three shots as of boxer and as a boy. . . >> i got he was going to make those last few steps no matter what it took. the fight would be one, i knew it would happen, [applause].

and, then this the children's lives he touched,. [inaudible] >> but he was least known to the world, never wasting a day, that the rest of us could see anyway. feeling sorry for himself that he a parkinson's, knowing that more than three decades ago by

that would be chilling to the naked eye but it made his life bigger not smaller. because other people and he was a, would you you look at that. look at that. and i would be able to run across the ring anymore, i might not be able to dodge a fist anymore, but he is a free man. we should honor him by letting people know that he was among the world's best.

[applause]. >> [applause]. [applause]. >> there will be time for that. right now is the time for silence. so would everyone rise and we pause for a. of silence and reflect on what the champ meant to you as the ali family exits.

>> [silence] [silence]

>> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. [applause]. >> please be seated. be seated. the program is not over. we are trying to create space of for the family to be able to exit and peace. please be seated. we want to make prayer, we wants to do something before we close the program. so please be seated. as we move towards the end of the program which will occur in a couple of minutes, i will be remiss if i did not say the following. indeed, as we all know, and anyone who lives in a ghetto

that indeed there are violence, racist, reckless, that's a fact. but there are also decent women, dedicated professionals, who are compassionate, for a for their community and i can say with all honesty and openness, during my past week here in louisville, kentucky, or the or the past five days, myself, my wife, everyone that i've spoken to has commented on the professionalism , the dignity of the policeman here and women here in louisville, kentucky. [applause]. that we have interacted with. [applause]. i'm sure there are bad apples

here too but as they say one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch. now they asked me to make a prayer to close the service, but reverend crosby threw down the button. so i'm going to have to respond this poem was written in mohammed ali's house. mohamed ali was the first one to hear this poem. i'm glad mike tyson left. [laughter] there are two parts. ali the fire fighter, floating like a butterfly, fighting like a bee, the greatest fighter this world is yet to see, the opponents agree on one thing, they'll got a right, in the ring without ali was in danger that

the ring without ali was in danger that night. had he lived during the time during ted johnson, his superiority over all of them with the telephone. had he saw tyson at the height of his career, the myths of heavyweight championship their names are not appear. if reindeer could fly he would've put down a ramp letson and president would fight he would have took sent. his left was relentless, he was the people so that he would have to engage in active repentance. so when you think of who was the greatest heavyweight of all time, to mention any name other than ali's is a crime. [applause]. part two is ellie the man. with the grace of a butterfly and the tenacity of a be, he struck money a blow against injustice and indignity.

and inequality,, never, never age during the time of legal segregation he came to embody the highest values of the nation. standing up for the who, defined was wrong he declared he doesn't have to quarrel with the vietcong's. he would not and refuse to pull the trigger, he said never call me negative. knowing when to attack and went to retreat he brought an entire nation to its feet. not to cheer for its excellent going down at the rink but by far denying the malcolm and king. willing to give up his title, the money, the life he dedicated himself to a higher fight. the fight of truth and justice to liberate man occupied by the highest court in the land his case would not be denied. with a heart made of gold in the spirit, he was able to rebuild his life almost starting from scratch. with the torch of love and the

flame of good, he let the fire in the hearts of many of the boys and girls on the hood. not knowing the word i can't, he was never deterred, and because of his the example many of -- would not be heard. on the heart of every life he touched he left an indelible stamp and he will always be known as the people's champ. [applause]. now we have to make the prayer. mohammed ali spirit, his body is gone but his spirit is up. it will stay up as long as we keep it up. we keep it up as we keep it up as long as we live with a grace and dignity he lived with. as long as we love with a

passion that he loved with. as as long as we share, care, and give with the generosity he exemplified. so god, as we leave this hall, as we depart from this gathering may we be blessed to love as he loved, to live as he lived, to share and be shared, to care as he cared, to the extent of our various capacity and to float as freely as he floated. god bless, and blessings and peace upon mohammed. good evening. [applause].

none -- [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> c-span's "washington journal", live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, bloomberg legal editor, lance rogers talk about the supreme court hearing to death penalty cases in the next term. then the latest latest on the stanford university incident. kristen lombardi, senior reporter talks about what that incident has done to raise awareness of sexual assault on colleges and universities. in the federal level to make university safer. then they examined the newly announced payday loan school, consumer protection bureau in an effort to eliminate debt traps.

and from gainesville, florida, we're joined by doctor christopher -- assistant professor at the university of florida help center for movement disorders. he looks up parkinson's disease and its impact on over 1 million people in the u.s. including boxing legend, mohammed ali who died this week after the 32 year battle with the disease. be sure be sure to watch washington's journal beginning live at 78:00 a.m. eastern on saturday morning. join the discussion.ington jour" >> senator kent conrad of the bipartisan policy center. >> one of the things that leapsh out at you is looking at the statistics, the best estimates we have is about 40% of theeo american people will run out of money during retirement. the federal reserve just did an analysis about 46% of the

american people would have a hard time coming up with $400 for an emergency car repair. we have we have serious problems if terms of retirement security, and in terms of personal savings to be able to meet the everyday needs of the american people. >> james lockhart is also with the bipartisan center, he was a george w. bush appointee and many financial commissions throughout his career.ly mr. lockhart, what part of the american people depend solely on social security. >> you have to deal with it in quintiles. the lower 20%, almost 90% of their income is social security. as as you go, obviously the top 20% is not a lot. but the importance of the middle and the lower and that is what

we try to do with this commission is try to help those lower income people in retirement. were actually increasing the retirement benefits significantly. we we put a new basic minimum benefit with thereol idea that were tryg to reduce poverty and old age. in in fact we reduce it by about 30%. >> is so we have learned that 40% of seniors are going to run out of money in their retirement and that the lowest 20% in america, income wise, 90% of them rely solely on social security. >> yes. they do not have any personal savings. one of the things that we are also trying to do is look at personal savings and retirement savings with proposing a new plan thatn would allow smaller companies to easily put money into 4o1 kays, having sort of a centralized investment managers which would allow them the liability the companies have in fact some of

the numbers we showed show about the middle income over 50%. kend >> and connor it does social security need to be formed? we have no choice. as we know, social security is headed for solvency. that's that's according to social security's own trustees. at that point, and it it is only 18 or 19 years away, everybody will have to take it 23% cutut across the board. so bringing this program back on track is critically important for people that depended on social security and it is not only the bottom 20% but it a sit depends solely on social security. the fact is a significant majority of the american people are very dependent on their social security benefits to make their retirement comfortable and secure. it is actually essential that ws go about the business of getting

social security back on track. that's important, not only for the individuals were dependent on it it's important for our overall economy. >> mr. lockhart, you have referenced the fact that companies, you're you're looking at companies in your proposalsie here for retirement security to help provide, what is the reason that companies are responsible for summons retirement. >> i think companies help people say. they don't have to put money in themselves, they don't have to max it and that's great but i think it's a benefit that a lot of people want. so we are first posing any company with less than 500 people joined us more nationwids they could match or not match, but it would make it much easier for people to say one of the problems is very complicated system and it is very hard for many people to figure out how to save. when it is done automaticallyy that really helps.

>> how long have you two been working on retirement savings proposal? >> more than two years. we have had 19 commissioners. republicans, democrats, conservatives, progressives, people who are deeply. knowledgeable and skilled. one of of the things that is so striking, not only about social security but -- half the people in this country are not participating in a retirement savings account at their place of work. half of the country. that is a big opportunity for us to make the difference.. as a gym was explaining we exp propose the retirement security accounts that would make a dramatically easier for employers to offer retirementlae savings account at their place of work. all the employer would have to do would be a payroll deduction. and they're likely send a

payroll deductions for people's taxes. but. but we relieve them of thea fiduciary responsibilities and the administrative burden.n. there would be third parties would be fiduciaries, they would be responsible. they would get the fees, the fees will be very low, because millions of people would be involved in these plans. >> we have divided our phone lines a little different. we talk about this recent time and savings proposal put out by the bipartisan policy. we'd buy them by each. each. if you are under 40, -- ifhe you're between 40 and 61, 748, 800 one. and for those those 61 and over, 748-8002.if you inclu >> what about an expansion of governnt savings program? did you that in your proposal? >> we have a couple of things that do that.th one of the things were suggestions for young getting

people there's a savings match. it is one way to get the saving start of her people. i think it's important to start out saving when you are young and continue that have a going forward. that is one program that we are suggesting. but we are also rely very much on the private sector. another thing where suggesting is, after this retirement plans are in place by 2020 any company with over the employees actually have to stay in this program are of their own 4o1k plan or an ira account. >> how to convince a business that this is a good idea both economically and hey, barely make enough to do my plan money

can be providing the. >> first vault, from an employer standpoint i started a small business at one point my career and it was very was very expensive to do 4o1k.is we had 30 people and almost three-5%. well we are not going to make employers or something like that. all the employer has to do is have a tax deduction like with fica there are ready doing that. so it's not a big deal for the employer. it's. it's a benefit for employees. many employers would like their boys to have more savings.en i certainly that's one of the reasons i started one of my small businesses that we did a 4o1k. i think people would like it if they could do it cheaply, with a lot less liability. >> and you spent several years in the building behind us, as their political rules and how to reform social security or raise taxes, or cut defense, or implement a new retirement savings?

>> perhaps not right now, just before an election. the clock is ticking. we have been meeting with colleagues, we met with colleagues after he pulled up a report yesterday.th i met with colleagues the day before republicans and democrats, can tell you that they're very interested in what were proposing. we make social security solvent, in the next 75 years and beyond. we dramatically increase those at the bottom end. those at the lowest part of the society, many of whom are in poverty. we reduce poverty in the elderly by a third. so, and i want to go back to this question of having businesses offer these plans. we do not require them to match the contribution of the employee, they can do that inve most employers do, but to participate in a retirement security plan all they have to

do is a do a payroll deduction and have the money go to the plan sponsor. the plan sponsor will gather millions of employees together in a large pool which will make the rates very inexpensive. this third-party provider will be responsible for all the administrative burdens, the be respo fiduciary burden, that will be taken off of the employer. so we think the employer's, that we have talked to hundreds of them that are preparing this report and they have told us, if you are going to simplify it, if you're going to lift the burden off of us, we would be happy to: participate so all our employees have a way saving for retirement. >> so gas stations, businesses businesses could join ann exchange or cooperative like that. >> it effectively is a cooperative. there's investment management firm or a tech company that

keeps the records, celexa which investments are available, but the individual would have the option to do their own selection but there be fallback's so there be standard options as well. making it as simple as possible for everybody involved is whatyo we want to do. as we said before, if we can implement this it will increase the savings for middle americans by the time they retire. so they will rely less on social security which i think is very important. >> have iras been successful? >> iras have had some success for. again it's hard to make a decision and there's no easy way to do it. what were suggesting as there is automatic enrollment. so when you join the company you are enrolled. you can opt out, but really we'd see that participation rates

really skyrocket. >> so let's take some calls. we have a lot of callers on the line already. michael is first from naperville, illinois, 61 in order to in order. michael, are you ready for retirement? >> well, i i am. but peter please cut me off a fe because i think the discussion is a bit of a false premise. i do not know that you gentlemen on there, i think in some respects it's misleading the american people as to what's happening.ically historically it was lyndon johnson in the 60s that co- mingled the social security with the general fund and that was the depth of what we have been running for 50 years. now what they need to do, number one is peel back on the tax break so the 1%, all those 50

years as a first step toward solving this. i would like them to explain to me what good does a 4o1k do you when you are not making enough money on your regular paycheck to make ends meet? we have jobs that are eight - $10 per hour and then you can't save them money because they don't have enough money to live on to begin with. >> that's a lot to discuss. are you planning on relying on social security. >> i'm very lucky. i have social security, mine is substantially above the averagei i have two small pensions and that's the key. pensions. not 4o1 kays. i have an ira and i tell you, you can't save enough and then year with the sharks in all these investing companies caters to 1% again. all you do is to pay fees to lose your money. but i'm the lucky one.

my health care is also subsidize so i am doubly lucky.caller: i o >> are you planning on taking your social security? >> i will take it at age 65 and then my wife passed last november. so so i had to retire one year before i was schedulede to because i get full social b security as of age -- which i turned may 13 of this year. >> okay, what you want to address what michael had to say? >> i think he has done it right. that's a good news. he has saved, and that's important. he made the decision and everybody should really think, a about retiring look at the various options. i'm sure he knows retire at age 62 you take a big big cut in benefits and if you go all the way to bet 70 you get a

significantly higher. but you have to make individual decisions depending on your situation. >> when you look at this chart from your report, do people make it question. >> a lot of people that's a mistake. for some people they can't work longer but for many people, the best way to save is to wait for retirement security because you don't want to outlive your benefits. you can get i think a% a year increase from age 66 to 70.. it's a big increase if you waitl so part of our proposal is to help encourage people to wait as long as possible to take social security. >> and what would you like to say? >> while it was very thoughtful, his comment. he's put his finger on a big problem in our country and that his income inequality. we know that's throughout our

society. what we have tried to do is in the mechanisms available to us try to counter that. so again if if you look at results of what we have produced it would do the following. ly . . . . s plans more widely available throughout our society than they currently are. second, more incentives for employers to participate and match. we provide a sabres' credit. $500 of match. every matc >> and social security is

most dramatic because we would actually increase thewe bottom quintile of 20% by 35 percent over what is currently scheduled. we would increase 60% byen wood is currently payable and cover all of the cost to extend the life of social security by a least 75 years and to achieve solvency where the reserves are still increasing after the 75th year. that means we avoid having everybody pays the cut that is coming in 19 years. so if we solve the problem facing americans? no. but do we make dramatic progress for the proposal?l? absolutely. >> host: the 61 and over bader and give a quick snapshot.

>> caller: good morning. i was someone to start off with absolutely nothing and now i collect social security and a lot of the t topics that have been discussed and in 1976 when i got my first job and the first line on my paycheck that said 5% taken away and i asked what is this? they said that is your pension donation. but not using those words. i had to small kids but i can tell you now, 42 years later i am very glad that they did that at the end of the month and i did the 42 i years. second, i do not begrudge those that make a lot of money i really am not. but i just sold stock in a major company i owned it three years and i did some

research. it did pay a very good dividend they did not get a salary they got stock options and that is how they got paid. the executive had 6 million shares of stock and it paid $2.42 dividend per year. you can figure that up and he paid no social security. >> what is your point? >> caller: that something needs to be done to revamp so when they get at 62 or 65et the money is there..65, the mon i cannot tell you how much i havei have lost in the 422 years.

>>. >> as the associate deputy producer do taxes need to be raised on social security or do in comments. >> obviously social security is insolvent and in 18 years those that will have their benefits cut by 23% while we. have tried to do is a balance plan 50 percent comes from benefits and 50 percent comes from taxes. yes we are suggesting we do need to raise taxes there is a cap of 118,000 repaidhy today. >> why not unlimited? >> guest: from my standpoint we thought that was too unbalanced we were trying to create balance we have republicans and democrats to get everybody

to sign on it is the number we could agree. about a 5% of wages. >> from our standpoint it made sense and also we are12 suggesting the 12.4% that is charged increases by 1% so it is a very small increment but even that is a reasonable amount but the other thing that is important as the senator said we are increasingng benefits because we want a balanced program. >> host: you were there 26nd sed years. will it happen? and will this the action and are some of those proposals

action? >> of course, i don't know. i was an optimist i believe our system at the end of the day will perform that confidence has been shaken by what i have seen the last five or six years. but when you look that is undeniable. everybody will take a in 18 23 percent cut in 18 or 19 years. we can avoid it if we take common-sense steps both the left them there right have to give if there is an agreement but i have to tell you democrats and academicsgive those that were given our lifetime to solve those problems everybody gives up

something they like to see to achieve a much larger game to fix social security for a long time. and to do that in a way that needs it the most and those that have the most absolutely we are asking though 1% to give up a little something. and better than we would have waited for 23% tax. and with respect to non social security retirement the savings, it to say to the half of our citizens you don't purchase a pate in a savings plan at work, we will make it possible for virtually all of you to have access to a retirement savings plan had worked just like the gentleman saving 42 years and how surprised he was how much she has now, we

will give you an opportunity. you can opt out and say no. i will not have that 5%.your i will not have anything. that is your right to. it is your money but at least be given the opportunity. american behalf of those people have no retirement savings plan. and if this proposal is adopted it will be fixed but that is not a partisan issueat but something everybody should agree on. enrol >> if people are automatically enrolled then a savings plan with those in, close you can see the enr charts your with the voluntary enrollment.

>> tower you planning for retirement? >> i do some work for myself con but my concern is.he >> host: turn down the volume on your television and talk to your telephone. >> my concern that these of the same gentleman that when everybody was saving money through their employer and they are making claims and they found everybody to lose that money now they want everybody to get 5% of their income to more private. industry stopping the employers from having to give pensions and they're

still working on that so how can they be trusted to handle 5%? i just don't trust them. >> first of the year not p insisting on any particular percentage 5% was a reference to the gentleman who called to said that is what he was contributing. but second, i would say that under the program we have propog proposed, and individuals decide. they decide if they want to contribute to or not. they decide where their money is invested if they want to keep it in cash that is their business and their decision but a least at their place of work a chance to have a savings plan and in addition we are fixing social security at least our

proposal would so we allll don't face the 23 percent across-the-board cut in just 18 years so we're not relying on somebody who has made mistakes in the past or of the goodness are the kind hardness of a business. this is up plan to give people an opportunity to save for the chance to give -- get social security on sound footing for the future ced >> en to abide by government we have that extra step toha make sure they're safe and their procedures and that they are strong and implementing a plan as they suggested they would. >> according to the social security administration half of americans over age of 62 get 85 percent of their income or more from socialrity . security back in the 2000's0'

there was an attempt to reform social security and invests privately? >> i was involved in those bush per -- bush proposals putting th here we put the personal account within social security that these are outside but it is the sameme idea that's we need to get personal savings up in this country and retirement savings and the mechanisms to do that. yes i was involved we made some good progress there i town probably did 100 town halls with senators and members of congress when i heard back then is the younger generation once changes to social security they know. they will have cutbacks some don't think they will get anything. from our standpoint we tried to build on that clinton had proposals in the late

nineties we were trying to on build and reach a consensus. >> the 41 year-old line we took a snapshot of your retirement? >> actually i do have a 41k but i don't consider their retirement planning because predominantly the congress and i will say predominantlyurts the president and thed supreme court has helped this to totally robbed the masses we watched the mortgage failure take place viet date paid these people back who purposely destroying the whole wealth of the country now you ask people to trust you again talk about what they receive social security was robbed by congress put that money back and you don't have to worry about solvency you want to privatize so we

don't see the you can come in to find a waving come up with another plan you p yourselves should implement term limits we are tired of you we do not trust you. you have then there you are comfortable and cushman and living off our sweat and labor but don't do anything for a separate thing you do it is the corporation's or another country or yourself. >> host: i think we have a point you retire 2013 but when she talks about the cold mingling of the fundst anda whether social security funds are used to mask the deficit might be aware caller said. i' i completely agree. anybody can check my record i am no longer a public life

i propose a social security lockbox and was passed in the united states senate to stop raiding social security to pay for other bills. i thought we should separate social security funds from the general funds because the fact is that we were raiding social security and using those surpluses not to invest to have the money set aside for the future butur taking those surpluses and using them for general fundit expenses it did mask the size of the deficit and i probably gave 100 speeches from the senate and they're all recorded look at my record is it about as clear as it could be on the question. >> the lock box issue? >> yes. the u.s. government owes social security to and a half trillion dollars and it will be paid overtime and in

fact, at the moment there is less cash coming in than going out so we already have a problem already not just in 18 years because we are drawing down the trust fund but from my standpoint i agree with the senator should have been segregated and it wasn't. but the money will be paid overtime but that 2.5 trillion is not enough to cover it and if you look over the next 75 years whole was $1 trillion and our proposal tries to fill that to create solvency but it will take dramatic changes to social security. >> host: wilmington carolina's 61 year-old line have retired? >> caller: i went out at

62 and was never a question because you don't know how long you have to take it buter i don't understand why there is a limit? that if you reach a certain income they stop taking that out? and understand why do the rich people that don't need it get it? i don't know like warren buffett i am thankful for the but for those who had aen defined pension plan but i think the lord that was taken out every month but

also to be allowed to raid the trust fund. >> host: we talked about that a minute ago about the co limits on social security contributions what is your take? >> there is a long history of social security it was started during the franklin roosevelt administration andni the idea is there would be some relationship between what you paid and what you got out. the truth is to be absolutely truthful, thosee that pay more and get out less than what they paid so the relationship is very progressive the fact is social security does transfer income from those who are the most fortunate to those that are the least fortunate in that is already the case and is a fact if we

took the cap off completely o the amount of wages subject to taxation year would destroy the relationship between what goes then and what comes out what one pays and what it gets that breaks o the bond to be a social insurance program so remember that the fundamental idea from the time of franklin roosevelt there should be someme relationship of what you pay and what you get if you take the cap off completely you have taken away their relationship but why did he establish that principle? because he wanted to make certain that everyone in society was supportive of social security so it would be there for those who need it the most. what we say is so security

now will go broke in 1819 years that means everybody will take at 23 percent cut at that point that will be a disaster specially for thosely who need it the most so our proposal is not only to fill in about a whole but also make the system evenore progressive and ask those ofss the top to pay more and not get as much back but to allow others really need it to get more and not just a little bit but quite a bit because we in 09 10% of the american people who were elderly are living in poverty. to do we're saying we want to do something significant to lift 1 million people lot of party. >> yesterday when we were reading and discussing

restarted to talk about pensions and then employers and benefits and then we got into contractors is that the trend where we will be outsourced contracting to not have the opportunities for savings plans? >> redo think that is happening at this point withap the current security plans a r team there is the opportunity for those individuals to contribute through them or the i.r.a. but we need to create opportunities and make it easier that is really one of the key things to think about but back to the social security question is more progressive that they are getting more and higher income is getting less than expected and in fact, one of the things we're proposinguppere

is the upper income have to pay all taxes on social security many people don't pay taxes on social security t because there is low income but there is the point but we will save 100 percent of social security is taxed at a certain level so we are going after the 1% a little bit. >> the 40 year-old winery ready for retirement orca planning? >> caller: we are planning for retirement with my f husband he is working very hard and i'm trying to save very hard for that. [laughter] but we're the sandwich generation thinking part of retirement but understand the realization coming our way of social security and benefits we are fortunate and worked very hard to be in that position but our biggest stressor has been of cng to educate ourr

children on top of our had parents we have had parents on various fixed income we managed to help them but the main concern even though we're fairly that a complete -- medically knowledgeable but financially at this point their longevity and modern science is creating a financial burden of how long will this golan and how youon plan for that with your older parents? i know i am not the only one facing the situation but we also have children trying to finish college and injure the workforce. she ost: we have a lot

there. >> she is so right it is something we discussed in great detail in the commission that 31 percent of women that are now 65 will live to be 90 something over 20 percent of men wille live to be 90 so that puts at risk running out of income as you get older we have a whole series of things to redress that we tha encourage plans for a lifetime income for those people that are participantse ae so we remove a lot of those things that prevent themme from offering lifetime solutions so for example, typically when somebody retires they take a lump-sum the we say they should have a choice may be part of it as a lifetime in, option to have a paycheck every month l for as long as they live

some will live longer lives or shorter lives but it reduces the chances of people out living theirr retirement savings. >> i said it before but it is an important issue to try to delay taking social security as long as you can maybe using other accounts first because that bump of benefits is significant andfe that is a lifetime annuity and that does move with inflation and very few pension school up with inflation. >> we should mention one of the proposals we have is for the surviving spouse the way it works now there is a couple, the survivor gets the higher of the two payments but lewis is the other one so that means they have a very dramatic drop of income in we're proposing instead of that way you keep your own social security

benefits plus three-quarters of your spouse's benefits that would make their dramatic change for couples all across america and who were worried about outliving their income in the make a huge difference for example, if she loses her husband of 75 now loses one of the two new social security checks instead we say you can keep it of your own plus three-quarters of the departed spouses. this would make a huge difference for somebody like the most recent caller. >> if you like to read this report for yourself, what do your best offer as a solution for the employee savings plan for the part-time workers? director is a lot of

part-time workers. >> that is a huge issue this is one of the reasons halfth of the people are not participating in a retirement plan at work.not have they are part-time and so it is not available to them. we would extend the program that has just started through the treasury inv department to invest in treasury securities up to $15,000 can be and the account we change that so there can be automaticlment enrollment of their employees and they can actually have a contribution from their employer that is the employer's choice but they would be able to use the program that relieves them of the administrative responsibility, a fiduciary responsibility, they just have to transfer part of theoye' earnings to the my runra accounting they could matchle at

it and enter automatically and again those who have the money transferred to say i don't want to save through the treasury department to they could do that but at least they have the opportunity and that wouldmatica dramatically improve retirement savings as well. also we are proposing of a clearing house because somebody will have seven or eight jobs in their career i.r.a., a savings plan, 401k been through this clearinghouse they could aggregate their funds to better manage them and sometimes people forget they have a fund at a place of employment and they just h lose the money this would help that. >> why is it so complicated you have groth and i.r.a. and the limits of how much this of us to do with tax law? >> go lot was driven by tax

law and we're trying to do is make it more people centric and we're trying to do things very simple to create this new plan. it is unfortunate one thing we are suggesting is we look at how we score retirement plans. . . according to the federal reserve, 46% of adults do not have the available funds to cover a $400 emergency expense. 27% of respondents 60 years old plus have no retir >> saving or pension at all. >> host: arthur, give us a quick

snapshot of your retirement. i am over the age of 60 so i receive retirement. >> guest: there is no way of getting it passed in the congress of the united states. a lot of things are possible but if they don't get passed, it doesn't mean much. the hard reality of what that does is it totally breaks down the relationship between what people put in and what they get out. as i said, when franklin roosevelt started social security, a principle was there should be some relationship between what you pay in and what you get out. if you break that relationship, his concern was you then start breaking down the willingness of people to participate and

support it. so, you know, something we have to think about. we have to be on the real world. if you took the cap off completely, you have that proposal before the congress of the united states, it wouldn't pass. it would not pass. >> host: jim, you are on the washington journal with kent con rad. >> caller: a couple ideas if you could comment on after i happen done. i think obama is going to be here -- obamacare -- a while. why can't we let people take the their money and put in a health savings count that doesn't go away for when they are older.

or when you put in the 2,000 toward an ira that could dwi go into a fund and stay with you. and in addition, why can't we move assets into social security instead of bundling the money? put hard assets transferred from the government the social security funds like yellowstone. you will approach the problem at two ends because you will have hard assets in there and you could basically sell it to social security and you would reduce the deficit. >> host: james lockhart we talked about the complications of these issues. add some more. >> gues >> guest: i think health savings accounts are very important.

i have one and i think it is important if you can save and it is another way to save and you can use it if you have to as you are working. i am a believer in health savings accounts. as for hard assets and social security administration, frankly we did look at potentially investing social security funds, but again, that is one of the ideas that is a step too far at this point. you know, some countries do it and have done it successfully. canada has a system they put a lot of money into stocks and bonds and it has turned out well but i am not sure we are ready for it. >> guest: i would say this. this is an issue jim and i are on opposite sides of the political fence but this is a place where he and i agree. we could thought convince our fellow commissioners to go there. but we did believe it would be

wise to put some of the money and that could be real estates or equities. >> host: two highlights of the proposal you were excited about. >> guest: really three things if i could say. according to the modeling that has been done by the urban institute if your program was adopted retirement savings of the middle class would be increased by 50% by the time the program is fully implemented. that is number one. number two, we make social security solvent for 75 years and beyond so there would be no 23% across the board cut in 18-19 years. third, we reduce elderly poverty by a third lifting a million people out of poverty.

part of the reason for that is we dramatically improve payments to the lowest 20% of earners in the country and we dramatically improve payments to surviving spouses. >> host: two proposals from you that you want to add. >> reporter: one is increasing financial capabilities in the american people. they need to understand investments and compounding interest. we need to do it in schools, as people retire and as people make livelong decisions. the other thing is home equity and that is an important part of retirement. 12 and a half trillion verse 14 trillion of savings. using home equity better.

>> host: bipartisan.org if you want to see the plan out out by the bipartisan center. >> c-span's washington journal live every day. bloomberg legal editor lance rogers talks about the supreme court deciding to hear two death penalty cases in the fall. and then the latest on the sanford rape case. we talk about what the incident has done to raise awareness colleges and school campuses. and small dollar loans project director examines into newly announced payday loan rule in an effort to end debt traps for consumers and what it means for the industry and payday

borrowers. and we are joined by the dr. hesz who looks at parkinson's disease and its impact on people in the u.s. including muhammad ali who died after a 30-year battle with the disease. join the discussion and watch us live at 7 a.m. eastern time. on american history tv on c-span3, sunday morning we will have washington journal from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. with the author of reagan's revolution; the untold story of the campaign that started all. and then the 1976 republican national convention and a close race between president ford and former california governor ronald reagan for the nomination.

see ford's acceptance speech and remarks by ronald reagan. >> i believe the republican party has a platform that is a banner of no mistakable colors with no pas stel shades. >> we will visit the belmont paul women's national equality work in washington, d.c. >> she creates an intelligent woman. you can see she is slender. her skirt is above her ankles which was different at that time. you can see the changing face of fashion at that time as well. her hands on her her hips. she throws or hat into the pollack it -- politics. >> she contributed over 150 cartoons in support of women's suffrage campaign. saturday evening on lectures and history: >> an idea thaa tenth of the black population would lead the race to freedom.

he developed this notion at the beginning of the century. there were nine million african-americans when he developed this and less than 20,000 had a college degree. >> georgetown university professor on wbe dubois. with the approach of the 40th anversy of the smithsonian national museum in july really america will show case a series of nasa films. we will look at the film science reporter and examining the problems of feeding astronauts on long duration. >> algae and you would produce

your own food and you might, of course, regenerate oxygen and pickup co2. >> for the complete schedule, go to cspan.org. >> sunday on our companion network, c-span, a congressman california, chairman of the house democratic caucus joins us on news maker and discusses the role of latinos in the 2016 presidential campaign, the legislative agenda, and the house and senate elections. news makers at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern. and on monday, hillary clinton has a campaign rally in cleveland at 12:30 eastern and you can see it here live on cspan2. >> john roberts spoke recently at a judicial conference in west virginia.

he talked about diversity on the court, how the justices try to reach agreement and the different philosophies of the judges. >> ladies and gentlemen, this is the highlight of the conference. if you would giving -- give them your attention. thank you. >> there is no need to panic. i am not going to give a speech. but i did want to thank you for inviti inviting me to the conference. it is an invitation i am happy to accept and an opportunity to thank the judge for this service, not only as chief judge in this circuit, but also for

the past three years as the chairman of the executive committee of the judicial conference for the united states. it is the most important appointment i have to make. once again, i have chosen very well. bill has done extraordinary job. it is the responsibility of the chairman of the executive committee to work in setting for policy of the court, rules, operations, the crisis that come along, and in doing all of that, there are two goals that have to be met. first of all, the questions have to be answered with wisdom and good judgment. second of all, the chairman has to make it look like i have something to do with it. i am very grateful for his success in both regards.

may 25th, 1787 was the opening of the constitutional convention and a big day for what is now the fourth circuit. george washington was selected president of the convention and his nomination was seconded by john rutledge of south carolina. nominations is a good thing to do and washington included rutledge among the six appointees to the supreme court. he had a bit of a chip on his soldier thinking he should have been the chief justice and felt passed over. he resigned in 1791 without having heard a single case. i don't know if it had anything to do with it. but he accepted the position of chief justice of south carola which was far more prestige position. president washington appointed

rutledge to be there second chief justice but me wasn't his first choice. alexander hamilton was his first choice and washington offered him the job but hamilton declined. the most successful play on broadway could be a hip hop musical about a chief justice if things were different. jay and i will not conduct this interview in rap, though, and i think we will get started right now. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming to our little gathering. it is great to have you here. the two of us go back a long way and we were together in the justice department during the reagan administration and i can

tell you that at that point the chief judgment was enormously respected by all of us within the justice department and the white house and if that respect has only grown over the course of the years. i know of course that the chief justice is greatly respected in the public at large, but i think this conference the perfect place to emphasize just how much of us cherish and respect the quality of his leadership. we appreciate the dignity and character and wonderful sense of humor with which the chief justice presides. >> that is probably a good place to end. it is going to be down hill from

here. >> just one more thing and i think that is what binds us all is a deep love of law. nobody loves the law -- i have never met anybody that loves the law more than the chief justice of the united states. he appreciates the potential that law has to preserve our liberties and maintain order and to make more satisfying lives for the majority for all american citizens. he not only shares our values, he embodies them. we really like that. it is so nice and welcoming. it is great to see you.

i expect you to see people paying respect to not just the jurisprudence but the warm spirit that justice scalia exhibited. we are particularly proud to have justice scalia's son gene as a member of our fourth circuit conference. >> chief, we didn't get a chance to really celebrate. you were talking about anniversaries. unfortunately, we didn't -- just because the way the calendar fell have a chance to celebrate your tenth anniversary with coming chief justice.

a decade is a time to reflect. what would you say has been the most satisfying achievement for you in the course of your 10, 11 years now? what is the thing you look back on with the most satisfaction? >> i would say serving for ten years. the first thing i would like to point out is that it is very difficult for any member of the court or a chief justice to signal out any particular accomplishme accomplishment. we operate as a group and i think it would be better to ask what the accomplishments over the court has been and i think the answer is simple. we as a group, i think, have

done our job of protecting the role of the court as a co-equal branch in the constitutional plan and carrying out the separation of powers and living up to the challenge that is carved in marble on our courthouses which is equal justice under law. there are points where the court may be hasn't been as good at doing that as it might have been. typically there are occasions where have descented. our challenge is to do our job as best as we can. looking back, i feel pleased we have done that.

>> you are nearing the end of a term and historically most of the really big cases have come down toward the end of june. i get people asking at the end of june everybody wants recess the last day in june, certainly before independence day and the school bells are ringing and people are rushing out the door. does this adjournment date affect the quality of the june opinions? is there a rush to get things out in some way? >> i think that might have been true years ago.

when i was a law court, the court issues 150 opinions in that term and today we issue half that. there is debate on the reasons for that and some are interesting to talk about. but when you have 150 opinions you are trying to get out i think the answer maybe a is yes. for lawyers working on briefs or other analysis, i would look at the date and maybe if it is june 20th you may want to read it with more uncertainty. but half the number, 75, i don't think that is true. i don't think they suffer in inequality. we don't have a fast deadline. we don't leave until all of our work is done and sometimes that

pushes us into july and sometimes we have gotten out a day or two early. part of my job is making sure we get done. it is hard if everybody worked on their own schedule with different priorities nothing would come together until the last day. >> you mention the fact that the docket has gone down from maybe 150 to 75 and there are some complaint about that. none of them come from court of appeals judges. what is not to like? we get reverse left often. >> you are doing pretty well so far. i think we issued four opinions out of the fourth circuit so far. and you have been affirmed in

three of them. a 750 average with the court and a 500 average with me. >> keep up the good work. speaking of opinions, every so often, i will have occasion to look through the opinions of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s and i am amazed at how short they are and federal and state court. there were monumental cases and they were written with very short opinions. but the modern trend has been toward longer and longer opinions with more and more

footnotes than the '20s-'50s. given a lawyer's most valuable asset is his or her time, the long opinions, and i think the court of appeals need to make notice of this, are we impose an undue burden on the time of a profession with the length of our opinions and what we require lawyers and district court judges and professors to read. is that a problem? >> yes and no. i mean some of the examples you gave have particular reasons. brown, i guess was it less than 10 pages and brown to was shorter. but that was a conscious decision by earl warren.

it was important to have a unanimous opinion. and i think if he had taken one or two more pages the agreement would have started to unravel. so that was important. i think he wanted it to be short enough so everyone could read it. not just the legal profession but the commentators wouldn't have the same opinion. you could look at the new york times and it would be there. he had reasons for keeping it short. i agree on length of footnotes and opinions. i believe have the shortest footnotes than any justice because you get busy and don't read them so i figure why should i write them.

it takes a few pages to find your way out of the forest in those cases. so that might be part of it. technology is part of it. it is too easy to write things and change them and here is four paragraphs about this issue and move it over into the opinion. you push a button and you know every case on everything. maybe that is a reason there are fewer cases coming from the court. >> it is remarkable just how

change is occurring on every front. the size of the opinion and another big area of change i think is the nature of the ap l appellate bar. now the complaint is we have all too few. if the more elite private bar, particularly in the civil cases, there are too many repeat players and it is sort of -- let's give somebody else a chance. is the appellate bar particularly before the supreme

court becoming too elite and too ingrown, in your judgment? >> i actually gave a talk to the supreme court historical society 12 years ago. some of you may have missed it. but at that time it talked about that very trend. you go back to 1980, i think, yorm i don't remember the numbers, but i think there were two or three people who argued more than one case that term. maybe a couple more. now it is pretty much routine, the lawyers we see quite often in a single case, one has done ten arguments, one has done 30, that was unheard of. it is a change. the bar is more specialized. i think supreme court advocacy wasn't a speciality until rec t

recently. arguing before the supreme court is a specialized trait and it is good to have people there who have done that and understand what they are looking for and ask a hundred questions in a half hour as has happened. understand that although the case involves a bankruptcy statue, it is there because of how we view statutory interpretation. it is good they are repeat players just as in any other court. they know they are going to be up there again later so they are going to be more circumstance spect about how they analyze the record and explain the cases to you. having said all that, i know i do, and i think many colleagues do, miss the opportunity for something of mr. smith comes to washington moment where you have

the soul practitioner with the beat up brief case and you get a sense of his practice and understanding of what the court is like and they often do a very good job but it is hard these days. you have to spend months focused on the supreme court case and it is hard for a sole practitioner to do that. it is disappointing and leaves a little color and texture of an argument when it is the same people. we benefit a great deal from having experts before us. >> i remember a comment justice powell would make. he would come back and say they don't even know our names and they would be calling one justice by the name of another justice. at least with the repeat players they will get the names right. >> you would have thought so but in our last case a mistake

happened and justice ginsberg waw referred to as justice o'connor by a repeat player. so -- was -- sometimes people ask what advice i have for advocates and i always say don't use their names. >> that is probably true. i have a hard time touching the supreme court where there isn't change. one of the big areas of change is involving law clerks. the number of clerks increased and people keep reminding me that john marshall without the help of any law clerks at all. how did he do it? we went from zero clerks, to four clerks, and in addiction to used to be the clerks would go

right from law school to the supreme court, and then an appellate court was thought to be a good requisite, and now a larger number of law clerks are hired after a year or two or more of practice or government service. so you have it flipped around. we used to be training around in the judicial branch law clerks for private practice. now it seems folks in private practice are training lawyers to serve as law clerks. is this a good trend? i think part of the value of the clerkship was at least partly its sentimental value. i know you felt this way about cleckshi

cleckships. this was our first professional experience and we held it in particular sentimentally throughout the rest of our professional lives. it wasn't just another stop. am i right about the trends? is it a good idea? >> well, you mention john marshall not having any clerks. sort of ties into the your question. i suspect one reason opinions are longer is there are more clerks working on things and you feel this would be a waste if you didn't put it in somewhere. maybe things would be better if we only have one or two clerks. there is a trend of hiring people with outside experience before coming to the court. i know have done some of that.

i would say most of my clerks are hired out of an appellate clerkship. i think the jury is still out. i think there are disadvantages from having somebody who has been in practice for a while, not disparaging any of my clerks or any of the others, but i'm trying to figure how to phrase it but in a sense it is because they may get too good at law. we want people who will work hard, look at the issues, find the cases, but we don't want them to necessarily prepare things that are too polished whether it is drafts or memos because as we always proudly say we are the only branch of government where we still do our own work. if you get somebody producing whatever they want to produce it makes it harder for you to find

a way into the writing sometimes. >> i don't want to go back to but when he first came on the court, he was the managing partner of a major lawfirm and had people with years of experience. as the years went on, he said it is a distinct privilege to have law clerks that are green because they bring their generation and the latest thinking from law schools. he did a complete 180 on that. i wanted to ask a question of more light hearted. which chief justice rehnquist

came to our court he would compare the different cultures of court of appeals. he he used to talk about the fourth circuit's black tie tradition and contrast with what he called the sandals and t-shirt tradition of the ninth circumstan circuit. i guess in light of the contrast, chief, do you think the fourth circuit needs to lighten up? >> i think maybe the other courts should tighten up a bit. [laughter] >> you know one of the great things about my current job is i do go around to the other circuits. i always come here, and the d.c. circuit which is within my responsibility and i do one other around the country so you get a flavor for what they are like.

it is good the organizers have a dress code and it is formal attire at the evening banquet and you mentioned the ninth circuit is no shirts or shoes nope service. the last time it was there the conference was on the beach in malibu and that is the setting sort of. it is the federal system you see it reflected in that as well. when i was arguing cases around the country i enjoyed it. in new york, they pride them self about everybody gets oral argument if you have an appeal. that means it is off in five minutes. and you get the real offense of new york. move it on, goodbye. here, the culture is a little more genteel. it makes more sense to have that kind of approach. some of them i was just out at

the eighth circuit a month ago or so and there the main characteristic is it is a mix going from north dakota to arkansas. so it is a quite a mixture of cultures and you get a good sense of that. i think that is a good thing. it reflects the diversity not just of our profession but of the country and that is a positive thing. >> you mention the second circuit where they have five minutes of oral arguments and people say the red light isn't really red in the fourth circuit because they argued another circuit where the red light ready did mean stop talking. chief, it is traditional in our conversations that you tell us what is on your summer reading list and give us -- i know you have a little down time. well deserved in the summer.

what were you going to be reading and what do you reread? >> well, i will give a little shoutout to my colleagues. i am sure justice briers new book, the will in the court, is worth buying. i always read my colleague's books over the summer. >> do you agree we should use international law all over the place? >> i haven't read it. but it is on the list. you know, to be honest, i think that is a phony debate. everybody thinks we ought to look at foreign law to the extent it has something like that valuable to each out. nobody on the court disagrees with that. the issue comes up when you are looking at foreign law to directly inform the constitution. to oversimplify the fact that so many courts view the death

penalty as inconsistent with civilized moral. does that tell you how to interpret the eighth amendment? i understand the basic thesis which is the world is a more interconnected place and we need to keep thad in mind and understand how our interpretations make sense with the broader law makes sense. you can saw say the world's view on law because that is different. our friends in the english, the english supreme court, which is a fascinating change for them, but their legal system is a little different than the law in oh iran or iraq. >> foreign law, it seems to me, there is danger running up the

meter and legal bills. lawyers have to be prepared for the fact this case in this country may play a role in the supreme court opinion. i think it may increase the challenge of an attorney's job in preparation. >> i don't think we live in an ivory tower and this is foreign but it is challenging. it is not foreign law but technology. more and more we have cases that involve whether it is antitrust in the fourth amendment or first amendment area. we are not as adapt at how

technology works with other people. we have cases where it is a challenge for the lawyers to explain to us this is how it works. it is just another challenge. last time i looked, they made more money than we do. >> i want to allow a little time to hear from questions from the audience. you understand we should not question the chief justice on pending or recent cases. or political questions. anyone who would like to ask the

chief justice a question, please feel free to do. [inaudible question] >> i don't know if you can hear in the back. the question is we talk about the benefits of diversity on the courts and the question is do i find it problematic all of the justice went to one or two law schools and that there are no prodstants on the court. with the answers to the first question, yes, i do think it is unf unfortunate. i think it is surprising that the members on the court all

come from a very, not only small number of schools, but in many respects an unrepresentative it is a big country and you would think there would be more diversity but i cannot reflect to you why that is is. when just stevens and i served on the court together we felt a special bond in that we were from the middle of the country, in the midwest, and everybody else was from the east coast or the west coast.

all of us know if we are put in the room from new york and south, again to be honest, does that mean the court, if you have an eastern seaboard bias, what does that mean? how does that reflect itself? i cannot say? if that would be the religious make up, but i don't see how that affected how we do business or anything of that sort. the short answer to your question is it to strange. maybe it is something to worry about. i cannot put my finger on how

the differences show up. >> mr. chief justice, you mentioned the unanimous nachl nature of the brown verse board of education decision. how would you describe your approach to consensus building on the court and how would you compare to it to styles of some of your favorite chief justice in history. >> it was a great benefit that brown was a unanimous opinion. but there was another side. it was unanimous because they left a lot of things undecided. you had a generation of litigation trying to figure what this means or how it works out and where does the obligation apply and on what bases? so it was unanimous and that is a good thing and i understand chief justice warren's reasoning

but it is subject to criticism. even if is a 7-2 or 6-3 let's resolve it so people know how to implement it. so there are pluses and minuses. sometimes when we have written opinion people have said, particularly for the lower parts, they often pay the price for that and that is how could we do this and couldn't they spend five more pages giving us more guidance? i tried to achieve as much consensus as i can. again, that is not something that i can do on my own. we kind of have to have a commitment as a group to do that. i don't want to speak for the others but i think we spend a fair amount of time, i think a little more than others maybe in the past, talking about things, talking them out, and you know,

sometimes that brings you a little closer together. it hae subject to some criticism that it can put things off and you know, you say let's not deal with this issue today. but maybe infive years you get another case where you have to. some people think that is bad. i really don't. i think it has something to do with judicial philosophy. i think we should be restrained and only decide issues when it is necessary to do so. i think that is part of how i look at the job of a judge in our system. how it relates to others i am not quite sure. but in big chunks of history, john marshall's era, the idea it wasn't clear you could decent because everything was unanim s unanimous, and i think it had a lot to do with john marshall and the force of his intellectual and gregarious nature.

they had a lot of responsibilities outside of washington and didn't have a permit residents there. they very much functioned as a group. if you look at the history, it is not because marshall imposed his will on the others. there was a lot of exchange. the other views were considered and often became part of the unanimous opinion. >> with respect to the question of the last questioner's question, which i think is a very good one, warren burger and william renquist had different styles. with berger they went on to great lengths to discuss this but with rehnquist he said the

thoughts will come out in the voting. do you have thoughts on the styles and whether you have a preference for the orally extending the conference and ironing out views or whether you should leave it for the writing? >> you know, if you will think chief justice berger were too long and chief justice rehnquist's were too short then maybe this a goldie locks moment and this is just right. it is probably true we discuss things more than they did under chief justice rehnquist. you get to a point where it will come out in the writing because there are nine of us, night now of course, and the back and forth of the small details, it is hard to tell nine people

talking about what does this curly cue and regulation mean. you do have to get it on paper so everybody can focus on it more. >> time for one more question. one final question. i think we have one out there. >> the mic is right behind you. that will help. >> you mentioned earlier the court deals with technology now which is a growing area in the law and science. i was curious with other scientific issues like whether it is biology or climate science, what kind of science backgrounds to the justices have and who do they go to for their expertise? >> that is a very good question. i think the short answer is varied backgrounds.

justice thomas, i don't know why, is the most technologically sophisticated on the court and advi advising us we have to get this and that. it is not necessarily by age. some of the more junior ones may not have as much experience as the senior ones. justice scalia was experimenting with the new gadgets in dealing with drafting and things. it is easy to say what is this? i will go online and check and see. but should it be part of the weapon or how you are viewing it? i think it depends on what the case is about and whether you insist it should be something is in the record as opposed to independent research.

our law clerks are more adapt with technology than we are and we can ask them. but it is a great challenge and a very interesting question. i think we do need to be very careful about conducting our own research on law is what we should do. but past examine about how this works or doesn't work, i think you have look through the questions of oral argument. we can ask a lawyer if we find something. whether i understand this or isn't it true of this and give them the opportunity to set us right the story. i think as it a little exagurated. it is like if you say who are the 50 best baseball players and you look at the last 50 years

because that is what we know. i think the railroad overturned people's concept of property law and same with the -- i remember president reagan used to talk about in his generation they went from getting around on horses to going to the moon. that is a big technological change there and it can be subject to debate on if that is significant. maybe it is one of those things where we tend to see things from their own perspective. >> there is a great number of amicus briefs that help with technology. >> there are. we get a lot of amicus briefs and sometimes they are great. for the lawyers doing it, they are great when they focus on something in particular. if is a case about fourth amendment issues and how they apply to an iphoniphone.

this brief is devote today the history of this particular legal provision. those are very, very helpful. ones that are just me too briefs that an organization wants to file so they can say they won a case when it comes out their way those are less helpful. >> let's all thank the chief justice for being here. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thanks. that was very helpful and enjoyable. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> we will allow the chief justice to exit.

>> two things i want to do real quick. these conferences don't just happen. they don't occur by themselves and there are two people here i want to particularly thanks. sam phillips who is here and samp at the front who ran this thing. and unfortunately the people from our office in richmond had to leave. bullet i would appreciate it if you join be in giving a round of thanks for what they have done. >> with regard to the trip back, i want to share a story tolds this morning by my waiter. i was talking to him and he said i know you are heading back. he said i want to tell you about the experience i had. he said i was driving from west virginia toward virginia the other day and he said it was a sunny day, skies were blue, sun was out, and he said tell you

the truth, i got carried away and was going 80 into 70 miles per hour zone and left west virginia and came into the virginia and right at the bottom of the hill, as soon as i got into virginia, there was a trooper and i was going 80 and it was too fast to pull down. i was going 80 so he said i kept going 80 and sure enough the guy turned the blue lights on and pulled him over. and he said the trooper walked up to him and said can i see your drivers license and the trooper said i am in a good mood today. if you have a good reason for why you are speeding i will let you go. and he said to tell you the truth, officer, my wife ran off a state trooper and i was scared you were him bringing her back. everybody drive safely going ho home.

thank you for coming to the conference. we are done. >> next, from lewisville

kentucky, the memorial service for former heavyweight champion boxer muhammad ali. and then ben roads discusses the obama administration efforts concerning global nuclear security. muhammad ali has been buried encapsulated hill cemetery in lewisville, kentucky. a public memorial service was held and speakers included former president billy clinton, billy crystal, brian gumbal and members of the family. this is just over three hours. >> in the name of god, most

compassionate, more merciful, we request everyone rise at the current time. stand-up to greet the ali family.