Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160714 :

republican convention. as chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee, congressman ben lujan is in charge of democrats' efforts to win back a majority in the house of representatives. he spoke about the dccc's history and the effect that donald trump is having on house races. from the national press club in washington, this is an hour. >> good morning. >> good morning, everyone. my name is thomas burr. i'm the washington correspondent for the salt lake tribune and the 109th president of the national press club. i'd like to welcome our guest today, congressman ben ray lujan, chairman of the democratic campaign committee. the national press club has hosted nearly every president since our founding in 1908. i should note we've had a lot more visit in modern times from our friends in the legislative branch, including a good couple dozen house and senate members in the last couple of years. congressman, thank you for joining us. i'm going to turn the microphone over to bob wiener from our newsmakers committee to introduce yourself. and i look forward to asking you some tough questions in a minute. >> thanks, tommy. you can sit right here, if you like. you got your mark. okay. great. and again, welcome to the national press club where news happens. and today is no exception. i'm bob wiener. i'm the newsmakers event coordinator, and today democratic congressional campaign chair ben ray lujan will address us, highlighting the shifting house battlefield and efforts to tie the gop to donald trump. congressman lujan will outline the house democratic's offensive strategy, messaging, targeting, voter outreach and highlight not only the battlefield, but unew approaches to tie house members to donald trump. he represents new mexico's third congressional district. that includes santa fe and northern new mexico. and he served in congress since 2009. he was selected by house democratic leader nancy pelosi to chair the dccc in november 2014 after serving as chief deputy whip. the congressman serves currently on the energy and commerce committee and the subcommittees on communications and technology and health. and he told me something on the way in. he was born the night his father won reelection for county commission? born the night his father won reelection for county commission, a primary in 1972. so politics is literally in his blood. and a similar national press club newsmaker with the national republican congressional committee chairman bob waldon will be held september 8th. now the date is now set. the politico of a week ago has a headline with a story. "congressman lujan will tell us if that's really slim or if there is a chance or if there could be gains, if there won't, what the why, the strategies might be that could be effective. so we very much look forward to having the congressman. just a few introductions in addition to tommy burr who is the national press club president. and we're so honored to have tommy here. also, i want to introduce ben laskey, ben, stand up, our onsite coordinator who will carry -- well, unless, katie, you want it. ben, you decide. or katie schultz, our superstar intern. katie, if you would stand up. we'll divide giving the mic to our questioners through the two of you. also, my wife, dr. patricia berg. and i like to say that pat has a real job. she is the director of the breast cancer laboratory at george washington medical center. discovered a gene activated in 80% of women with breast cancer. 70% of men with prostate cancer. so that's the kind of life-saving work that i'm so proud of what pat does. meredith kelly. where are you, meredith? the congressman -- actually, the democratic congressional campaign committee national press secretary and media coordinator has been enormously helpful. and we thank meredith for all your work in making this event happen. joanne booze is out in the corner, our newsmakers committee liaison. she does a spectacular job in making sure everything is taken care of. congressman lujan, thank you very much. and the mic is yours for a brief opening statement and followed by questions and answers. >> thank you so much. really appreciate that. well, bob, thanks for the kind introduction and the great words. dr. berg, thank you for your work as well. tommy, thanks for your leadership and all your responsibilities as well. and for having a big part in bringing us all together today. so i guess first off, everyone, good morning. it's going to be with each and every one of you today. with the presidential race set and congressional primaries drawing to a close, the dccc is hitting the ground running. with democratic victories across the country on november 8th, we at the dccc are making an early unprecedented investment in an aggressive nationwide campaign. it's a campaign with a simple message. donald trump is a bully, a bigot. the most divisive politician in a generation, the most unqualified presidential nominee in our nation's history. and every house republican who failed to stand up to him bears responsibility for his rise. this week the democratic congressional campaign committee launched a seven-figure national advertising campaign cable and digital. our goal, to find the toxic republican brand and tie donald trump to these incumbents like an anchor before their campaigns even set sail. let's be clear. republicans have brought this upon themselves. over the last year and a half, republicans have had the opportunity to stand up to donald trump when it mattered most. but instead, they just fell in line. there has never been a shadow of a doubt that donald trump is a dangerous and ill fitted person to be commander in chief, yet house republicans stood idly by as he marched towards the republican nomination. so now house republicans can hide when donald trump goes to visit them in their districts, but they can't cut and run away from the fact that his is the face of their party. but it's worse than that. by standing with donald trump, republicans are aiding and abetting trump in his hate, his bigotry, his racism and his misogyny. like sidekicks to the schoolyard bully, house republicans are allowing trump to embrace fear and divisiveness, and to out the truly dangerous policy proposals. this goes beyond politics. it goes to character. when a leader in your party is dividing americans against each other and attacking women and minorities and immigrants and veterans and people with disabilities, how you react is a test of your leadership. and by falling in line with trump, house republicans failed that leadership test. they have put their party over the good of our country, just as they have over and over again since republicans took the majority in 2010. and we refuse to let them off the hook. now you may have been surprised with some of the ads that you may have seen over the last week. indeed, this is an unconventional strategy and an unconventional year. but deploying early in the cycle is critically important. we're in a national election focused on one person and one person only, donald trump. with this national ad we're framing the debate to make sure that republican incumbents can't escape the impact of their party's disastrous choice for president. make no mistake. this is just the beginning. the opening salvo to the general election. with outstanding candidates in more than 65 competitive districts, democrats are prepared to take advantage of every opportunity in the national environment. the national republican campaign committee still may desperately grass top the claim that they will add and expand to their majority, but it's laughable there is not one -- there has not been one notable rating change in a democratic held district that favors republicans this cycle. to the contrary, political pundits may have made democratic rating changes to benefit democrats. the dccc has been on offense since day one recruiting deep into the battlefield to expand our map and prepare for whatever opportunities come our way. today i want to share with you three key observations as we survey the house battlefield and our strategies ahead. first, the demographics were already shifting in our direction. in 2015, the dccc conducted an extensive analysis of how the electorate is changing and growing over time. to identify where the house majority will come from, now and in the future. the bottom line is that the natural trends in the national environment work in democrats' favor. the electorate is getting younger, more diverse, and more democrats are moving from densely packed cities into republican districts in the suburbs. overall, these changes will be a net positive for democrats in the years to come. this means democrats are going to become increasingly competitive in districts with growing communities of color, near universities, in suburbs, and with large populations of moderate and independent voters. second, donald trump is accelerating that shift. you all know that trump is underwater with women, millennials, hispanic, african americans, asian americans, but what's important to remember when considering the house races is that donald trump is also deeply unpopular with suburban voters and dependents and those with college degrees. these are the very same voters that were already starting to come our way in the years ahead. but trump accelerates that. third, our map only gets better from here. listen, i'll be honest with all of you. democrats face a challenge this year thanks in part to the 2010 republican gerrymandering. it's not an infinitely expanding battlefield. but the winnable districts are increasingly becoming much more competitive. districts that would have been 50-50 toss-ups under a conventional presidential year without donald trump, like texas 23, illinois 10, florida 26, are now leaning in favor of democrats. our competitive battlefield then pushes into republican-leaning districts with strong candidates in place to challenge a weak republican incumbent. these races are now undeniably competitive, places like new jersey 5, utah 4, or california 25. and this shift also allowed us to recruit and compete in lean and likely republican districts, where we have never mounted a credible challenge before, places like florida 7, minnesota, 3. new york, 22. we're now seeing and hearing the shift on the ground as we talk to voters in these districts, and the data bears it out. in an assessment of dccc polling from over 20 districts in our original core battlefield districts, the dccc has seen an average eight-point shift for the democrat in the named head to head vote since 2015. that's an important point and that's real data. the generic democrat has also improved by an average of over five points against the generic republican. now in an assessment of presidential favorability in 40 swing seats in 2016, hillary clinton has a net advantage of nine points over donald trump on average. again, on those 40 swing seats across the country. in other words, we've seen positive movement in competitive house races. that happened without paid communications purely as a result of the national environment. we're optimistic for that growth to continue, just as it did today. the dccc has added five new races from our red to blue program and ten new candidates to our emerging races program that we announced just this morning. this brings the number of races in the top tier category to 48 races total. it's another exciting step in the right direction. and let me just say this. donald trump may give democrats an extra boost this cycle, but we've been preparing for this kind of aggressive campaign since before he opened up his mouth. once i became chairman, i set the dccc on an aggressive off-year endeavor to prepare for whatever might come our way in 2016. for the first time, the dccc has brought data and analytics in-house. we put a premium on hiring a diverse and local field staff deployed months earlier than ever before, to build a lasting democratic infrastructure in districts across the country that won't just help us in 2016, but in 2018 and beyond. and we've established a targeted messaging operation so that campaigns can communicate with voters in the smartest way possible, especially with millennials, people of color, and women. now let me walk you through three strategic priorities the committee moving forward. first, we will arm our campaigns with the smartest data, analytics and field programs. in conjunction with hillary clinton's campaign and other al tlierks dccc's in-house data and analytics infrastructure has allowed us to build the first trump model. drawing from live data in targeted states and districts, the model will measure and predict which voters are likely to have an unfavorable view of donald trump, typically independents or moderate republicans, and often women. from the moment donald trump launched his campaign, trump has been intent on driving out republicans who oppose him and tossing them right out of the party. we intend to welcome them into ours. once we find these voters, our campaigns will reach out to them with a specialized compelling message against the republican representative in congress. this will happen at the door, on the phone, through campaign literature, and in other communications. what will those messages be? that leads me to the second element of our strategy. deepening the tie between house republicans and the toxic trump through every type of communication with voters. in every campaign office in america, republicans are struggling to deal with trump's devastating impact on the races. we intend to make their jobs even harder. this means aggressive ofly getting house republicans on the record regarding the party front-runner. republicans, take notice. you may try to claim there is a difference between supporting trump and endorsing him, but it's time to throw your thesaurus and face the fax. if donald trump is your nominee, he is your problem and your responsibility. you break it, you buy it. house republicans will have to answer for trump's unpredictable, dangerous, and hateful comments on a daily basis. beyond the day to day madness of trump, the connection we draw for voters will also be one of substance and policy. house republicans continue to take out hateful positions and take trump-like votes that attack dreamers, allow discrimination over the lgbt community, limit a woman's health care rights, and even protect the confederate battle flag. and while barbara comstock may avoid using trump's name as if he is voldemort, she once recommended that immigrants be tracked by fedex packages. that's a policy that in virginia's tenth district will be crystal clear on. mike coffman may try to change history books in his highly diverse district, he attacked immigrants and once joined the birther movement to question whether president obama is an american. sadly, that list goes on. but that ugly track record of house republicans only reminds us of our ultimate goal, winning seats. the third strategy is simple. we must make the math even harder for house republicans in swing districts. let me tell you what i mean by that. on election day, to get to 50% plus one, lee zeldan must widely appeal to republican base that choose trump over 16 other candidates and be able to attract independents, people of color and even democrats. you see the problem. whether they're with them or they're against him, they're alienating that base. already there are two factors this year that make this harder for these vulnerable republicans. first, it's a presidential year. when turnout is higher, and when more people vote, democrats just happen to do better. and second, of course donald trump has fractured the republican base, turned off independents, and absolutely repelled key voters like latinos. then as i mentioned before, the dccc will add one more x factor to that mathematical equation. through an intense geo voters and aggressively target independent, undecided and moderate reports with a persuasive program. at the end of the day, this will be an unsolvable equation for house republicans in swing districts in november. now, house republicans have been in charge for six years. for six years, they have failed to stand up to the koch brothers. they have failed to stand up to the birthers and the conspiracy theorists and the bigots of their party. in fact, they're about to nominate one of them to be president of the united states of america. so here is the question we will put to voters. if you can't trust house republicans to stand up to donald trump, can you really trust them to stand up for you and your family? because for six years, while house republicans have put party over country, the american people have been waiting for someone to put them first. they have been waiting for house republicans to keep them safe and help them prosper instead of using their office to play partisan games. they've been waiting for house republicans to work in good faith to solve problems. they've been waiting for meaningful action on student debt on climate change, on immigration reform, and so much more. we believe the american people shouldn't have to wait. and we're not waiting either. that's why we're jumping into action earlier and more aggressively than ever before. that's why we're employing new strategies and recruiting new candidates, and talking to new voters. 2016 represents a unique opportunity for a new direction in the house, and the dccc is ready to seize that opportunity. thanks again for being here, and i look forward to the conversation and to the questions. >> thank you very much. katie, why don't you take this. warm it up, we hope the battery doesn't die. two other introductions. david hode, the vice chair of the newsmakers is here and bill mccarron, the director of the national press club is in the back. okay. so we'll go for the first question to tommy burr from the salt lake tribune and the president of the national press club. >> thank you. i've been introduced like four times now. this is awesome. congressman, thanks for being here. i wanted to follow up on your comments. if you break it, you buy it. obviously, you're trying to tie every republican to donald trump. but in the opposite, can't they tie every one of your candidates, every one of your incumbents to hillary clinton? and how do you respond to saying well, if they're republican, they like trump. well, don't all of your democrats like hillary who is also incredibly polarizing and unliked by half of americans. >> tommy, if this comes down to a contrast between donald trump and hillary clinton, it's going to be a very strong year for us as democrats. look, our internal data shows us what national polling is showing as well. hillary clinton has a nine-point bump over donald trump across swing districts across america. what we're seeing today is republicans trying to find every way they can to have their cake and eat it too. and the same breath when house republicans support donald trump, they have to defend against his racist statements, against posting anti-semitic symbols. and rather than apologizing and saying sorry for doing it, donald trump doubles down and says, no no one should have taken it down in the first place. it turns into a week-long agenda that leads us to the general election in november as well. i think that's the biggest difference that we're seeing going into this as well. to compare the racist things that donald trump is saying, i think that someone wrote about donald trump's twitchy twitter fingers with the dilemmas that he creates every day as well. it's endless. the damage has been done by donald trump. and republicans are not able to walk away from it. again, they've been falling in line day in and day out. and at the top of the list sadly is our very own speaker paul ryan, who days after the endorsement had to defend against more racist statements, more anti-semitic symbols that were posted, and i would say that list goes on. that's the difference between donald trump and hillary clinton and where we are against republicans once we enter this general election cycle. >> can i just follow up on that. so congressman milov is not endorsing donald trump, is not going to the convention. how can you tie a republican who is not endorsing donald trump. you just say well, it's your party. you to own it. same with doug owens and hillary clinton? >> so in every congressional district across the country where donald trump has been able to find vote, there is a donald trump base of voters. and those voters are not happy with republicans who are not getting behind donald trump. so you have a math problem. that's part of that math problem and that equation they was describing that is so challenging for republicans to try to figure out. and the x factor is donald trump. he is the multiplier to all of this mess for them. if you have a problem within the republican base, and there is a problem with donald trump also alienating voters that may stay home, or those that he is pushing to democrats, plus activating our base in a way where donald trump is underwater in the '80s and '90s with asian americans, millennials and the list goes on that, helps us and complicates the math problem for republicans. that's why it's going to be hard for republicans in competitive districts across america. come november. >> so the conventional wisdom is it's is going to take 30 seats to flip if the house would change parties. that the number that you agree with? and also, what would be the goifnl everything you discussed, and if that were to be true, is there the potential to wave election or is that just a bridge too far? >> so if we go back into 2014 and 2015, there was not a story that was written associated with the competitive nature of house districts across america. something magical happened at the end of 2015 going into 2016 that only got worse for house republicans that changed the national narrative as we were looking at house races and senate races across the country. more and more headlines were suggesting as the political headline was donald trump is helping democrats with house congressional races across america. it's only getting a little bit better for us. so as was said, right now house democrats are in the minority by 30 seats. we need to have a net win of 30 seats to get back into the majority. the leader when she appointed me said ben, your job is to put the house in play from day one. make sure that you're leaning in, your reinventing the way we are running campaigns. be smarter about data. make sure we are able to understand historical trends and what is going to be happening day in and day out so you can make smarter decisions at the door. being able to own the ground, get out there and do this earlier than ever before. and launch a very aggressive campaign. then we have donald trump. so where i am today, why i have not made any predictions about winning the house back or not, what i have very clearly said is democrats are on offense. we will win seats. and the bald field that was put together in 2015 before we even knew about donald trump is get mortgage and more competitive. it's why seats are being written about in places like utah, 4. new jersey, 5. now we're going to be playing in florida, 7 against congressman mica and new york 22 where chased out by the tea party, we have an amazing kim myers. those were districts that were not on the map early on, ex-spangd what we're doing all the way to indiana with the great recruit. there are races we'll be playing in and wing across the country that were not otherwise on the map. again, as we get closer to election day, my strategy has always been one vote at a time, one district at a time. and we're going to continue pushing down that path. >> okay. so tommy said i should ask this question four times. but i'll leave it at two. let me take this another way. so you're not making a prediction. but is it possible that there is a wave election. do you see that as a possibility? >> anything is possible. and things are more possible when donald trump speaks day to day and continues to galvanize the country. what i'll say is this. republicans in 2010 gerrymandered their way into power. we're seeing very republican districts across the country which shifted the battlefield from past years. with that being said, though, we're seeing an expanding battlefield grow day by day. and when we see the number of competitive districts that are out there, and all of the rating changes in race after race that have leaned our way as democrats, that creates a very positive environment for us. so i am very optimistic to what is going to happen come election day in november of 2016. and to see what we'll be able to put together there, bob. look, there is a lot of questions surrounding this as well. and we're going to continue to work day in and day out. and leader pelosi has been leading the charge. there is a reason why house democrats have been able to edge out the national republican campaign committee month after month as well. whether we basically tie them or beat them when it comes to fundraising. they have almost 100 more members than we do there is no reason that that should even be close. and if that's an indication plus what we're seeing with numbers across the country, namely the internal polling that i was sharing with you in these districts across the country, that leads to a very positive day for us on election day. and we'll let a few of our other friends make some of those predictions. but i'm going to continue to lean in and make sure one district at a time, one vote at a time and make sure we pick up seats all across the country. >> okay. and katie, if you could bring the question and mic to the next person, which will be who? raise your hand. who has a question? okay. and identify yourself and organization. >> i'm neil with roll call. i noticed in your list of districts that you're saying you're now playing in, you mentioned the new york 22nd. that's an upstate district that has had really never recovered from the manufacturing losses of a long time ago. it's a place where you would think that mr. trump's message about manufacturing and about china and what not might have appeal. are you saying that that's something you are not? you're detecting the opposite up there? >> so house republicans in new york 22, the most right wing tea party oriented candidate came out of that party. not what they hoped to come for the race. that creates a math problem for republicans in that district as well who have strongly supported a very moderate richard hannah for some time. that shows you the proximity of what is going to happen in this race. that's why it is so competitive. it's about the candidates on the ground there as well. so across the country, you're not only seeing the difference when it's trump versus clinton and the environment that donald trump is creating, when you look at our districts across the country, and we're reminded by tip o'neill. all things are local. all politics is local. and this very race where we saw richard hannah pushed out by the tea party, and it was the very challenger to hannah that won this very competitive republican primary where they beat each other up, now we're in a very strong place with a very strong candidate in kim meyers. >> okay. identify yourself. >> hi, i'm colby burnell on the green wire. my question was i wanted to know what the dccc's plans are for both of the conventions for the democratic convention and where fundraising spotlight candidates and for cleveland want to know will there be any kind of anti-trump events? >> the reason we leaned in to a national advertising blitz this week was to get in front of the national republican convention. to be able to set the stage across america, but especially as republicans are deciding whether they're going still support donald trump and vote for donald trump or vote for donald trump, but not endorse donald trump. and then defend, again, the racist things that donald trump says or doesn't say day in and day out. that's the difference here. so we have leaned in to be able to create the stage, if you will. if house republicans are not willing to stand up to donald trump and his message of hate and bigotry, are they really willing to stand up for you and your families? we want people thinking about that question. you remember there was something similarly done in 1964. there was a conversation about confessions of a republican, asking what happens if your standard bearer is endorsed by the kkk. is surrounded by hate and bigotry was the message back in '64. and voters across the country listened to that thoughtfully. and they reflect and they thought about it. that's all i'm asking voters to do this cycle as well. and as we lean in to the democratic convention, i'll be sharing our strategy. as i lean in to talk about what we're doing in races across the country, it's with a very positive approach. again, we're on offense. we have a contrast. not only do we have a plan to make sure that we are taking advantage of all of the negative environment that surrounds donald trump, but we're going to highlight the amazing recruits that we had and the success, again, in 65 districts across the country where we have recruited, announced candidates and a growing battlefield, and rating changes that are favoring democrats. and again, not one rating change that has gone against a democrat incumbent as well. so very positive message that we'll be sharing at the dnc as well. >> and also, just a point of information. the press club hosted the executive director of the democratic national convention and the mayor of philadelphia and the president of the local organizing committee about a week ago. c-span covered it. so it's live. and it discussed events and finances and all of that and options. so if you want to go to that and click on the link, you can see the hour-long event that goes into some of what you're asking also. tommy burr had a follow-up. >> thank you. so you keep saying pretty much how donald trump is really good for you this year. are you like secretly paying him, first question. the second question, this is a different strategy in many ways than campaign committees do which is to localize elections. this is not about the national party. this about who this congress person is or this candidate is. so this cycle, your strategy is to nationalize every campaign and talk about donald trump instead of localize and talk about your candidate. >> well, i would say, tommy, that our strategy is to take advantage of every element that is out there in this cycle. it just turns out that there is a national strategy to this because donald trump keeps giving. and there is -- it's no secret that when house republicans are asked by any one of you whether they support trump or not, you know how uncomfortable they look. the phones come out of their pockets. they have to take a phone call. they have to walk away. in some cases, it was reported that people were running from journalists because they don't want to answer questions about donald trump. that's the environment that is happening today. sadly, as house republicans want to pretend to their voters and to their constituents that they're running from donald trump, they're falling in line day in and day out. and so everywhere that we see this happening, we're going to be talk about it. but, again, this is about each congressional district across the country, which is a unique congressional district, and it's about the contrast that we're seeing on the ground with our candidates compared to the republicans as well. and we will make that case because the same ugly policies that has america horrified over donald trump's candidacy are the same policies that we've seen advocated for by republican colleagues especially since their takeover in 2010. i'm not certain who is. we see -- it seems like donald trump's own campaign is paying donald trump with all the hotels and steaks that he has been buying. it seems that he is self-funding his own proficiency. that's definitely one i should have popped out of the park there. look, he is -- i don't know what to say about this guy. several out there have questioned about his rise. and that's the problem is during that republican primary, no one was standing up to this bully. and now he is the presumptive nominee for the gop. you have to stand up to a bully when you see this ugly rhetoric, otherwise you get donald trump. sending signals to hate groups with his divisive rhetoric, it's not good fob america. so that's what i'm here to tell you today. i'm here and ready and willing to stand up to this bully. and i'm asking america to get behind me. >> i'm intrigued by tommy's question, because tommy, i think if i'm right where you're coming from, in the past it's always been all politics is local and put the money into the local races and put the strategy into the local races. yes, something has changed in this election. so what would you say is the proportion? there still has to be a local factor, of course. what is the proportion, nationalization of the campaign versus local issues. maybe you can address how it's dividing out. maybe it's moved 10 or 15 or 20 points, but it's still probably both. let's see what your thoughts are. >> i guess i hadn't thought about it from an analytical perspective to levy weights on one side or the other. i think the way that i would describe it is there is one narrative this cycle. and it's all part of that story. when you see policies on the ground with donald trump not disavowing david duke minutes after that post, which everyone should have done, and everyone knows better, and then you see house republicans in the dark of night at 3:00 in the morning tuck in an amendment to protect the display of the confederate battle flag. it's the same thing. and there is example after example that show that story. so it's all come in. it's all -- i guess that coming from new mexico and a community that celebrates art, it's a beautiful tapestry that has been woven now that is going to help us tell a story that people will be able to see the entire piece in front of them as opposed to the threads that haven't been put together to tell this amazing story. donald trump is helping us weave this tapestry together to help highlight the dysfunction, the lack of governing that we have seen on full display by house republicans. and it goes to the point to this, as we talk about house republicans. tonight speaker ryan is doing a town hall, i'm told, on cnn. and what we've seen over the last few weeks are a series of white papers that have been written and put together with the notion of what republicans will do in 2017 if they're in charge. the worst kept secret in america is republicans are in charge now. they shouldn't be writing the white papers as to what they will do when they're in charge. they should be putting votes on the floor today. we're going into a recess where zika has yet to be fully addressed. funding for the opioid crisis has yet to be addressed. the flint, michigan crisis has yet to be addressed. it also want to make sure that the employees that work in the house office buildings are offered protection against the lead-infected pipe there's. the people in flint, michigan should be as well. well want to make sure we're combatting this crisis. and speaker ryan has pulled a piece of legislation off the table that he promised would be there during the fourth of july recess. it all comes together. the disavowing, the pushing away, ignoring the responsibility of governing that we're seeing from house republicans reflects what donald trump has been saying day in and day out. and donald trump has only put a spotlight so that we can show the american people what's been happening locally in these districts across america. >> so that being the case, what there wasn't last time was national ads. and i remember bill clinton was critical of the dccc for no national ads on the national issues. will that change now under you? >> it already has. so there is already two ads that have been airing starting monday, just yesterday. we unveiled those ads, i believe on friday of last week. and we will be leaning in. it's only the beginning of making sure that we're part of this national conversation and that we're working together to ask voters. again, if you can't trust donald trump, you trust those that have not stood up to him and those that have fallen in line to look after you and your families? it's a very simple question. and we're going to be asking people all across the country to reflect on that, to think about that. and if that is the case, that you're with us, come join us. come work with us. let's make sure that we're going have a stronger america day in and day out, that we're going make sure that we stand up to the notion where things are unsafe, where things are unaffordable, or things are unfair. we can work together to make sure that we're scouring nation, that we're securing our future, and that we're securing our democracy. we can do this together. >> i saw a whole host of hands. people who haven't yet asked, and then we'll come back to people who have. let's go in the back next to tommy. >> hi, kimberly raley with national journal. thank you for your time. i want to ask about congressman bob dole. he has been one of donald trump's most vocal and early critics. and of a lot of republicans in congress, he is definitely one of the most moderate in the conference so far. why are you confident that's not going to be enough for him to survive his reelection? >> bob schneider is already up on bob dole. what we've seen is bob schneider continues to do better, especially coming out of what was a very tough primary, a race where brad had to really lean in. that being said, brad reached out to voters all across the congressional district and they were talking about brad, learning about brad, being remind to have had great service that brad has in his heart as well and fighting for people. that's the biggest difference here. and look, as i said earlier, whether you talk about caraviello or you talk about dold and the statements they made about donald trump, they didn't stand up to him when it mattered most. that's point number one. point number two is even as they're standing up now, they're alienating those that have been donald trump supporters. so they complicate their own math as well. and that coupled with brad schneider running a very strong campaign, working hard, having the same financial support and many times better than we're even seeing with what mr. dold has been putting together, as we're leaning into this psych into november, and the polling is on brad's side with building momentum day by day. i think that's all a positive environment for us as well. and look, in illinois, you're seeing kirk and everyone else try to run away from this monster that has been created. i was a fan of the monster books when i was growing up as well. and if anyone thought that mary shelley's frankenstein would come to full fruition, it's definitely the people of illinois. they're having to deal with that monster right now. it comes back down to just local dynamics in a race. brad schneider is doing well. the poll song his side. and he is continuing to maintain and earl o earn the trust of more and more voters. and more voters are paying attention to this race in the cycle. we'll see increased voter turnout in race like in illinois 10. and that's going to come our way and help brad get elected. >> hi, a lot of the emphasize seems to be on donald trump's sort of outrageous comments that he makes sort of off the cuff kind of stuff. but about specific policies, are there certain policies that you think you're going to come at him on? and being a tax publisher that i'm working for, do you think his tax and spending policies will be coming out? >> i think you all just covered the roll-out of donald trump's economic policy with all the holes that it still has and showing what it will truly cost the american people. once donald trump, when he shoots from the hip, when he just decides to tweet whatever may be on his mind as he wakes from his slumber and posts it and it becomes a policy position, that then his team around him has to defend, then they have to do the hard work of trying to put the numbers to it. it turns out that many of the policies that donald trump has advocated for will be devastating to the united states economy and will hurt working people across the country. the only thing that donald trump is seemed to have said is he agrees with house republicans on from an economic perspective at this time is they both agree there should be tax cuts for the most wealthy in the country. go tell that to working families in illinois 10 and working families in america that that's the platform that this guy who has suggested that the united states should default on our debt, that we should restructure, somehow get to junk bond status. that shouldn't surprise us. that's how donald trump made his money. so if the way that he has created his wealth is how he'll run america, i don't want us going bankrupt in the united states of america. i don't want workers pensions and all of those 401(k)s and saving programs being devastated because donald trump could put a buck in his pocket while someone was getting thrown out of their home, like we saw during the housing crisis. that's the staple of his economic policy and why it's going to be devastating to the american people. >> again, folks who haven't asked, right? okay. good. >> hi, congressman. "the dallas morning news." in light of the events of last week in dallas and, you know, also in baton rouge and minnesota and everything that has been going on, how do you think that the gun debate and race relations questions and, you know, the political climate in general, how does that affect some of these races and if you could as well, we obviously are specifically interested as well in the will hurt-pete gallegos race. gallegos has been running clinton's trump ads directly on his website. but will hurt has been trying to distance himself from trump. i don't think he is going to the convention next week as well. curious about your thoughts on that too. >> well, a week that was one of the toughest in our nation's history. and that happened as there was finally a conversation taking place about violence in america and what needs to be done to have an open and honest conversation about that. there was a conversation in the house floor led by congressman john lewis. bringing attention to the fact that there is more that we could do as a nation. to be able to combat some of this violence. closing the gun show loophole, looking at what we can do to require mandatory background checks. something that poll after poll shows whether it's in the mid-80s to the mid-90s, the american people are behind. people across the country want action. and if any of these bills would come to the floor, i'm confident that they would pass. why are house republican colleagues putting party over country in this case, number one? after what we saw in orlando, which we can attribute to terrorism and a hate crime, to baton rouge in louisiana and to minnesota, these families deserve answers. tragic lives that have been taken. the police officers who were attacked not just in dallas, but then in reports right before and right after. we need to come together as a country and have an honest conversation about this as well. provide more training, the importance of body cameras, the respect and the engagement with our officers as well. but also the respect that it shows to people that come from communities of color. in this case, young african american men, young black men. and we need to have an eyes wide open thoughtful conversation about this. and it takes me back even to the ugliness where the rhetoric is with the national election that we have today. that hate speak has no place in our -- in our public discourse. we're better than that. we're bigger than that. and we shouldn't be speaking -- people shouldn't be speaking in code to try to show that they're inciting some group or another. that's all bad too. i think some of the most thoughtful comments and conversations that i've had that i've heard that have been covered have been from the physician in dallas, dr. williams who treated these officers to try to save their lives and the victims that came in after those horrific shootings in dallas as well. but then told a story how he raise his daughter. how he'll go buy some ice cream for the officers as well in front of his daughter so that sees these are good people. but he said he'd be lying to the american people if he didn't share how he was treated growing up. as well and the fears that he had. we need to listen to our friends and our family. because when we have whether th african-american or they are from the lgbt community, hispanic, any earthnicity or grp that has been pushed around and they tell you how they have been treated, listen to them. it's real. and don't forget about those stories. i would say as we look at the congress, at the national mood and the responsibilities that we have as leaders, as citizens, as individuals, we all have to come together. we all have to be in this as a family to move this. to make sure that these atroc y atrocities never happen again. not just in america, but everywhere. that's our responsibility. and it is changing the conversation across the country. now as i pivot and talk about texas 23, texas 23 is an example of a state -- of a district in a state where we're seeing a voter surge during a presidential cycle as well. so e we get bumps in democratic competitive districts all across the state of texas, up and down ballot in presidential years. that's one of the leading charges that bring back to the congress and trying to run away from donald trump. pete works hard. and the heart that pete has and looking after people is what i admire most. and that resinates with voters. we're also seeing latinos get engaged. so voter registration trends in california, florida and texas have been leading our way with the activism of the latino community. not only the involvement of latinos, but the voter surge in texas and many other competitive districts across the country, which is why we'll do well and win that particular race. >> i saw some more hands. any other questions? >> congressman, you mentioned speaker ryan before in his town hall meeting tonight. that just prompted something that i hadn't been planning on asking, which is do you have any advice for democrats who might live in the first congressional district of wisconsin about what they should do in their upcoming primary since wisconsin is an open primary state. >> what i would say in speaker ryan's district, just vote. if we can get 100% of the population voting in america, we'll all be better off and have a more representative government. i u don't know what that mean, but in districts that i'm working in, it means that more democrats will get elected across the country and we'll be in a stronger place. we have to question. i know this isn't part of the question, but i'll respond in this way u. we have to question why our republican colleagues, whether it's in the house of representatives or in other parts of leadership roles whether it's non-profit world or advocacy role, why it's getting hard for poem to vote across america. why they make it harder to get to the ballot box. bhie can't everyone just vote. why can't we make sure that in america like in colorado and oregon and washington state where you're a citizen, you get a ballot and you're encouraged to vote. we need more people voting. we're better off when it comes to that place. my message would be simple. just vote. get involved. care. pay attention what's happening across the country. question what's happening and demand better. that's what we need to be doing. good question. >> i thank you for your time again. there was the ap report this morning that said that donald trump, if he were elected president, he would be the only major world leader that would not believe in climate change. so i wanted to ask how that notion plus maybe the gop maybe environmental agenda a z a whole how that's going to play out with house democrats in races across the country. >> it's a perfect example. so many colleagues don't believe in that either. all donald trump is doing is bringing attention to what house republicans are. he probably is the only world leader that has twitchy twitter fi fingers. donald trump is breaking the mold and not for the better. i don't know how to respond to all things trump. every day you're asked to respond to one more ridiculous thing that was said or a policy position that was taken. and you begin to ask the journalists or the people -- is that question for real. it's unbelievable what's happening in and around donald trump. so clearly in this particular case with what was report ed by the ap, it did you want surprise me. it's where house republicans are today. we talk about the impact of what's happening with climate change around the united states and around the world. drought conditions making it harder to grow food. impacting and devastating entire industries in the united states. making it harder for people to earn a living to get by. devastating forest fires across the west and so many other parts of america that are uncontrollable and republicans' response is not only to say drought conditions aren't reel, but that we're not going to put more funding forward to be able to combat forest fire. then you look at famine and conflict around the world in the same place. the department of defense has listed their own document hig u highlighting the challenges that exist from climate change as well. when it means when the department of defense is being challenged by colleagues with investing in renewable resource. making it such that our troops are not having to transport those trucks of diesel fuel in areas of conflict where then there lives are in jeopardy. the 720 out of las vegas is a transport group out of the army national guard where we have lost local leaders because of that. not facing this issue. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, former senior adviser to the 2012 romney presidential campaign will join us to discuss the 2016 presidential race, the platform and the republican party as it heads into next week's national convention. we'll also talk about donald trump's candidacy and his potential vice presidential nominees. then democratic new jersey congresswoman bonnie watson cole man will discuss house democratic efforts to push gun control legislation. the recent violence of police-involved shootings and the 2016 campaign. be sure to watch washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. the 2016 primary season is over with historic conventions to follow this summer. >> colorado. >> florida. >> texas. >> ohio. >> watch c-span as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party and the first non-politician in several decades. watch live on c-span. listen on the c-span radio app. or get video on demand at c-span.org. you have a front row seat to every minute of both conventions on c-span. all beginning on monday. i had a rough upbringing and i got involved in the streets and they were selling drugs. it was like the thing to do. i started selling drugs. we started selling marijuana. we sold cocaine and crack cocaine. we started selling that. i was in the streets from 13 to 18 years old. >> sunday night on q&a, 21-year veteran of the nypd discusses his book "once a cop." he talks about his former life as a drug dealer and as a police officer. >> i criticize police a lot, but when i criticize i'm talking about the bad police. that's a small percentage. overwhelming majority of cops are just doing their job. but you don't hear about them. you hear about the eric garner case. you hear about the bad cops and bad policing. once law enforcement start weeding them out, because every time you see one of these cases of black men getting killed, you look at the person's background, seven complaints of use of force, five substantiated, the guy was a mess. and we don't find out about it until they kill somebody. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. this week the republican platform committee met to draft the party's political platform ahead of the convention. here's part of their deliberations including debates over defining marriage, medical marijuana, religion in schools, the war on terrorism and u.s. relations with cuba and israel. this is five hours. >> on page six. >> we're going to start on page one and work. have your amendment in hand so we'll get to that in order. thank you so much for your work. i would like to say depending on how long it takes to get through this, we may move to the third plank, the economy as we finish this amendment process today on amendments to the economy plank, please have those done by 5:30. have those submitted by 5:30 this evening so we can address those. with that i want to move to -- we do have some amendments here. the first is on page one, it's from the chair of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this one has to do with the title of the committee in the section of the platform. we'd like to update it from 2012. and we'd like to call it the great american families education, health care and criminal justice section. >> this is the amendment. is there a second? second. any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. next. >> on page 1, line 17. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this will be after the text "for most among those institutions is," insert "the american family." it is the foundation of civil society and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage. the union of one man and one woman. and we'd like to submit this to get rid of a duplication that we had in the first two sentences. >> is there a second? >> second. >> discussion? hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> all: aye. >> opposed, nay. it is adopted. the gentlemen from north carolina. page 1, line 28. if you could turn on your microphone and address the amendment. microphone is not on, ron. >> all right. i have it now. all i'm trying to do here is tie together the fact that where there's family education works, and we have those in two separate parts right now. this was just intended to be a transition into putting the education part in with the family. we would recognize. that's reality cornerstone of getting success out of our said indication process. >> this is, as it's coming up on the screen, this is page 1, line 28. >> i can't see it. i'm sorry. >> all right. page 1, line 28 which is household tend to be physically and emotional healthier. i have you are inserting after physically and emotionally healthier, more likely to do well in school? >> yes. the intent is simply to link family and education as a link to education. >> is there a second to ron's motion? >> second. >> any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> all: aye. >> opposed, nay. it is adopted, thank you. the next amendment, mary frances forester from north carolina. i ask the lady from north carolina to crazy the amendment. >> is that clear? >> yes. >> we'd like to insert, after "the truths about marriage" children raised in a two-parent household tend to be physically and emotionally healthier, less likely to use drugs and alcohol and engage in crime or become pregnant outside of marriage. >> and then you have inserted, which is underlined in red -- it says -- >> "we oppose policy and laws that create a financial incentive or encourage cohabitation." it is on the screen. is there a second to mary's amendment? second. is there discussion? seeing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> all: aye. >> opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. i call on the delegate from montana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i propose the addition of a paragraph 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 common core. and want to address the fact that we've had so many years now of progression education. and including big businesses that are taking over the education system. and i would propose that we add, at the heart of the american experiment lies the greatest political expression of human dignity. the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights and among these are the life, and pursuit of happiness. as human capital, the possession for creation of another's wealth. thank you, mr. chairman. >> is there a second? discussion. hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> all: aye. >> opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. next we have an amendment from branden smart, american samoa. page 4, line 5 through 8. i'd like to ask the delegate to please address the issue. >> i'm going to slide over. first of all i want to recognize that i do believe that 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. bible has 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 english lit class. and then later in, on page 6, we get into college professor bias. who's going to be teaching bible? and what are they going to be teaching about the bible? are we going to teach it that it's a historic document that is no longer relevant? are we going to make sure that it's the actual word of god? thank you. >> so, on the screen, you see a -- your motion to delete the words "a good understanding of the bible being indefensible for the development of an educated citizenry. "everything that's struck out there. we encourage strait legislature to offer the bible as a literature curriculum as an elective in america's high schools." your motion is to delete that wholer that is struck out here, is that correct? >> correct. >> is there a second to the motion? >> second. >> discussion? >> the delegate from california. >> my name is louella herschel. i'm concerned with taking that out without replaying it just a different way of rephrasing about the bible because, otherwise, it will be viewed that the republican platform has thrown out the bible. >> amen. additional discussion? at the top, delegate from minnesota. >> i think one of the thinks that we're missing is the actual decline of the education program in the united states of america. and if you go back to the founding it requires of george washington a moral society. this is not teaching the bible as a judeo teaching system. it's using the bible to understand that the values in the bible are the values that drove the founding of this -- if we ignore that, we run into reagan's problem. and, so, we're 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. and that is the key component of what made the united states what it was and hopefully what it still will be. and that's the reason it was put in there. >> the delegate from north carolina. >> mr. chairman, if you're going to study literature and you're 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 a grammar, as a reading book, as a spelling book and to be able to understand why we're going to so preserve liberty and keep our freedom, then we should be allowed to understand how it was founded. >> the delegate from ohio. could you please turn -- the microphone doesn't seem to be -- and a broken microphone, yes. >> if you get a microphone that's reconnected we need somebody to go up and fix it. just speak right there. we'll hear. >> yes. >> 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 this is a -- i think we should stick with this language being stricken. >> delegate from nevada. >> juanita cox, nevada. i also agree that we have a big chance, and to me, this starts stopping some of that intent. we should strike this. >> delegate from delaware. i'm sorry? >> microphone. >> i think we should keep the language, cindy graves from florida, to a certain degree. i think what the language should say, we encourage which we're not dictating. we encourage state legislatures to offer the bible as a humanities curriculum. >> delegate from kansas. >> chris kobach from kansas. it's not duplicative. i looked at the other sections that they say cover this. they do not cover this. i would remind the body that the first congress of united states in 1789 called for dissolution of bibles for all children in the united states at that time. this was an important principle that the founding fathers chose to embrace. i think this is entirely appropriate that we leave this in there. >> delegate from louisiana. >> i notice i'd was sitting away from the microphone so i'm having to stretch. i'll just point out that this amendment, or the amendment, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the language makes it clear that it encourages state legislature. it is being taught it as an elective in literature. and there are a couple of curriculums that have been used by many states that have been court tested and survived. a well-rounded citizen, when you look at our founding documents and many of the phrases that are even used in common language in the united states would make for better citizens if they have a basic understanding of the bible and its application for united states. i rise in strong opposition to the amendment. >> delegate from california. >> lowella herschel again. i would conclude that for ethics that can be included as the historic basis of our nation. >> delegate from alabama in that. >> jim karnes from the state of alabama. i think the wording should stay as it sand this amendment should not be adopted. i think americans have been watching, as we slowly eroded the 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. and you take this out would be a great dishonor. i strongly urge that we do not accept this amendment. >> delegate from michigan. did you have your hand up in the back. delegate from michigan. >> yeah. i just wanted to address the person that said they don't know how teachers could be teaching this. we have pornography being taught in operative literature curriculum in michigan. i can't imagine if teachers are allowed to propose that as literature, why they can't present the bible. >> delegate from guam. >> i actually oppose the amendment but think that maybe we could address it by putting a good understanding of the social values containing the bible are indispensable for the development and education of our citizens. because we do want to teach it, we want to teach for the values that are included in it. >> delegate from ohio. >> i think the wording is -- i mean, actually saying a good understanding of the bible, though that is what i believe, i don't think it should be in the platform. i think we should leave the bible in there and actually say we encourage state legislatures to allow bible to be taught in our public school systems. >> the delegate from virginia. >> yes, actually, george washington's statement was that there were indispensable pillars of religion and morality and let us not perceive that we do have morality in the absence of religion. and there's a question of what needs to be deleted that the education is not within the constitution whereas the bill of rights clearly states we have unalienable rights. if there's angst for the fact that there is the combination of education with religious instruction that needed to be deleted, that is not the biblical instruction, but the compulsory education. so, i would leave the language in. and the supreme court has declared that it be allowed to be taught. it's been confirmed it be taught as history and literature. >> delegate from oklahoma. >> mark hager from oklahoma. i'd like to refer to our good friend from texas, mr. barton who has exhaustively documented the breadth of which the founders used the bible as the basis for construction of our government. and the basis for our morals within our society. so, he can probably give you the specifics on what that is. >> delegate from north carolina. >> i think we can keep the sense that we want to adopt the bible. and 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 citizenry. and work it in that way and use that as the educational tool, it keeps the thought and idea in. without getting disruptive, as it could be the other way around. >> delegate from -- >> i make a motion -- >> well, that seems like a little bit more involved than a friendly motion at this time. let's just continue the discussion and see if that's something that the author is actually interested in pursuing. the delegate from alaska. >> judy elledge from alaska. i do have different wording that i think i prefer over this. i'll make it as a motion at this time. but for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage elected officials to support the teaching and understanding of the bible and its importance to our founding fathers and documents. >> so, that's a complete substitution for what the -- >> yes. it says the same thing, just kind of reworded. >> okay. >> and i am a retired educator, and that's one of the residence i'd prefer that. >> the delegate from california. did you have a question? >> no. >> okay. sir. the delegate from maine. >> thank you, mr. chair. you know, being one of the younger folks here, it pains me to admit that temporary english class is not too distant in my memory. and i do remember we worked on the bible as literature. i'll say we were in a very liberal school district. actually, i represent maine here in ohio. not too many miles away from here in shaker heights. despite there being a liberal school district, it was taught very well. it was very valuable. just objectively, separating it from the ethical and moral teachings of the bible is very helpful as a student, as we're 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. i found it useful, so i will oppose the motion before us. >> at this time, i want to go back to the original propoint from american samoa. there have been a couple of recommendations. nothing really in writing. you know, if there's something that you're willing to accept, otherwise, we're on your motion, unless we get an amendment submitted in writing to then amend what you have up there. would you like to comment before we head to a vote? >> 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 history or an elective. the other thing, everybody in here talked about how important it was. the word "elective" means the majority of our students will never take that class at the high school level. if i do, i would like to hear, i believe it was alaska, the other educator. >> yes. what was the question, i'm sorry? i was writing -- okay. for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage elected officials to support the teaching and understanding of the bible and its importance to the founding of our country. >> and you propose that to him to -- >> yes. >> instead of what's there. that's a little bit wordy. and i just feel like that's -- >> so, it's to continue his amendment which is to leave the lines on the screen and add -- >> no, delete what's already -- that's in place in the deleted red. >> so you insert yours for what's been deleted? >> yes, yes. just a little short. >> i accept that. >> can we read it -- already. that's accepted. can we have that read? can you read that to us so we go with the deletion that you recommended from american samoa, and then with the addition of what's going to be read by the delegate from alaska. >> "from the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage elected officials to support the teaching and understanding of the bible and its importance to the founding of our country." >> read it again. they're typing it on the screen so that every delegate will have a chance to read it and know what they're voting on. she gave her copy to our typist. so, as soon as it gets typed in. >> it's important -- in front of the word in the last sentence, its importance, the bible and its importance. >> is this a reflection of what we see on the screen now? for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage elected officials to encourage the teaching of the bible and its importance to the founding of this country. that's an accurate reflection. okay. additional discussion? the delegate from colorado. >> okay. just for the record, i did want to read this because it reflects the language that it 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 our republican government. noah webster. >> the delegate from louisiana. >> i like the original wording, because this particular wording that we're looking on is a substitute, basically the understanding -- you're basically saying you're going to teach a doctrine. i think leaving it as teaching it as literature is highly appropriate. it's been done. it's been court-tested. and i think it's much more appropriate than the wording we're 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're seeing too many school districts and school boards telling us what we can't teach our kids. where this is still saying we're allowing this to happen as an elective. we're not trying to indoctrinate or based on a theology. we're allowing it as an elective, in a school district that in an escape that is not friendly, we're giving them the opportunity that the parents want. >> the delegate from iowa. >> mr. chair, can you clarify if there will be a vote on the amendment to the amendment? or if we're to see an amendment? >> there will be two votes at this point. one is to add the language offered by the gentle lady from alaska which is on the screen. and then, to the main amendment, which deletes the word, verbiage, struck out on the screen. and that's where we are right now. and if there's no further discussion, we can move to that question. hearing none, let us move to that first on the additional language from alaska. all those in favor of this second degree amendment made by the gentle lady from alaska please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed no. we'll do that once more. all those in favor of the gentle lady from alaska written on the screen. please say aye. opposed, no. >> i think the nos have it. unless someone wants to call for a division. i'm going to rule that the nos have it. the next is still on the same motion before us from the delegate from american samoa which is the deletion of those lines. >> one more. >> i'm sorry, the lines on the screen. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed, no. >> no. >> that's defeated. we move to the next amendment, that's also by brandon smart from american samoa. this is page four, line 24. about s.t.e.m. subjects and phonics. the delegate from american samoa. >> this is just simply adding current technical education in there. i think, especially in public education, we've pigeon holed too many of our students into pushing them into college. it hasn't been good for our economy, from a standpoint of loans and jobs. >> i'm going to make the print larger on the screen, page 4, line 24, adding career and technical education. is there a second to the motion? >> second. >> is there additional discussion? the delegate from minnesota. >> i think it's also vocational education, can i make a suggestion to include that word? >> the correct term used by educators now is current technical education. >> okay. >> additional discussion? please signify by saying aye. opposed, no. amendment is adopted. the next amendment, to page 4, line 31. the delegate from nebraska. >> we're talking in this section about choice in education, and i'll read the first line, and note my proposed addition. the first line as it reads right now, we support options for learning including homeschooling, magnet schools, and early college. i would like to include private or parochial schools. i think it's important to mention that these should be an option for parents if they so desire. as republicans, this is education that is paid for in large part by parents themselves, and saves the public money. and secondly, in economically challenged areas of our country, private and parochial schools are able to obtain very good outcomes for students, many times better than the public schools are able to provide. i think we should list them, given the principles i've just outlined. >> is there a second to this discussion from the gentleman from north carolina? the microphone is not on. >> now i'm on. thank you. apologies. i'm wondering if the -- >> can you identify yourself again? >> ron raven, north carolina. i'm wondering if the sponsor would instead of the word including, but such as, so they don't have the idea that this is an inclusive list, just change it to such as instead of including. >> in my view, what i've done is added one more thing to this list. if we're going to remove the word including, that probably would be a separate amendment. i would not accept it, if we just focus on the addition of one more item and debate that, i think that would be appropriate in my view. >> it was on the screen, but not part of your amendment. >> i leave it to the chair to make that ruling. >> thank you. additional discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. amendment is adopted. now, the delegate from montana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. debra lamb, montana. if you look at page 5, line 22, towards the end, we have a statement about data privacy. i think it's weak in comparison to the dangers we're experiencing and the concerns of 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 data. much is collected without parental consent or notice. >> for clarification, you're deleting line 22 through line 24? is that correct? >> the end of line 22 starting with we will. >> we will. >> correct. >> and all the way to the end of 24. so you delete that entire last sentence, to about our children, and insert the language, on the screen it says, we will protect student privacy. you're deleting that, we should have that crossed out. does that reflect your intention? is there a second? >> second. >> is there discussion -- i'm sorry, the delegate from north dakota. >> the word parental is not included in the amendment before the word consent. >> okay. without consent. okay. let me ask for clarification from the author, what i have does not have the word parental, but is what -- i don't see parental in this. so, if you could clarify for all of us. thank you for that catch, the delegate from north dakota. what we need to do is put without parental consent or notice. >> that's correct. thank you. >> additional discussion? the delegate from california. >> the expression american experiment, is that -- does that have any meaning to that? >> there's a question posed, additional discussion. if not, i'll go back to the author of the amendment. >> could she repeat the question, please. >> the expression, american experiment, does that have a meaning attached to it that's in line with what our party is about? >> it's a basic constitutional expression. >> additional discussion? please signify by saying aye. opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. >> the next amendment i have, back with brandon smart from american samoa. page 6. could you please explain your amendment on page 6. >> i put in several with current technical education. i'm waiting for it to come up on the -- i believe this is the one with colleges and universities, and just include trade schools. >> as i have it written, include trade schools with colleges and universities. between line 13 and 25. >> yes. anywhere in there where it uses colleges and universities, use trade schools. >> is there a second to the amendment? discussion. please signify by saying aye. opposed, no. it is adopted. next, the delegate from maine, with an amendment to page 8, line 20. >> thank you. let me apologize in advance. i think i have two amendments that are fairly similar for the same spot. one is preferable than the other. that's the one that i would like to use. so, this would be inserting language here -- let's see. can you underline the amendment there? starts with we support states. thank you. so, the amendment would be we support states with patients with debilitating conditions to use medical cannabis in the form of oils, tinctures, in nonsmokeable form, provided they do so with the guidance of a doctor. >> it's been seconded. the author? >> thank you, mr. chair. we're at a point in time, i don't know the exact number, but close to half the states in the nation have medicinal cannabis programs in place. maine was one of the early adopters of having a program like this. and i tell you, i was initially very skeptical of the value of medicinal cannabis. but serving as the chairman for the health and human services program in maine, i've gotten to meet with patients with very serious debilitating conditions, and see personally how this medication has, with the help of an actual, trained physician, improve their life, help them recover and live with conditions they were unable to live with before. as one example, i have a -- i had a constituent, living in my district. she was a young girl with a rare condition called gervais syndrome, resulting in thousands of micro seizures a day. she could not live a normal life. it was, one of the chemicals, cbd, not thc, which people commonly think of with marijuana. it has a very anti-seizure effect for people with these rare conditions. she was able to live a much more normal life as a result of it. there is for her condition, there is no fda-approved medication that exists. this is just one example, and i've met countless people that have been positively affected by this. and we would just be stating that -- >> is there a discussion? yes, the delegate from new mexico. >> jonathan gardner, north carolina. question of clarification for the bill's sponsor. are the forms of marijuana in this andment considered controlled substances in the federal controlled substances act? >> to answer that question, my understanding is that the dea recently downgraded cannabis from a schedule i to a schedule ii drug, acknowledging it has medicinal benefits, and can be prescribed by a physician. this is recent. >> the delegate from utah, would you like to make a statement? yes. >> we have a long way to go -- >> would you identify yourself? >> gail rizika from utah. we have a long way to go with research, do you want to do this, or have the research done. and if you want to legalize this, let's do it through prescriptions, not cards or kiosks on the 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, is a trigger for mental health issues. it's a trigger for schizophrenia, and other mental health issues. if you look at, it was funded in california by george soros. and if you look at the debate about the guns, all of the mass killings that have taken place, young boys from divorced families, and all smoking pot. so, i don't think it's the right message for us to send, and i agree with whoever said about the studies being done. there are already medical studies that show there is a link between it and mental health issues. >> the delegate from nevada. >> juanita cox, nevada. i've been working on this medical program for 15 years in nevada, finally we passed it, and it took us that long to use it. but there is, it is not like marijuana. it's more like hemp oil. which has very little hallucinatory stuff that the lady ahead of me had said. she's talking about marijuana. this is hemp. it's like similar species but completely different. this is taking oils from the leaves, not the plant flower. this is -- there is lots of research and medical studies that are proving especially in the children that this is, this gives them a complete different chance for a more of a normal life. and there's, just google it, the children are being saved by this oil, not hallucinatory, and it's not available in any chemical form at the present time. that would be like, she may be talking about marinol, that's cannabis in a chemical form. that is not what we're talking about here. this is oil from more of a hemp plant, completely different. >> the delegate from missouri. yes. >> most of the medical associations are against the use of medical marijuana. and there's a good saying that goes very well in public policy, and in platform. hard cases make bad law. do we want to go down this road? there's more to consider before we take such a step. >> delegate from nebraska. >> i happen to support this. i think there is a complete difference between medical marijuana that doesn't have the thc which is what you have in marijuana. i firmly believe in this, i know of individuals that have used it with children that have had seizures that can't be controlled by any other method, chemical, or prescription. i think this is something we should include. >> delegate from massachusetts. >> the commonwealth of massachusetts recently passed legislation to legalize medical marijuana, and i support that. but i don't think that the republican platform is the place to put this forward nationally. so i do not support this amendment. >> the delegate from indiana. >> thank you. at the outer edges of every public policy, there are compelling circumstances people can point to, and say, look at this application, and as a result, let's change the whole public policy. there is nothing in the amendment that -- no one really is arguing that that broad application, which this amendment would allow, is justified as a 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 the first place, and the courage involved with it. i want to be clear, we're not talking about cheech and chong being encouraged here. we're talking about specifically, people with 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 the room has probably had a family member, friend, or someone affected by hard drugs. everything i've ever read about marijuana, it's the gateway drug to other, more harsh drugs. and we in alabama right now are experiencing a heroin epidemic that started in 99% of the cases with some teenager finding a way to get marijuana. so i, for one, would be strongly opposed to the amendment. >> the delegate from minnesota. >> going back, the compelling cases are there. that's the way this works. but our platform is not the place to introduce legislation. this is a divisive issue, and putting something in here that people have very, very solid opinions on may, if they're a single-issue voter, this could be the type of thing that drives people away. i'm not saying i'm for or against, but this specificity of an issue does not belong. >> i'm opposed to the amendment. let's think about what happens with percocet, oxicontin, the problem gets worse. we have special cases in north carolina, we just passed a law for treatment with the oils and so forth. but going into the medical cannabis, only leads to the cannabis, and it's not hemp, by the way. thank you. >> the delegate from vermont. >> the question has been called. all those in favor of voting immediately, please signify aye. all those opposed? >> nay. >> and all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. all those opposed? >> no. >> the amendment does not pass. this next amendment, from page 10, line 12, the delegate from me "m." -- maine. >> the test is after and legal uncertainty, you have an in certification. >> mr. chair, i have an amendment -- i have an amendment mr. chair from massachusetts, i have an amendment that was earlier than the two by the senator that has not been brought up. i am not sure if it got lost in the process or if it is going to come in after his. >> let me check with our parliament and make sure that we have that here and read doi y t. let me look to the one in massachusetts, thank you for bringing that to my attention. >> members of the committee will be relieved todd know this had nothing to do with marijuana. >> this is in the fda piece of the platform -- i am not seeing the -- could we make sure the amendment is under lined? it is those that passed to legislation. on down to the end there. so this is adding language. we commend those states that passed to try legislation, not yet approved by the fda. we urged congress to pass federal regulation to give all americans with terminal illness the right to try. the right to try, you are not familiar with it. at least 50% of you live in a state that's passed right to try. i believe that number is up to 29 right now. if i remember right, arizona passed that referendum with 80%. the right to try, if there is an investigational drug or biological product or medical device currently in the process working its way through the fda approval process, it is not yet reached the end of the process, if you have someone with a terminal condition, someone with a diagnose that they're going to die without actions being taken. this would say that if the patient wants to try this investigational drug -- if their doctor is recommending and the manufacture of the drug making it available, we here in the government, we'll not stand in the way. this is a freedom issue. it is a pro-life alternative to the right to die or we just say well, someone has a terminal illness, this is a pro-life alternative to that, that they have the right to try and the right to try to preserve their lives if something out there can work wfor them. it takes ten years and billions of dollars to get through the process. if you are terminally ill patient and having six months to live, you do not have that many options. >> we know the language is in the platform. we need to see the additions e lot bigger. the red under lined so people can read. this reflects the language that you have brought to be in addition to that location. is that correct? >> this is a reflection. >> discussion on right to try. yes. >> please get your microphone. >> sorry. >> i am from ohio, i have a couple of questions for the author. >> yes. >> these the right to try, do they charge the patients for the medication at that time? >> my understanding and most states including in our state, there is -- well, actually no, under federal law, you are not allowed to make a profit from a drug that's not completed fda approval process. most states have that specifically in there. our state, in our legislation said that you can charge for the incremental cost of the manufacturing units of dispense but you cannot make a profit from that. >> from nevada, did you have a question? >> i want to follow up. with that said, the increment of cost, how high can it go? a lot of times we look at trials and the cost of that. i am trying to do it in my mind. how significant would that be onto that patient for them allowing to be done? >> i don't have any particular case in front of me. i do know 95% of the time, no cost is charged at all. obviously, the company has incentives where is they want to take that into market. they may not want the cost purr unit publicly known or they maybe accused of over charging people down the road. >> so 95% of tincentive cases, y understanding is no costs have been charged at all. >> from nevada. >> i have an example of friends of medical doctors who have nine different degrees. his medical doctor, his daughter was dying in florida. she contacted it at the hospital where she was practicing. medical father knew that because of his doctors without borders, knew there is unapproved united states fda drug that could save his daughter, he made arrangements to bring it in japan and it was not allowed in the country to save his daughter. that medical doctor died. >> thank you. >> delegate from michigan. >> i want to remind all the delegates that we are the party of liberty and freedom. anything that we can do would limit the over reached of the fda, especially in the people whose lives they're dying and terminally ill, i don't think the cost for any experimental drugs would be anything anyone would consider if your life is at the end, you are willing to pay anything. i don't think that should come into an issue. this is brave wording and i think it is the kind of thing that our parties should get behind so i support it. >> seeing no other discussions. >> delegate from alabama. >> yes, jim karns, we are out here in the fuzzy logic area trying to put together a sale document that we are trying to sell the united states on for our candidates and party. i don't know why we are sticking around the fuzzy edges on things that we do not have hard, long-term answers to. so, i think we are really steering in some wrong directions. i for one, voting against this, thank you. >> no one wants to be recognized and all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. >> oppose, no. >> the amendment is adopted. >> to my friend from maine. we have your amendment, we are going through the first pile, yours came up in the second. it is on page six, line four. at this time, i said maine but i meant massachusetts. sorry, at this time, i do have an amendment from delegat delegate -- okay, all right, it will be there, we are moving onto -- which one do you have next? this is going to be page 10, line 14 to 36 and then we have a separate amendment from you which we'll go to next which is also on line page 10 and line 35. lets start with the one on page 10, lines 14 to 36 where you strike. >> thank you mr. chairman. as my first amendment as a doctor, we can skip the second amendment. >> thank you. in addition to serving the republican party in the commonwealth of massachusetts in the state committee, i serve my special education parent advisory council and my town, this so called c-pack, many of you maybe familiar with it. when i found out that i am going to be adel gate before i knew i am going to be on the platform committee, i reached out to leaders in congress on issues in particular, the senator from iowa, representatives from mississippi and washington state,

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Louisiana , Alabama , Nevada , Alaska , Vermont , China , Delaware , Minnesota , California , New Mexico , Arizona , Massachusetts , Iowa , Cuba , New York , Japan , American Samoa , North Carolina , Missouri , Texas , Washington , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Florida , Illinois , Indiana , Virginia , Wisconsin , Oregon , Guam , Michigan , Mississippi , Oklahoma , Maine , New Jersey , Nebraska , Israel , Colorado , Maryland , Kansas , Ohio , North Dakota , Orlando , Dallas , Town Hall , Utah , Americans , America , American , Juanita Cox , Bonnie Watson Cole , Kim Meyers , Kim Myers , Meredith Kelly , Colby Burnell , Richard Hannah , Brad Schneider , Bob Schneider , Nancy Pelosi , Mary Frances , Ben Ray Lujan , George Washington , Kimberly Raley , Ron Raven , John Lewis , Jim Karnes , David Duke , Noah Webster , Paul Ryan , Tommy Burr , George Soros , Ben Lujan , Dave Johnson , Bob Dole , Doug Owens , Mary Shelley Frankenstein , Katie Schultz , Las Vegas , Thomas Burr , Jim Karns , Bob Wiener , Chris Kobach , Patricia Berg , Jonathan Gardner , Hillary Clinton ,