be teaching this. we have pornography being taught in the literature curriculum in michigan. i can imagine, if teachers are allowed to propose that of literature, why they can present the bible. >> the delegate from guam. >> i actually opposed the amendment, but think maybe we could address it by putting a good understanding of the social values containing the bible are indispensable for the development of our citizens.
we want to teach the values that are included in it. >> the delegate from ohio. >> tracy from ohio. i think the wording is -- i mean, a good understanding of the bible, that is what i believe. but i don't think it should be in the platform. i think we should leave the bibles there and say, we encourage state legislatures to allow the bible to be taught in our school system. >> the delegate from virginia? >> yes, actually, george washington's statement was that there was indispensable pillars of religion and morality. morality int have mi the absence of religion. the bill of rights very clearly states that we have an inalienable right for religion. if there is angst that there is
the combination of education with a religious instruction. what needs to be deleted is not the religious instruction. i would leave the language in. actually, the supreme court has require that it be allowed to be taught. so, the states clearly can allow it he cuts it has been confirmed that it can be taught as history and literature. >> the delegate from oklahoma. >> i would like to refer to our good friend from texas, mr. barton. he has documented the breadth of which the founders used the bible as the basis for the construction of our government and the basis for the morals within our society. you could probably give you the specifics. -- he could probably give you the specifics. >> the delegate from north carolina. i think we can keep the sense that we want to about the bible.
if we make a slight revision that would say, a good understanding of the judeo-christian ethic being indispensable for the development of our educated citizens, and work it in that way and use that as the psucational tool, it keep sth the thought in. i make a motion. >> well, that seems like a little bit more involved. let's just continue the discussion and i will see if that is something the author is interested in pursuing. the delegate from alaska. >> i do have some different wording that i think i prefer over this. i will just make it at this time. for the development of an educated sensory, we encourage
elected officials to support the teaching and understanding of the bible and its importance to our founding fathers and documents. >> so, that is a complete substitution. >> yes, it says the same thing, but it is rewarded. i am a retired educator. that is one of the reasons i prefer that. >> the delegate from california. we do have a question? -- did you have a question? sorry. the delegate from maine. >> being one of the younger folks here, it pains me to admit that taking this class is not too distant in my memory. we were taught the bible as literature. we were in a very liberal school district. actually, i represent maine. i'm here in ohio, not too many miles away from shaker heights. despite it being a very liberal school district, it was taught very well. it was very valuable.
just objectively, separating it from the ethical and the moral teachings of the bible is very helpful as a student as we are reading shakespeare and many other things that permeate our literary culture. there are so many references back to the bible that it is valuable, just as an academic pursuit for students to have this opportunity. so, i found it useful. motionill oppose the before us. >> at this time, i want to go back to the original proponent. there have been a couple recommendations, nothing really in writing. if there is something you are willing to accept. otherwise, we are on your motion, unless we get a motion summit in writing. would you like to comment? >> again, i think my words were not correctly rephrased as
people were discussing this. states already have the option to teach the bible as a literature elective. that is the other thing. a lot of people in here talked about how important it is. the word of elective means the majority of our students will never take that class at the high school level. would like to hear, i believe it was alaska, the other educator? >> yes, what was the question? i'm sorry, i was riding. -- i was writing. we encourage elected officials to support the teaching and the understanding of the bible and its importance to the founding of our country and you propose that to him? >> yes, instead of what is there. >> it is to continue his
amendment, which is to leave the lines on the screen. >> no, delete what's already th ere. it is in place of the deleted red. >> i accept that. >> so, that is accepted. so, can we have that read? can you read that to us? we will go with the deletion that you recommended, and with the addition from the delegate from alaska. >> for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage delegate officials to support the teaching and understanding of the bible and its importance to the founding of our country. >> can you read it again? they are typing it on the screen so every delegate will have a chance to read it and know what they are voting on.
she gave her copy to our typist. as soon as it gets typed in. >> it is important. in front of the word importantance, "it is important." >> so, is this a reflection of what you see on the screen now? for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage delegate officials to support the teaching and understanding of the bible and its importance to the founding of our country. is that an accurate reflection? >> yes. >> additional discussion? the delegate from colorado.
>> ok. just for the record, i did want to read this because it reflects the language that was just given. it is extremely important to our nation, in a political as well as a religious view, that all possible authority and influence should be given to the scriptures, for these furnish the best principles of civil liberty and the most effectual support of republican government, one of our founding fathers. >> the delegate from louisiana. >> i am sharing the mic here. i like the original wording because, this particular wording we are looking on as a youtitute basically says are going to teach a doctorate. i think leaving it as teaching it as literature is highly appropriate. it has been done.
it has been court tested and i think it is much more appropriate than the wording we are looking at right now. >> the delegate from minnesota in the back. >> i think the original language that was proposed in the document we received is the better way to go. we are seeing too many school districts and school boards telling us what we can't teach our kids. this is still saying, we are allowing it to happen as n an elective. we're not trying to indoctrinate. but we are allowing it for an elective, if there is a school district that wants to and a state that is not friendly to their situation, we are giving them the opportunity to have the education that the parents want. >> the delegate from iowa. ifmr. chair, can you clarify there will be a vote to the amendment? >> there will be two votes at this point.
one is to add the language offered by the gentlelady from alaska, which is on the screen. and to the main amendment, which deletes the verbage struck out on the screen. that is where we are right now. if there is no further discussion, we can move to that question. hearing on, let's move to that. first, on the additional language from alaska, all those in favor of the second amendment made by the gentlelady from alaska, please signify by saying "aye." opposed, "no." we will do that once more. all those in favor of the gentlelady from alaska, which is written there on the screen, please say "aye." opposed, "no." i think the no's have it. i'm going to rule that the no's have it. ion,next is on the main mot
which is the deletion of those lines. all those in favor -- i'm sorry, the line sos on the screen. all those in favor, please signify by saying "aye." and that is defeated. so, the entire motion goes down. we will live to the next amendment and that is also by brandon smart from american samoa. 24, is page four, line about stem subjects, if you have that omnne. the delegate from american samoa. simply this is just adding technical education in there. educator,r technical we have pigeonholed too many of
our students. ourasn't been good for economies, on a standpoint of loans and jobs. >> we are going to make them print larger on the screen so everyone can see what we are looking at. page four, line 24. is there a second to the motion? is there additional discussion? hearing on -- i'm sorry. the delegate from minnesota. >> i'm not sure if it is appropriate, but i don't think it is just technical education. i think it is also vocational education. can i make a suggestion to include that word? >> yes, the delegate from american samoa. included within technical education. >> ok. >> all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying "aye." the motion is adopted. the next amendment is from brian
from nebraska. the delegate from nebraska, page four, line 31. >> we're talking about choice in education. i will read the first line to note my proposed addition. as it reads right now, we support options for learning, including homeschooling, career and technical education, magnet schools, charter schools, online learning, and early college high schools. my suggestion is to include, after career and technical education, private or parochial schools. when you talk about choice in education, it is necessary that we include the fact that private and parochial schools should be an option for parents, if they so desire. her publicans, this is education that is in large part, if not exclusively, is paid for by parents themselves. public money
because they are not attending public schools. secondly, in economically areas,ult private schools are able to maintain good outcomes for students, many times superior outcomes than the local public school is able to provide. for all those reasons, if we are going to talk about choice in education, we should at least private and parochial schools as something we encourage, just given those principles i just outlined. >> there is a second. the discussion -- the german from north carolina i am wondering -- >> the microphone is not on. >> now i'm on. thank you. apologies. >> can you just identify yourself? guest: -- >> i am wondering if the sponsor
would accept an idea that instead of the word "including" as."at first line, "such then, we don't have the tradition of the idea that this is an all-inclusive list. just change the word to "such as," instead of "including." >> in my view, what i have done is i have added one more thing to this list. if we are going to remove the word "including," that would be a second amendment. i think that is not really in order at this point and i would not accept it. i think we should focus on the addition of one more item and debate that. that would be appropriate, in my view. >> what was mentioned is what was on the screen, not part of your amendment. so, it is not subject to amendment. >> i leave it to the chair to make that ruling. >> additional discussion on the
amendment before us? hearing none, all of those in favor, please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. deborah lamb from montana, an amendment to page five, line 22. the delegate from montana. thank you, mr. chairman. lineu look at page five, 22, towards the end, we have a statement about the date of privacy. i think it is weak in comparison to the dangers we are experiencing as parents. so, i propose the new language, the federal government has pushed states to collect and share vast amounts of personal, student, and family data, including the collection of social and emotional darta. much of this data is collected
without parental consent or notice. this is incompatible with the american experiment and our inalienable rights. >> for clarification, you are deleting line 22 through line 24, is that correct? >> mr. chairman, the end of line 22, starting with "we will." >> and all the way to the end of 24. so, you delete the entire last sentence from "we will" until "our children." on the screen, it says we will protect student privacy. you are actually deleting that. we should have that crossed out, the people know what they are voting on. what you see on the screen reflect your intention? >> yes. >> is there a second?
i'm sorry, the delegate from north dakota. >> mr. chairman, the word "parental" is not included in the amendment before the word "consent." >> without consent. let me ask for clarification from the author. what i have does not have the itrd "parental," nor does the show on the screen. catch fromor that the delegate from north dakota. what we need to do is put "without parental consent or notice." >> that is correct. >> the delegate from california. "americanression experiment," is that really -- is there any meaning to that? >> there is a question posed.
additional discussion? if not, i will go back to the author of the amendment. >> could you repeat the question please? >> the expression "american experiment," does that have a meaning attached to it that is in line with what we are about? our party? >> yes, it is a basic constitutional expression. >> additional discussion on the proposed amendment? all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." opposed "no." the amendment is adopted. the next amendment i have is back with brandon smart from american samoa, page six. can you please explain your amendment on page six?
in several with current technical education. i am waiting for it to come up. i believe this is the one where colleges and universities include trade school. >> as i have it written, include trade schools with colleges and universities. we are in between line 13 and line 25. >> yes, anywhere where it uses "colleges and universities." >> is there a second to the amendment? discussion? hearing on, all those in favor please signify by saying "aye." opposed no. eric from maine with an amendment to page eight, line 20. i would like to call on the senator from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. let me apologize in advance. i think i have two commitments
there that are fairly similar for the exact same spot. one is more preferable than the other. if i could see which. yes, that is the one i would like to use. insertingould be language here. see.t me can you underlined the amendment there? supports with "we states." thank you. so, the amendment would be, we support states that allow patients with the debilitating conditions to use medical cannabis in the form of oils, tinctures, and other non-smokable forms, provided they do so with the advice and consent of a doctor." and i can speak to that. >> the move is seconded.
discussion? the author? >> thank you, mr. chair. we are at a point in time, i don't know the exact number, but i know close to half the states in this nation, if not more, have medicinal cannabis programs in place. maine, we were one of the early adopters of having this medicinal cannabis program. and i'll tell you, i was initially very skeptical of the value of medicinal cannabis. but serving as a chairman for the health and human services committee in maine, where we have direct oversight of this program, i have gotten to meet many of the patients with very serious and debilitating conditions and see personally how this medication has, with the help of an actual trained physician, improved their life,
helped them recover from conditions and live with conditions that they were unable to live with before. as one example, i have -- well, i had a constituent. her name is cindy may meehan. she was a young girl with a rare condition called jirga vasa . ft resulted in thousands o micro seizures a day. she could not live a normal life. but, one of the chemicals cbd, so, not thc, which people commonly think of with marijuana. but cbd, it has a very anti-seizure effect for people with these rare conditions. she was able to get -- she was able to live a much more normal life as a result. and there is, for her condition, approved no fda
medication that exists. this is just one example of a debilitating condition and i have met countless people who have been positively affected by this. i would just see, in regards to states choosing to have medicinal cannabis programs, we would just be stating that. >> is there a discussion? the delegate from new mexico. >> jonathan gardner, new mexico. i have a question of clarification for the bill's sponsor. are the forms of marijuana covered in this amendment considered controlled substances under the federal controlled substances act? >> to answer that question, my understanding is that the dea recently downgraded cannabis from a schedule i drug to a
schedule ii drug, which means they acknowledgment has medicinal benefits and it can be prescribed by a physician. this was just very recent. >> the delegate from utah, did you want to make a statement? >> we have a long way to go. >> could you identify yourself? >> i am gail from utah. i speak in opposition to this. we have a long way to go with research before we can even consider this. just how far are you planning on this going. do we want to do this? or do we want to have the research done. if we are going to legalize this, let's do it the way we do all drugs in this country, through prescriptions. after having cards, or little kiosks on tethe corner. and it is in violation of
federal law. >> the delegate from california. >> i would be strongly opposed to this. marijuana from our experience, and from studies that have been done, medical studies that have been done, it has been used to trigger mental health issues. it is a trigger for schizophrenia and other mental health issues. in california, it was funded by george soros to legalize marijuana. that is who was behind the flooding their. -- that is who was behind the funding there. if you look at the guns and the mass killings that have taken place, they are young boys from divorced families and they are all smoking pot. so, i don't think it is the right message for us. and i agree with whoever said that about the studies being done. there are already medical studies that show that it is a
link. there is a link between that and mental health issues. >> the delegate from nevada. nevada.cox, i've been working on this medical, basically, medical program for 15 years in nevada. and finally, we passed it. it took us that long. but it is not like marijuana. it is more like hemp oil, which hallucinatory or stuff that the lady ahead of me has said. she is talking about marijuana. this is hemp. it's like a similar species, the completely different. this is taking oil from the leaves, not the plant's flower.
there is lots of research and medical studies that are proving, especially in this givesn, that them a complete different chance for more of a normal life. just google it. the children are being saved by this oil, not hallucinatory. anyit's not available in chemical form at the present time. be talking about marinol. that is cannabis in a chemical form. that is not what we are talking about here. this is an oil from more of a hemp plant. completely different. >> the delegate from missouri. >> most of the medical associations are against the use
of medical marijuana. ama, the glaucoma foundation, etc. that is a good saying goes very well in public policy, hard cases make bad laws. there are many more things to o consider. >> the delegate from nebraska. hello, debbie from nebraska. i happen to support this. there is a complete difference between medical marijuana. it does not have the thc, which is what you have in marijuana. i firmly believe in this. i know of individuals who have used it with their children who have had seizures that can't be controlled by any other method, or any other chemical or any other prescription. so, i feel this is something we should definitely include. >> the delegate from massachusetts. >> the commonwealth in
massachusetts recently passed legislation which is now in place to legalize the medical use of marijuana and i support that. that ouri would argue republican platform is not the appropriate place to address this issue nationally. so, i would oppose the amendment. >> the delegate from indiana. indiana.b, of everyouter edges public policy, they are compelling circumstances that people can point to and say, look, this publication of this policy. as a result, let's change the entire policy. there is nothing in this amendment that limits the circumstances to those very rare and compelling circumstances. this would be a major policy change with wide-ranging effects and no one really is arguing that the broad application,
which this amendment would allow, is a justified public policy change. i oppose the amendment. >> the delegate from maryland. >> mr. chairman, i first want to applaud the delegate from maine for even bringing this in this first place and the courage involved with it. i want to be clear, though, so we don't confuse the issue. we're not talking about cheech and chong being encouraged here. we are talking about specifically, people with the debilitating conditions and the aid that it provides them in those critical times. i would urge its passage. >> the delegate from alabama. >> i think everybody in this room has had a family member or a friend that has been affected by hard drugs.
every study i have ever read about marijuana, it is a gateway drug to other, more harsh drugs. adnd we in alabama right now are experiencing a heroin epidemic that started in 99% of the cases, with some teenager funding a way to get marijuana. i am strongly opposed to this amendment. >> the delegate from minnesota. , the compelling cases are there. that is the way this works. but our platform is not the place to introduce legislation. in this case, this is an issue that is very divisive and we are putting into our party's document, which is our marketing document. putting something in here that people have a very, very solid opinions on, may -- if they are a single issue voter, this is
the kind of thing that could drive them away. ort is not to say i am for against the issue, but this specificity does not belong in the platform. >> the delegate from north carolina. >> i am opposed to do this amendment. let's think of little bit about what happens with percocet, what happens with oxycontin. all of these things we have out there that we think we can control, we end up not controlling. and the problem just simply gets where's. -- and the problem just simply gets worse. we have special cases in north carolina for the folks that have some diseases that need treatment with the oils and so forth. the going to medical cannabis only leads to the cannabis. and it is not hemp, by the way. >> the gentleman from vermont. >> all those in favor of voting immediately, placing the five by
saying "aye." all of those opposed. 2/3.nkw e we have the with that, we are on the motion with the senator from maine. all of those in favor of the motion as read, please signify by saying "aye. the no's have it and the amendment is debated. this is an amendment to page number 10. maine on the senator from with your amdment, page number 10, line 12. the text is after "legal uncertainty." >> mr. chair, i have an amendment from massachusetts. i have an amendment that was earlier than the two by the
senator that has not been brought up. i'm not sure if they got lost int he process, for if it is going to come after his. >> let me check and make sure we have the here and ready to go. if i can call on the senator to introduce his and then we will look for the one from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chair. members of the committee will be relieved to know this has nothing to do with marijuana. [laughter] piece of the fda platform, i'm not seeing the -- can we make sure the amendment is underlined? statese comment those that have passed right to trial legislation" on down tot he thd there. this is just adding language.
we commend those estates that have passed right to try legislation, allowing terminally ill patients the right to try medicines not yet approved by the fda. we urge congress to pass federal legislation to give all americans with terminal illnesses the right to try. i know maine was just recently the 25th state to pass right to try. if i remember right, arizona passed the referendum with 80% of people voting in favor. all right to try does, is it says if there is an investigational drug or biological product or medical device that is in the process of working its way through the fda approval process, but it has not yet reached the end of that process, if you have somebody with a terminal condition, somebody with the diagnosis that
they are going to die without action being taken. this would say that if the patient wants to try this heirstigational drug, if t doctor is willing to recommend it, and if the manufacturer of the drug is willing to make it available, that we hear in the government will not stand in the way. this is a patient freedom issue. it is also a very pro-life ,lternative to the right to di . where we just say, somebody has a terminal homeless and they have the right to terminate thier life. this is a pro-life alternative to that. they have the right to try to their life, to keep on going. the fda process can take up to 10 years and cost billions of dollars if you are a terminally ill patient with six months to live, you do not have 10 months to
wait. >> is there additional discussion? we are going to ask the person operating the screen to make that a lot bigger. we already have the language in the platform. we need to see the additions a lot bigger. we need to see the red underlined, so people can work easily rate. easilyeople can read. the discussion ion right to try. please, let's get the microphone to the delegate. >> i'm from ohio and i have a question for the author. >> yes. >> the right to try, do they actually charge the patient's for the medication at that time? >> my understanding is, in most states, including in our state -- well, actually, no. under federal law, you are not allowed to make a profit from a drug tahhat has not completed te
fda approval process. most states have that specifically in there. in our state legislation, it says you can charge for the incremental cost of manufacturing the unit that is dispensed, but you cannot make a profit from that. >> the delegate from nevada had a question. i'm sorry. up. wanted to follow with that said, the increment, that cost, how high can that go? a lot of times when you are looking at trials, the cost of that, i'm trying to get that in my mind. how significant would that be on the patient? i don't have any particular cases in front of me. i do know that 95% of the time no cost is charged at all.
obviously, the companies have an incentive where they want to eventually take that item to market. they might not want the cost per unit publicly known, or they might be accused of overcharging people don the road. -- overcharging people down the road. has5% of cases where this gone through, my understanding is there has been no cost charged at all. >> the delegate from nevada. .> i have an example o a friend was in doctors without borders. of daughter in the stae te of florida was dying sa.mers becausecal father knew of his doctors without borders, new there was an unapproved
united states fda drug that could save his daughter. he made arrangements to bring it and it was not allowed in the country to save his daughter. that medical doctor died. >> the delegate from michigan. >> i just want to remind all of the delegates that we are the party of liberty and freedom. and anything we can do that would limit the overreach of the fda, especially when people are dying, i don't think the cost for any experimental drugs would even be anyone would consider if your life is at the end. you are willing to pay anything. so, i don't think this should come into issue. i think this is really brave wording and something our party should get behind. >> i see no other discussion. yes, the delegate from alabama. >> you know, we're out here in the fuzzy logic area of trying
to put together a sales document that we are trying to sell the united states on for our candidate and for our party. i don't know why we are sticking around the fuzzy edges on things we do not have hard, long-term answers to. so, i think we are really steering in some wrong directions and i would vote against this. thank you. >> i see nobody wanting additionally to be recognized. all those in favor of the amendment pleasing a five by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. to my friend from maine, we do have your amendment. we are going through the first pile, yours came up on the second, but i have it because you are right, it is on page six, line four. i said maine. i meant massachusetts. at this time, i do have an amendment from the delegate from --
it'll be there. so, we are moving on to -- which one do you have next? the delegate from massachusetts, next. this is going to be page 10, line 14 to 36. and then, we have a separate amendment from you, which we will go to next, which is also on page 10, line 35. but let's start with the one on page 10, lines 14 to 36. >> thank you, mr. chairman and if my first amendment is adopted, we can skip the second amendment. in addition to serving the republican party in the commonwealth of massachusetts, i also serve on my local and special educations parent advisory council in my town. the so called cpac. when i found out i was going to be a delegate, even before i
knew it would be on the platform committee, i reached out to some conservative leaders in congress on disability issues. in particular, the senator from iowa and representatives from mississippi and washington state, mr. harper and ms. rogers, who have been conservative leaders on disability issues. working with of them, we came up with language we drafted and saluted early on to the platform committee for their consideration. the language we have here today. it is very similar to what is in the platform already. so, what my amendment would do is simply delete lines 14 through 36. so, there are three paragraphs. i would add in some new text, very similar concepts, but simply stating it a little differently. in working with these offices, there are words we like to use
in terms of talking about people with disabilities and issues we have been talking about and working on in washington dc to advance legislation. that is the concept behind my amendment. it is not making a substantial changes. that is mostly a manner of the wording. i have been authorized to say i have the support of those three offices for my amendment. if you would like, it is difficult to read on the screen. so, i will read it, if folks would like. >> so, the idea is to strike what is in the original document lines 14 to 36. an amendment,in which i have a copy of. we are going to make copies and distribute those so we can just lay this aside temporarily until those copies of what you have written get us debated. that way, people know exactly what they are seeing. and if we could lay aside also, just strike that wordage.
i am prepared to combine your two amendments. we will move at that point to come back to that. but i will move at this time to chris from kansas, the amendment 36.age 11, lines 30 to >> thank you, mr. chairman. does the person who is controlling the screen have the language there so i can walk through it? just a couple legal changes. you want to start in, he has that. -- if you want to start explaining, he has that. >> there is a correction to the legal nature of the final page on 11. this is the bottom of the page. in the first sentence, a kind of reduces the scope of the bill. currently, the language says we urge an immediate halt. it changes "an immediate halt"
to "caution in the creation of new cirmes." it would be inappropriate in this body to say we don't ever want congress to create a new crime. the second would be in the second sentence. technically, it is not a defense. it is an element. add, indelete that and the definition of any new crimes. and finally, it would delete the final sentence on lines 34 to 36. a mistakealso enact of law defense through the end of that sentence. the u.s. supreme court recognized the mistake of law as a defense back in 1959. so, it is already there. weon't think we need to say need to create something that the supreme court has long
recognized. >> some legal edits are appearing on the screen. is there any discussion? is there a second? discussion? yes, the delegate from alaska. lawyer, orou are a you deal with this, i am not sure you would know what it meant. i just see in the platform, this is supposed to be for somebody to know what it is that we stand for first but when it gets into lines 30 to 36, if you are not an attorney or law enforcement, it is externally difficult to understand. i would just like to see it removed. if i am giving this to someone, like a legislator to a platform or anything like that, or somebody running, it is just a lot of information. >> the delegate from rhode
island. >> just in response to that comment, i lobbied for this in my onmhome state. she is absolutely right. it is a difficult concept to get across unless the listener is familiar with criminal law. that being said, i would really encourage approval of this language. this is an incredibly important modification. is something we have let slide for too long and our justice system is suffering for it. despite its complexity, and i am forcible language in ou platformr, the i think the importance of this out weights that. >> yes, the delegate from new mexico. >> i rise in support of the amendment. in addition to having clear language in the platform, it is also important we have correct language in the platform. and the platform will be read by attorneys.
we should have specialist language relating to particular field and issues, which we have in this paragraph. that language needs to be correct in the field because we are communicating with whatever professionals we happen to be dealing with. we need to show we know what we are talking about, we are confident, and we can be trusted with running the country. >> all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying "aye." the amendment is adopted. the next amendment from the virgin islands, april newland. line 38.age 12, min >> this would actually create the number 38, which would be in addition. if we could read it. i don't see it up. if they could please put it up, so i can read it.
>> they will type it in. this is in addition on page 12 37. new line 38 after line i don't have it in front of me. so, i needed to come up on the screen. >> let me read what i have. correct me if i am wrong. there should be a national registry for children murderers, so that every american family knows who is their neighbor, or, if an offender is located next to an elementary school after their sentence has been served. is that a correct read? >> yes, technically that is it. if i may speak to the motion. >> please do. >> several years ago, my brother's two children were murdered. the perpetrator was supposed to
have a death sentence. my brother and his wife decided they would agree to a life sentence. he was supposed to be serving out a life sentence, but the laws in indiana were changed. they allowed the perpetrator to be released. shortly after his release, he moved to a location directly across from an elementary school. it was not very long before he molested one of the children from the elementary school. we do have a national registry for sex offenders. i think it is critically important that we have a national registry for child murderers. that way, people are aware of who is moving into their neighborhood and perhaps, save a family from the tragedy that happened within my family and could happen in their family.
thank you. >> the language is now on the screen. we are going to try and get the gray part out of it so it is easier to read. their days. the delegate from north dakota. -- there it is. the delegate from north dakota. >> this is kelly armstrong from north dakota. i am a recovering criminal defense attorney. the concern i would have with this is how these crimes are defined on a state-by-state basis, and whether they are intentional crimes, unintentional crimes. we run into this issue on a completely unrelated note. i am talking drivers licenses. when you try to codify something nationally that is different in all 50 states you run into real issues as to murder homicide, unintentional homicide. it all depends on each state
's individual sentry code. it is not even called sentry code in north dakota. the concept, while sound, is very difficult to enforce in an uniform matter, considering how each state codifies each of these individually. i would oppose this amendment. >> the delegate from indiana. >> of course, the reporting requirements and registries for child predators is based upon -- and pedophiles -- is based upon the established behavioral fact that they tend to, in high numbers, repeat their crime. that justifies the registry and the morning. what is the science on this issue? adauults that -- are kill children, are they likely
to complete their crime to an extend that would justify creating a registry in order to inform people about that? if somebody has that data, the n, that would -- and we have a similar behavioral pattern, i would think this would be justified. however, if we don't have that net, then creating a registry of citizens is something generally that the government maintains -- is something generally offensive. >> the delegate from the virgin islands. >> actually, my sister and i went to washington dc and met with the justice department. she had volumes of information about the recidivism of child murderers and it is quite high. i don't have all of the statistics in front of me, but it is quite high an similar to
pedophiles. so, if you are going to start qualifying, was the pedophile intentional or not intentional? murder is murder. i mean, there is really no different definition that i am aware of. an so, i think that is overarching issue that could save many, many children from many, many different problems. so, i hope the people will be in favor of this amendment. >> seeing no additional discussion, all those in favor -- i'm sorry, there is a delegate from maryland with their hand up. the delegate from maryland. >> hi. this is a one size solution for the 50 states. a federal mandate does not work. 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