and character of the american people. and it's that faith and character that gives us our strength today as in all days. reagan used to speak of being able to make certain we pass that freedom on to future generations, and he talked about the moral imperative of americans acting together. he was speaking at a time when free men and women were individuals who wanted to be free men and women behind the iron curtain in a divided europe. they were behind that wall. human dignity was being suppressed. and times and circumstances may have changed, but the cause remains the same. and our challenge today is multiple, but especially two main things. one, we've got to keep those principles for which generations have fought to preserve, alive in our thoughts and alive in our actions. and secondly, we must actively and unfailingly share our

message with our neighbors, our leaders, with all who will listen. as i said before, it's easy to be cynical when times are tough. it's understandable to feel that the multitude of challenges that we face at home and abroad are collectively just too much to handle. but as ever, i see reason to be optimistic, and that optimism starts in this room with folks just like you, folks ready to fight to secure a brighter future for our kids and grandkids, to not let the individual tax of freedom and liberty not to go unnoticed, to let our american nation become one of many. i know we're up to the task. i know because samuel adams said it doesn't take a majority to prevail but a tireless minority keen on setting brush fires of freedom. let's go set those brush fires of freedom. thanks so much. god bless you!

[ applause ] live now to the white house for the start of a day-long summit on working families. first up we'll hear opening remarks from vice president biden and his wife dr. jill biden. a little later today we'll come back to the white house for remarks from president obama. that's around 1:40 p.m. eastern. then this afternoon we'll bring you live coverage of wrap-up remarks from first lady michelle obama. this is live coverage on c-span3.

♪

so we're live at the omni hotel in downtown washington. a white house summit on working families about to get started. first up this morning, we expect opening remarks from vice president biden and then his wife dr. jill biden. a bit later today we'll come back to this event for remarks from president obama, the president scheduled to speak about 1:40 p.m., about 20 minutes before 2:00 this

afternoon. then later on we'll have live coverage of wrap-up remarks from first lady michelle obama. our live coverage throughout the day here on c-span3.

ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. our program will begin in just a few moments. this is a friendly reminder to silence your mobile devices. thank you. please welcome senior adviser to the president and chair to the white house council on women and girls, valerie jarrett, u.s. secretary of labor, thomas e. perez, and the

president of the center for american progress, mira tanden. >> well, good morning! good morning, everybody! good morning! let us hear from you! wow. i can't believe you all showed up. well, i am delighted to be here with my co-hosts tom and mira, who you will hear from shortly, to welcome you to the first ever white house summit on working families. [ applause ] >> so the president's goals are simple. he wants to make sure that every hardworking american gets a chance to get ahead. and he also wants to make sure that our 21st century workplace reflects the needs of those 21st century families. and as we know, the demographics have changed over the decades. now we know that women make up nearly half of the work force.

yes, indeed. you can clap whenever you want. 40% of moms are either single breadmakers or the primary bread earner for the family. that's a major change in our demographics. the model of our children live in families where both parents work. so we need to make sure our workplace changes in both policy and culture to reflect those changes, isn't that right? [ applause ] >> and so over the course of the last couple of months, we have traveled around the country from orlando, florida, to seattle, to boston, new york, my hometown of chicago, virginia. we've talked to business leaders and union leaders and academics and deans and stakeholders from

all around the country to help figure out how to change that paradigm. reflecting in this room and watching us on line are all of you who contributed to at general -- the agenda for the day and also the announcements we will be making. so thank you very much. [ applause ] >> we have listened to your stories, and everybody has stories. so, of course, since i have the podium, i'm going to tell you a couple of mine. i remember very vividly -- i'm not going to tell you exactly how many years ago -- well, maybe i will -- 28 years ago and some change -- i was sitting around a conference room table at 2:00 a.m. eight and a half months pregnant. and i kept trying to slip my swollen feet up onto a chair where nobody would notice. and for the women in the audience who have been pregnant, you know i couldn't actually sit there for more than half an hour without getting up and taking a little departure, but i was too embarrassed to tell anybody i had to go to the bathroom.

so i made up all kinds of excuses for why i was leaving the room. i need to get some papers, i need to make a phone call, i need to do this and that. i needed to pee. and i felt like i was alone. and i was in a room full of men, and i didn't think anybody there was going through what i was going through, so one of our big messages today is that you are not alone. that's another thing that today is all about. fast forward a few years later in a different job, and my daughter is a toddler, and i had a client who was extremely demanding. and i love my client, and she was my first mentor. but i needed to get home because i would wake up in the morning trying to figure out how could i get home by bedtime. you know what that's like. i told her, i love to cook. why don't you come over to my house and i'll make dinner. i don't actually love to cook. she would come over every night and i would make dinner and i would get a chance to say good

night to my daughter. all these years later, i look back, and i'm not sure she actually thought i liked to cook, but she loved those meals and she was willing to accommodate my schedule so i could be home by bedtime. a terrific client. and this is about employers who get it. i was sitting in a conference room working for mayor daly. an intimidating character for those of you who have met him. i had just been promoted. it was one of my first meetings, actually, in his office. i was sitting across the table from susan schure who used to be chief of staff. susan and i both had children in second grade. we kept looking at each other and looking at each other, and finally the mayor realized that we weren't paying attention. he said, where do you need to go that's more important than here? so in a moment of truth i said to him, the halloween parade

starts in 20 minutes, and we are 25 minutes away. and he said -- and this is really important -- then what are you doing here? and i am telling you, from that moment he had my loyalty, he had my work. i worked twice as hard. i was determined to be worthy of that. and so as we have heard from all of you, what we have heard is for hardworking folks who are trying to make ends meet, we need to raise the minimum wage, point number 1. we have heard that everybody should get to go to that halloween parade, so workplace flexibility is important. paid leave is important. we're the only country that doesn't have paid leave. child care is important. [ applause ] >> for a while now, we talked about the glass ceiling, but you know what? it is that sticky floor that is

the problem for so many minimum wage workers who can't get that break to get ahead. these are the issues that we've heard from you. and so if you are that single mom who sends your kid to school with a little bit of a fever because you don't have any child care -- i've done that -- if you are that dad that would love to stay home with your children and your company has the policy that allows to you stay home, but nobody of your culture takes advantage of that policy. if you're a parent that is unable to attend a parent-teacher conference, let alone a program or play because your company can't accommodate those hours, let me tell you something, you're not alone and this day is for all of you. [ applause

[ applause ] >> so we are excited to be here. we're going to learn, we're going to have announcements to make, we're going to have a conversation with one another, but the most important thing i also want you to remember is that this day is an important moment but it's not just a moment. it's a movement. it's a movement, and we are going forward from this day forward. so with that, i want you to welcome my partner in this without whom this conference would simply not have been possible, who is an advocate for workers around the country each and every single day. please join me in welcoming secretary tom perez. >> thank you. thank you. morning! all right! [ applause ] >> good morning! you know, on cue, valerie announced this was a movement, and general rose delaurel comes in and takes a seat. good morning, general.

it's good to see you. it's an honor to be here. i want to say thank you to valerie, to mira and her wonderful team, and i must take a moment to thank our folks in the women's bureau. latifah, where are you? doing great work around here. these regional summits have been remarkably productive and instructive. here's what we've learned. we've learned two sets of things from these regional summits. because we've been asking people the following things. what's keeping you up at night? what are your biggest sources as a working family, as a working parent, as a single parent? what are your biggest sources of fear and concern? and the first thing we hear is that i'm working harder and falling further behind. what keeps me up at night is my second job because i can't afford to make ends meet. what keeps me up at night is the sense that i want to put food on the table but i also want to be

home to eat at the table with my family, because the most important family value is time spent with your family. and i don't enjoy that luxury. i don't enjoy that luxury because the minimum wage has decreased in value 20% from where it was 30 years ago. i don't enjoy that luxury because my wages have been flat, even though i'm working 50, 60 hours a week. i don't want to be on food stamps, i'm told, we're told with regulator, but i can't afford not to be on food stamps. and that is why the president is so focused on wage fairness, making sure that a fair day's work pays a fair day's wage, making sure nobody in this country who works a full-time job should have to live in poverty. [ applause ]

>> and that is why, in addition to fighting for harkin-miller, the president is using his pen and his phone to make sure we use every regulatory tool in our arsenal to help working families. for instance, the president helped to make sure that 2 million home health workers have access to minimum wage in overtime productions. 90% women, 50% people of color, 40 to 45% on some form of public assistance. these people are doing god's work, and they deserve a fair wage and overtime benefits. so we'll continue to fight for wage fairness because we've heard that throughout our six visits to the various regional summits. but we've also heard something else, which is, we need to make sure, as valerie correctly pointed out, that we have the flexibility we need to make sure that i can go take my kid to the

doctor, i can take my mother or my father to the doctor. you know, we have such a changing universe here. we see the nature of the family has changed, the nature of work has changed. we're living in that modern family society, but we're still stick with "leave it to beaver" rules. that's the world we're living in, and we've got to change that. [ applause ] >> you know, too many people, as valerie correctly points out, have to choose between the job that they need and the family that they love. that's a choice that no one should have to make. i've heard mira say with great, remarkable passion that you shouldn't have to win the boss lottery to be able to take two hours off to take your kid to the doctor. president clinton did a great thing when he passed the family and medical leave act. but for millions of americans who are either not covered by the family and medical leave act or who are nominally covered

but, in fact, are not covered because they simply can't afford to take that time off, we need the next frontier of workplace fairness. we need the next frontier of flexibility. we need to make sure that we're no longer in the company of three or four nations on the planet who are the only nations on the planet who don't have some form of paid leave. that's not who we are as a nation. [ applause ] >> and that's why we're fighting for this. that's why we've been working so hard. and that's why the president continues to support grants year after year, a state-paid leave fund, because states are demonstrating that you can do this. employers are demonstrating that you can do this. and it's the right thing to do and it's the smart thing to do. employers who pay minimum wage, employers who pay above the minimum wage, employers who have flexible leave policies.

they are creating a competitive disadvantage -- a competitive advantage for themselves and for their shareholders, and that's why we're fighting to do this. that's why i'm so proud to announce today that we're investing in critical new research to understand the benefits of paid leave and that dol will be investing in new grants to support the creation of state paid leave programs. [ applause ] >> and by the way, speaking of the fmla, we believe that all families deserve its protections, and that's why we have proposed new rule changes just last week to realize the promise of windsor and to give all our lgbt brothers and sisters in legal same-sex marriages the same rights that every family has. [ applause ] >> you know, i'm a labor lawyer

and i'm a civil rights lawyer. and as valerie said, progress does not roll in on wheels of inevitability. it takes everybody in this room and in this nation. it takes coalition building, civil rights act of 1964, we're celebrating the 51st anniversary that was first introduced in 1948. it was all about persistence. we had the fmla. it has done well. we need to take the next frontier. we have a president who is committed to that. we have partners who are committed to that. i am confident that we will, indeed, build this movement because we've got generals like rosa delaura, we have the generals general in chief, barack obama, we have the center for progress and my friend mira tanden. >> that was great.

[ applause ] >> so i have to say, what great partners. we should be able to make a lot of change with this team. and i want to say on behalf of the center for american progress, we've been really thrilled to have a fantastic partnership over months and months and months leading up to the conference. with valerie at the white house and the entire white house team and the department of labor which has had a fantastic team. valerie is absolutely right. we all have stories. everyone in this room and the people you represent, thousands upon thousands of people, have a story. i have my own story, which is that, you know, when i had two young children, i had a son who was a year and a half, daughter who was four and a half. i took a very high-pressure job with a lot of time commitments to the job, but i had a boss at that time who saw that i was struggling a little bit. and she rescheduled meetings

around me, made sure -- she changed her schedule so i could have my responsibilities both as a parent and as a worker. she changed around the entire work culture to accommodate parents. and as secretary perez said, you know, i really felt like i won the boss lottery. but that's a real problem in this country. you shouldn't have to win the boss lottery. we should all have work situations where people recognize that when we are good workers and good parents, that's best for the bottom line. and that's why -- [ applause ] >> and that's so much what today is all about, and the white house has a fantastic report out today, making the case for how improving our working conditions for families is best for the bottom line. we have fantastic partners from around the country. most importantly, we have women,

parents here today, who are struggling with the challenges of making those terrible choices. when we've heard these voices in the events leading up to today, we've heard from parents who had to put sick children on a bus because it was that or making their rent. we've heard parents struggling with the decisions about going to work when they know they should be at home. parents talking about how they've anxiously waited until 5:00 and then dashed home because they knew their child didn't have child care. and that's what's motivated today. again, today is not just about changing the conversation, it's ultimately about changing the country. and we're going to do that with everyone here. everyone here is staying committed, and we have fantastic academics, advocates, people and business leaders who recognize

how critical it is to have the workplace rules that will help them compete in the 21st century. i just want to say a few thanks to a few of our partners who have helped support cap in putting this conference together. connie millstein, the ford foundation, the sloan foundation, deloyte foundation, nikcey. all these people are leaders. all of these people are leaders who bring together traverse viewpoints to ensure that we can make change. we had to learn from those models. we'll have a great day today, but today is just the beginning. we're going to have to roll up our sleeves and make change at the local, state and ultimately federal level to improve the quality of lives for all our families and ultimately for our economy. so it's my great honor and privilege to introduce jill

biden and vice president biden because these are two people who work every day to improve working families and who we are so thrilled to help start out the conference. [ applause ] >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning! >> i think i need some of what tom perez was drinking. he really had that energy, didn't he? it's wonderful to welcome you all here to this important

discussion. and thank you, neera, for that kind introduction. everyone here knows the challenges facing working families. i, myself, can vividly recall teaching full-time, getting a master's degree, and raising three young children. even though i had a lot of support and resources, it was still a lot at once. and those kinds of challenges have only increased for today's working families. today, in three-quarters of families, all parents work, whether it's a single-parent family or both parents working. women are nearly half of our work force, but too many women still earn less than men and often face advancement barriers. and on top of an already complicated child care schedules and community obligations, many working families are also

caregivers for aging parents. more and more companies know that they need to find ways to address those challenges so that they can attract and retain talent. they also know that people now choose one job over another because it is in the best interest of their families. last month i was in seattle for a discussion with business leaders and employees to hear more about some of the creative ways that they are addressing these challenges and attracting and retaining top talent. what i heard there was pretty simple. employers need to take more than just the eight hours a day an employee is sitting at his or her job. they should also think about the stresses that employees face outside of work. child care, aging parents, long commutes. if an employer can find creative

ways to ease some of those stresses, employees can be more productive with the time that they are at work. what i heard from employees was also very clear. when they felt that their workplace has valued and appreciated them, they were upbeat and enthusiastic about their jobs. they were committed to their employers. and they saw that their job was not just a place where they went to work for eight hours a day, but a place where they were invested in the company's mission. one of the companies at the discussion was mose, a software company that works hard to create a flexible culture that recognizes the competing demands on its employees. jamie, a project manager at mose, told us that her days were filled with organizing meetings and making sure her team is getting everything done. but because of mose's no meeting

friday policy, she was able to enroll her twins into a four-day kindergarten next year and start friday fun days this summer. not only is jamie getting to spend time with her kids, she also has peace of mind that every monday she won't have to catch up on a day's worth of missed meetings. rei was another company that participated in the discussion. they allow for flexible commuting so employees can go in earlier and miss rush hour. i'm sure that's something every here can relate to coming into washington. as an outdoors company, they also want their workplace culture to encourage employees to live healthy lives. what they refer to as nature nurtures. so they encourage employees to

get outside, go for a hike, and engage in activities that they enjoy outdoors. pretty nice, huh? the participants also discuss other ways to address many of the challenges every working family faces. offering on-site daycare, providing a set amount of paid leave and connecting workers with elder care programs. underscoring all these policies was another theme. employers should trust employees and trust that these solutions make workers happier and more productive. it's important that businesses adopt policies that recognize that life is rarely simple and that the american family has changed. when we think of caregivers, we orch thi often think of a mother caring for her child, but that image simply does not reflect today's

realities, particularly those in the sandwich generation, individuals who are caring for their children at the same time they are caring for their parents. like so many americans, both my husband joe and i have had firsthand experience of caring for our parents in the final years of their lives. i can vividly recall helping care for joe's parents, both of whom came to live with us in the last months of their lives. but the role of caregivers in today's society is expanding far beyond children caring for parents, a role that reminds me of two brothers i met last fall, kyle and brett fletsky. kyle was injured in afghanistan in late 2012. during his recovery, brett's

employer encouraged him to make the most of the company's leave policy. they kept his job open so that he could go and care for his brother. stories like theirs are why this c convening is so important. everybody contributing to this discussion can come up with ideas to help make life a little better for our working families. whether it's resources and flexibility for employees who are acting as caregivers, or mentoring for women, or offering flexible working arrangements, all of us must continue to think creatively about the workplace of the future so that we can ensure that every working american has an equal opportunity to succeed and care for our children. that's what i know our next speaker wakes up every morning

thinking about. [ applause [ applause ] >> it is my great pleasure to introduce my husband, vice president joe biden. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. before jill exits the stage, let me say i'm sure glad she took me to work today. tom, i think you have -- i don't know, i was just out at starbuck's headquarters. i think you got the double jolt in the morning. i don't know, man. by the way, he's that way at midnight, too. that's why i love working with him on the work he and i are

doing on jobs for the future. valerie, thank you, kiddo. you've been a great, great friend to me personally, but you also, you and tina, have never let up on this subject. you have, from the moment we took office, been focusing on this and it matters. [ applause ] >> it matters a great, great, great deal. and neera, you do an incredible job at cap, but you do an incredible job at everything you touch, and it's a pleasure to work with you. let me begin by stating the obvious. sometimes it's not always so obvious. every single circumstance is different. every one of you in this audience has a different circumstance. different opportunity, different problems. how many of you have children out there. raise your hand.

okay. in every one of your cases, there is -- there are different pressures. they're not all the same. they're not all the same. and the fact is that -- the fact that you're here, the vast majority of you, you're among the lucky ones. like jill and i, you're among those who are educated. you're among those who have options emotionally. you're the ones who generally make enough money that you can get some help in caring for your children or your parents. even if you don't have the salary to do that, you're the ones that know your way around. you know the existence of programs to help your elderly parents or your children. you're the ones in your communities who have -- we're not going to speak about it much today as i looked at the agenda, but, for example, there is a whole lot of things that are

going on, and we've been working on for, in my case, over 35 years to ameliorate the pressure on families. that's anything from after-school programs, and that it is -- that's a big deal. we have millions of turnkey children going home after school. no one there 3:00, 3:30, and circumstances sometimes that are not always -- i was raised in the grade school by the nuns. they say temptation. i don't care how good your child is, but a 12-year-old going home and turning the key to get into the house even in a safe neighborhood is still a concern. so there is a whole lot of things we are not going to be talking in detail about.

but the vast majority of single moms -- and i might add dads -- don't have these opportunities. [ applause ] >> each one of you here, if you're honest, and you all are honest, you know -- i mean this sincerely. you know how difficult it is to do your job, advance in your job and be the parent or caregiver for your parents that you want to be. you've been raised, 99% of you, with the notion that your first and foremost obligation is to your family. whether it's your parents in distress or your children. and it's really difficult. a lot has to do with the personal choices that we make as to how we allocate our time

versus relative to our careers. i don't think anyone participating here makes any moral judgments about any of the choices people make, as long as they're conscious choices with real opportunities. our job, it seems to me, is to provide as many opportunities so that the choices that are always going to be difficult, the choices that have to be made, are at least more rational. at least there are more options. but there are a lot of factors and a lot of players that can have a significant and ameliorating impact on the difficult choices. women primarily, but men also have to make in raising children. do you have extended family that can help you? that's a big factor. can you afford safe and nurturing daycare. what programs are available in your neighborhood, the boys

clubs and girls clubs. we owe you. i spent the bulk of my career in the judiciary committee. there is an exact correlation between children getting in trouble and having access to boys and girls' clubs, ywcas, ymcas. it matters. you have to give children choices. [ applause [ applause ] >> children basically want to do the right thing. but the peer pressure is overwhelming. sometimes they need an escape. they need an excuse. but look, you all know all these things. one of the factors we're talking about today that can also be incredibly ameliorating is not just the policies, but how understanding is your employer? how understanding?

you know, lastly, what, if anything, can the federal government do to help? and i say lastly, because all these other things are out there in the community if they're working really well, including your employers, is less need. now, there's need for minimum wage, there's need for a whole range of things you discuss, and equal pay, and things we've been working on our whole careers. but there's an awful lot that can be done just to change the atmosphere, the examples jill gave. you know, you're going to get to discuss all of these things today and more, but if you excuse, as we used to say personal privilege, i can speak from my own experience. the first thing you say, look at biden, man. he's got a mildly expensive suit on. he's vice president of the united states of america. he makes -- even though he's the poorest man in congress, he still makes a lot of money as vice president of the united states.

and i do, by the way. i do. don't hold it against me that i don't own a single stock or bond. i have no savings account, but i get a great pension and i for real. sometimes we talk about this stuff about struggle. my struggle, my god, compared to where i grew up and the way people are trying to go through things now. but here's the point i want to make. i've been really, really fortunate. and jill is a community college professor. she's seen the struggle of working parents trying to secure an education while earning a living and raising a family. and many times being the victim of domestic violence in the process. and as a military mom and through the great work she and the first lady have been doing and joining forces, she knows the stress on military families facing the struggle through multiple deployments, caring for returning veterans, coping with financial, emotional pressures. these are real. these are real.

and, you know, she knows what you know. that no family is alike. no struggle is the same. no opportunities are identical. but all families, whether headed by two parents or a single mom or a single dad share the same basic dreams and same goals for themselves and for their children. we can't equalize it all, but we sure as heck can do a lot better. and so i want to support -- they -- look, they want to support their families. they want -- they want to feel comfortable. they want to feel safe. they want to be in a secure home and a secure neighborhood. they want to send their kids to college. they want to care for their mom and dad if they have to. and put aside just a little bit, maybe a little bit for their own retirement. they want to achieve these goals without having to sacrifice all of the moments that really matter. my generation, and obviously i'm a lot older than you. you can see that. but all kidding aside, my generation, as i was getting in

college, coming out of college in the late '60s, it was, you know, it's not quantity time, it's quality time. give me a break. give me a break. there's not one important thing my sons or daughter have said to me that came about and i said, no, we have quality time. let's go fishing. let's discuss this. as parents, you know that to be the truth. the most incredible things your children see you, ask of you, reveal to you are in those moments that you don't anticipate. moments that occur when you're reading them a story at night. when you get home and you climb in bed with them. even though they're already asleep. and you pat them.

no. one of the great memories of my daughter, who's a grown woman and a social worker, as i'd stroke her hair, she'd say, daddy, you know what i miss most? i used to -- coming home from work lying in bed with me. you know what i'm talking about. they're the things that matter, for god's sake. but not all of us have the kind of flexibility that i had. not all of us have the opportunity. not all of us have that outside help. you know, there's no substitute for being there. no amount of compensation can replace being physically, emotionally mentally present when your child needs you. but we all know there's going to be those times, and we're not going to be there. it's just -- it's just a fact of life. when i lost my wife and daughter in a car accident right after -- shortly after i got elected, before i was sworn in to the united states senate, i had a whole heck of a lot of help. i've got an incredible family.

my sister is the origin of a phrase in our family. if you have to ask, it's too late. and i mean that sincerely. if you have to ask, it's too late. so i came home from the hospital, and my sister had already moved into my home. given up -- no. with her husband. gave up his job. no, i'm serious. who has that? who has that kind of help? my mother who's nearby, my brothers. they all helped me raise my children. but i was a single father for five years. and i want to tell you, with all the help i had, and i was making a good salary, i was a u.s. senator, i was making a salary a lot more than -- i was making $42,000 a year. and that was then. nope. the average salary was closer to $19,000. so i was doing well. and i had all this help. and then the overwhelming goodwill of an entire state who wrapped their arms around me and my children. and i used to think to myself, i

give you my words. i used to think to myself, i have a secretary in delaware who had three children and is single. and her child is going to be held to the exact same standard mine is. the exact same standard under the law. and how in god's name could she do what i was able to do. and i was finding it hard. really hard. but i got lucky. i still -- i still had to find my way to be there with my boys. my son hunter was 3. my son beau was 4. still in a full body cast, both arms, both legs, all the way up to his neck. and when i'd leave for washington every day, i could almost hear the fear in their voices. are you going, daddy? they wanted to know if i was coming back. they wanted to know, is everything going to be okay. so to demonstrate to them, but not really, because i needed

them, i made a point to start -- i thought i was only going to stay for six months, start to commute back and forth every day. 8,000 round trips later, not a joke, 8,000 -- [ applause ] >> no, no, no, no, no, no, no. really and truly. by the way, it was -- i needed to do that. i needed to do that. just for me. they helped raise me as much as i helped raise them. but here's the point. you know what i found out, and employers can help in this, that it really matters that even if it's only like i'd get home at night and after five years, no man deserves one great love let alone two, and five years later when jill came along and basically saved all of our lives, what happened was, what happened, i'd come home and i used to get home late. not real, real late. i'd get home by usually 8:00. she'd keep the boys up, and they'd have their dessert while i had my dinner. and i know that's not --

michelle would not like giving them dessert. but it was -- it was healthy dessert. it was healthy dessert. and, look, look, you -- you do it. you go up and you -- and you lie in bed with them. whatever your tradition is. in my case, we'd say prayers. like my grandpa finnegan would do with me. they're the things they remember. when they woke up in the morning, it was no ozzy and harriet, all the family kind of stuff where we all sat and had breakfast together. but while i was shaving they'd come in and have whatever was on their mind for that day. i'd go downstairs, while i'm having a cup of coffee, they're eating their breakfast. because kids can only hold -- young kids can only hold an important idea for about 12 hours. for real.

you miss it, it's gone. you miss it, it's gone. in it matters to them and to you. look, nothing is more important to me than being able to -- being able to be there. but i had this overwhelming luxury. i didn't have any one boss. i had a million people in delaware who were my boss. and they were pretty understanding. no, i sincerely mean it. i missed my first six years. i was one of the lowest percentages of people voting. i had an 87%. i think that's what it was. voting record. i never missed a vote that was a deciding vote. most were procedural votes. so everybody said, they came up with all these explanations. the other team was doing the right thing. they were attacking me on tv, which made sense. saying, would you hire a man who only showed up 87% of the time, et cetera? and so i over the advice of my -- my -- and i tell you this to tell you what i think about

how people think. over the advice of the experts, i did one ad. i looked into the camera and i said, look, it's true. i missed whatever it was. 13%, 15% of the votes. and if you elect me again, i will do it again. no, i'm serious. and i said, because i never -- i will never miss a vote to make a difference. but if i have a choice between a procedural vote and my child's parent/teacher's meeting, i'm going to the meeting. no, no. but here's the point. it's not about me. look at the luxury i had. how many of you would like to be able to do that? [ cheers and applause ] i'm no different than any one of you. for real. i'm not trying to say, oh, joe biden, he did the good -- no. i had the ability to do it. you all want to do it. and i could make a choice. and i was confident the people

in my state would understand, because i was confident -- the reason i tell you this story, is i think that's how almost every american thinks. they think if they only could. if they only could, they would. so, folks, look. the fact of the matter is, there are too many people where it comes down to making a choice between doing that parent/teacher's meeting or going to that championship game or showing up at that debate or being there just when your child is sick having to choose between doing that and their job. not one time. but like many of you, my family has been an incredible consumer of health care costs. my sons were critically injured. my daughter had a sublux of her vertebrae, in traction for a long time. both jill and i teaching. but we had the option. we could choose who could stay home. i could operate from my home,

assuming there weren't a critical vote. but the point is, those kind of choices, most times it comes down to not losing your job or not. it comes down to subtle things. it's about if i don't stay and help finish the project and not go to my daughter's parents' night, they're going to think i don't really want to work hard. they're going to think i don't care about my job. damn it. no. your employer's not demanding you do it. but if i don't stay. look, i've had -- i have some really incredible people work with me over the years. i forget, one time we counted. i've had something like 25 rhodes scholars, more marshall scholars. i had a law firm of 65 people as chairman of the judiciary committee. almost every one graduated in the top 25% of their class. really, really smart, smart people. ambitious people. i remember during the really

difficult hearing, a hearing having to do with -- that i was conducting on the supreme court. and a very controversial hearing. judge bourque. and the young man who -- and i'm not going to mention his name. one of the young men who had done most of the research and the background on judge bourque. and he was having difficulty at home. he was having difficulty because he was spending so little time at home for the previous six months in preparation. he was having difficulty in his marriage. and the day the hearing started, fortunately, i have a guy named ron klein who was a chief of my staff. he was a wonderful guy. came to me and said, so and so has a problem. i said, tell him if he comes into work, he's fired. not a joke. not a joke. i wasn't being noble. i wasn't being noble. it was the right thing to do, but beyond that, it was important. he could do it from home. he could be on the phone. he could let us know. and he had to be assured,

though, that it would not affect his advancement. that's all employers have to do sometimes. just let you know that these subtle choices, they don't have to have some massive policy. particularly if they're smaller. no. no one -- and the other piece about what jill pointed out about trust. you know, folks, we make such a mistake, i think sometimes, because i don't know. i'm not quite sure why. but guess what? trust is usually returned. trust is really usually returned. i have a policy. i just hired on three very high-profile people. the first thing i sat with them when i hired them, said, look, here's the deal. if you ever have any problem at home, no matter what it is, you don't have to tell me what it is. sometimes it's embarrassing. my child has a drug problem.

i'm taking him to a counselor. vast majority of parents face that. i'm having difficulty. my wife is having -- and i are having a problem. my father is. you don't have to give me an explanation. just say, look, i need the time. i need the time. no explanation. you have no idea. i guess you do have an idea how much not only is it the right thing to do, but how much loyalty that engenders. how much response you get. [ applause ] by the way, to those of your employers, the corporate folks out there, you know when it's being abused. you don't need a road map. you know if that is really abused. and so it's a lot easier to trust. people don't abuse trust. if you really trust them by and

large -- you know, these are the things that i think all employers can do. now, it's true that many times problems are much bigger. companywide policies have to be made. decisions on flexible schedules. expanded leave policies. telecommuting. job training and education. on the job training and education. these are all points you're going to discuss in some detail today. i wish i could stay. i really do. i wish i could stay and be in this conference. so i point -- the point i want to make today is that all the corporate executives and business owners in this room, it's about creating policies that allow your worker to balance family and work. and it's never going to be an absolute balance. but in a way that's better for them. if, if, if you give it a shot, i think you'll find the return is overwhelming. when i was chairman of the senate judiciary committee, a woman named -- i mention this because in the book "lean in"

her name is mentioned. she's still a great friend of mine. and i know that valerie knows her well. sin kncynthia hogan. a really first rate lawyer. she was my chief counsel. she was with me a long time. and she's one of the reasons why we were able to successfully pass the violence against women act. and before she left in 1996 when her first child was born, and sheryl sandburg described in her book "lean in," when i asked cynthia to return when i became vice president as my chief counsel at the white house, she was concerned that she wouldn't be able to continue to have time for her family. now, teenager is a little bit older. so we worked it out. we found a way to give her time and flexibility she needed. benefiting from her experience and her talents which were badly needed. as her employer, i benefited just as much as she did. there were certain -- she left by a certain time so she could

be home. there was no loss of productivity in my office. i mean, i would have taken cynthia for five hours a day. but the point is, she was able to do it from home. so when the kids walk through the door, which was important to her, important to her, that she was there. she was in connection with the office. and i made -- we made a rule. no matter how important it was, she didn't get any text message during dinner. because it was important time. important time. look, here's the deal. you all know it. study after study confirms my experience. family friendlier policies reduce turnover, they boost performance and they boost productivity. speaking of cynthia and some of the other women in my shop with children, they're the reason i was able to write the domestic violence law in the first place. and i can't leave -- [ applause ]

the good news for you is i'm about to leave. but i can't leave without saying something about the violence against women act. you know, in nearly one-third of the victims of domestic violence lose their jobs because of the impacts on their employers. and there are real impacts on our employers. what happens in the workplace. an abuser coming into the workplace disrupting. you know, breaking out the windows of the car in the parking lot. you know, flattening the tires. threatening co-workers. it happens. and so you can on one hand understand why employers, particularly in big operations, say, whoa, whoa. we don't need this. we don't need this. it's disruptive. but the total cost to the economy or the cost to the economy according to the center for disease control and prevention, is about -- they can list about $8 billion in lost productivity and health care. that's not the total cost to the whole economy. which is much higher.

and employers can and many are, i was going to list them but my staff says don't go listing the ones, because you'll leave somebody out. you know i always listen to my staff. but all kidding aside, a number -- a number of major companies are making a big difference because they've developed policies to help the victims keep their jobs and stay safe. it takes effort on the part of the company. but i would urge you at another time, not part of your -- your discussion today, but i think you cannot talk about opportunity for women unless you talk about dealing with, in the work environment, the violence against them that occurs, the domestic violence. but i hope you employers will take a look at some of your fellow companies who've done and provided a permissive environment for victims against

domestic violence. you're going to hear a lot more today, and i know many of you are already putting these policies in place. so i want to close by -- by thanking you all here. thanks you for everything you do for working families in your companies and your communities and your country. and, like i said, we may need broad policies. and i think we do. and you'll talk about them. but an awful lot of this, an awful lot of this, can be done just by subtle, but nonetheless significant, understanding of the circumstance that single, particularly single moms and some single dads, have to deal with. thank you for caring so much about our kids. thank you for caring so much about being able to make sure that particularly women have the opportunity to meet their potential and every one of their expect tation expectations. god bless you all. thank you. [ cheers and applause ]

thanks, valerie. thank you. we'll have more from the white house later. josh earnest holding his first briefing as the official white house spokesman today. we have that live for you scheduled to start at 12:30 p.m. eastern right here on c-span 3. we'll come back to the omni cher m motel in downtown washington for more on white house working families this afternoon. president obama is scheduled to speak about 1:40 p.m. eastern. later wrap up comments from first lady michelle obama. that's scheduled for 5:30. you can watch both live right here on c-span 3. missouri democratic senator claire mccaskill hosting another hearing this afternoon looking into campus sexual assaults. syndicated columnist george will recently wrote a column on the topic which generated lots of

discussion. here's a brief clip of a conversation we recently had with mr. will. >> george will, college has become the victims of progressivism. >> yes. >> and i think the day we're reporting this, the st. louis post dispatch announced they've dropped your column. >> yes, they have. they now how to appreciate the rebel. but -- but this is my job is when dubious statistics become the basis of dubious and dangerous abandonment of due process, to step in and say, take a deep breath, everybody. what's happened is, the administration has said that 1 in 5 women in college experience a sexual assault. and that 12% of sexual assaults are actually reported. which if you take their own -- if you take that, only 12% of

sexual assaults are reported, take the reporting, extrapolate from that, you don't come to anything like 1 in 5. i mean, the administration's own statistics fall apart. but beyond that, the office of civil rights and the department of education have said, schools should adjudicate sexual assault charges by a prepond rens of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. just a preponderance of evidence. and there are serious due process problems here. and what's going to result is, a lot of young men and young women are going to, in these -- this sea of hormones and alcohol that gets into so much trouble on campuses, you're going to have charges of sexual assault. and you're going to have young men disciplined, their lives often permanently and seriously blighted by this. don't get into medical school. don't get to law school.

all the rest. and you're going to have litigation of tremendous expense as young men sue the colleges for damages done to them by abandonment of the rules of due process that we have as a society evolved over many centuries, and are you in danger of casually shoving aside. >> i have a letter that you know about. of course, you've answered it from senator blumenthal, feinstein, casey and baldwin. they begin the letter by saying -- having -- let's see. your thesis and statistics fly in the face of everything we know about this issue. more egregiously you trivialize the scourge of sexual assault, putting the phrase -- it is, in fact, a spreading epidemic and you legitimize the myths that victims and victim advocates have worked tirelessly for decades to combat. >> have you seen my letter that i wrote back to them? >> i have it. >> okay. well, what i say in there is,

"a," i think sexual assault more seriously than i think they do. because i agree that society has correctly said that rape is second only to murder as a serious felony. and, therefore, when someone is accused of rape, it should be reported to the criminal justice system that knows how to deal with this. not with jerry built improvised campus processes. second, i take, i think, sexual assault somewhat more seriously than the senators do, because i think there's a danger now of defining sexual assault so broadly, so capaciously, that it begins to trivialize the seriousness of it. that when you can have remarks become sexual assault, improper touching -- bad, shouldn't be done, but it's not sexual assault. we begin to blur distinctions that are important to preserve if you believe, as the senators purport to believe, that this is

a serious matter. >> so did you have any idea that you'd get the kind of feedback you got from this and that you had a lot of people calling for your head? >> well, i -- i knew -- sure. the reason i write about it is there was a lot of passion involved. that's what i do. that's what you're supposed to do. calling for my head, no. look, today for some reason, i've got some theories about it. indignation is the default position of certain people in civic discourse. they just -- they go from a standing start to fury in about 30 seconds. i think it has something to do with the internet. the internet is a wonderful thing. it has lowered, indeed, erased the barriers to entry into public discourse. that's a good thing. unfortunately, the downside of this, and there's a downside to everything, is that among the barriers to entry that have been reduced is you don't have to be able to read, write or think. you can just come in and shout and call names and carry on.

and we have all kinds of interest groups who think they're only going to get attention, and they're probably right, they only will get attention if they are at maximum decibel level. so they shout and say, i don't just disagree with him, fire him. send him to jail. silence him. all that stuff. but it's -- you know, these are, like, summer storms. they dissipate fast. >> the post stuck by you right away. >> of course. >> the st. louis post dispatch drops their column, say, we've been watching him for a lot of years here. we haven't been paying close enough attention. >> so they say. >> why do you think they really dropped you? >> i have no idea. but i don't think they've -- >> over the years have you had much of this kind of reaction? >> no, not really. on some occasions one gets a lot of people angry with you. but, again, that's part of my job. and -- >> you wouldn't take back any of those words that you used? >> none. no, no. >> that's a portion of a recent conversation we had with george will, campus sexual assaults

will be the topic of a senate homeland security subcommittee hearing later today. we'll have that live for you starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. and you can comment on facebook or twitter using our #cspanchat. religion is a powerful identity forming mechanism. it's -- part of human society is figuring out who's us and who's them, right? who is my group and who is the outgroup? religion answers that question pretty easily. if you pray like me, if you eat like me, if you go to the same, you know, church as i do, then you're us. and if you don't, then you're them. and you can see very easily how that kind of us/them, in group/out group mindset could very easily lead to extremism, to marginalization. after all, as i remind people, religion may be the most powerful form of identity

formation, but just as powerful is violence. how do you know who's us and who's them? well, if you're fighting alongside me, you're us. if you're fighting against me, you're them. so far from religion and violence being these two things that are at odds and should have nothing to do with each other, they have, as everyone knows throughout history, been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> religious scholar and best selling author reza aslan is book tv's july in depth guest. he'll take your calls and comments for three hours live starting at noon eastern sunday, july 6th. and in the months ahead, august 3rd, former texas congressman and republican presidential candidate ron paul, and september 7th, the former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights and children's rights act mary frances berry. and this month on our online book club, we're discussing amity shlaes' "the forgotten man." start reading and join others to discuss the book in our chat room at booktv.org. book tv, television for serious

readers. now a hearing on deceptive advertising practices for weight loss products. television host dr. mehmet oz was questioned about the language he uses and diet products he focuses on in his show. mary engel was also among the panel of witnesses. senator claire mccaskill is the chair, while senator john thune serves as the ranking member. this is just over 90 minutes. witnesses can feel free to go ahead and take a seat. we'll begin with some opening statements and then move to your

testimony. this hearing will now come to order. we have all heard and seen the ads. promising quick and substantial weight loss, if only you take this pill, drink this shake, use this device or apply this cream. all without adjusting diet or increasing physical activity. it seems too good to be true and, of course, it is. we have a short clip of some of these ads that have run on television, satellite radio, online and in print, that i'm going to play so it is clear what we are talking about today. and it will -- >> it's called sensa. the amazing new clinically provingen sensation that you sprinkle on to take the weight off. whether you need to lose 10 pounds, 50 pounds or more, now you can. without dieting. simply sprinkle sensa on.

eat all the foods you love. and watch the pounds come off. it's that easy. you'll lose weight faster and easier than you ever dreamed possible. >> i lost over 120 pounds with sensa. >> you may think magic is make believe. but this little bean has scientists saying they found the magic weight loss cure for everybody body type. it's green coffee beans. when turned into a supplement, this miracle pill can burn fat fast for anyone who wants to lose weight. this is very exciting and it's breaking news. >> millions o f you love coffee. but now you're going to love it for a whole other reason. a staggering newly released study reveals that the coffee bean in its purest, raw form,

may hold the secret to weight loss that you've been waiting for. this study presented in a meeting of the world's largest scientific society triggered unprecedented excitement for our weight loss study. it showed women and men who took green coffee extract lost an astounding amount of fat and weight. 17 pounds in 22 weeks. by doing absolutely nothing extra in their day. could this be the magic weight loss bean to help melt away unwanted pounds that you've been waiting for? >> isn't there a satellite radio ad? okay. we also had a satellite radio ad i thought we were going to play. but there's lots of terrible ads on satellite radio. it's easy to understand why so many consumers are willing to take a chance, ignore their instincts and believe suspicious claims like these. according to the most recent

data from the centers for disease control and prevention, more than one-third of american adults are obese and 70% are either obese or overweight. but this familiar story of the obesity epidemic is further colored by surveys finding the desire among americans to lose weight while consistently failing to put in the effort to do so. in 2013 a gal up survey showed 51% of adults wanted to lose weight, while just 25% said they were seriously working towards that goal. this mismatch between americans' stated desire to shed weight and their lack of serious effort can perhaps explain the growth of the u.s. weight loss industry. as well as the proliferation of false and deceptive advertising for weight loss products. with so many americans desperate for anything that might make it easier to lose weight, it's no wonder scam artists and fraudsters have turned the $60 billion weight loss market to

make a quick buck. sadly, this is not a new problem. the federal trade commission filed its first weight loss case in 1927. mcgowan's reduceine claimed in the "true romance" magazine that, quote, excess fat is literally dissolved away, leaving the figure slim and properly rounded. giving the life grace to the body every man and woman desires. since 1927, the fdc has filed more than 250 cases challenging false and unproven weight loss claims. including just this year four settlements announced in january and last month a complaint filed in federal court against the sellers of, in fact, a green coffee dietary supplement. more than 1 in 10 fraud claims submitted to the ftc are, in fact, for weight loss products. but the problem is much larger than any enforcement agency could possibly tackle on its

own. private stakeholders, companies that sell weight loss products, media outlets and other advertising platforms, as well as consumer watchdogs, must all do their part to help address this problem. media outlets and advertising platforms in particular serve as a critical gatekeeper that are well positioned to keep false and deceptive advertising from reaching consumers. i appreciate trustinads.org which represents some of the largest online advertising platforms being here today to discuss their recent report on this issue. the challenges online companies face in addressing false and deceptive advertising and what more they can do. but the problem is not limited to the internet. in preparing for this hearing, my staff reached out to a variety of media companies across all mediums to better understand industry practices in screening and monitoring advertising. i find it troubling that broadcast and satellite radio witnesses who were asked to be here today were unwilling to appear. to me, this indicates there is either something to hide or they don't have a good story to tell.

either way, we will not be effective at addressing this problem until all stakeholders take it seriously. like in virtually any other industry, there are good actors and bad actors. we will hear today from the council for responsible nutrition, a trade association for the dietary supplement industry, and the better business bureau advertising self-regulatory council about industry's efforts to police itself. we will also hear today from dr. mehmet oz. he offers a unique per spktive of being both a medical doctor and host of a very popular daytime show that frequently airs segments on weight loss issues and products and that is frequently cited in the false and deceptive advertisements used to market questionable weight loss products. dr. oz, i will have some tough questions for you today about your role. intentional or not, in perpetuating these scams. when you feature a product on your show, it creates what has become known as the oz effect. dramatically boosting sales and

driving scam artists to pop up overnight using false and deceptive ads to sell questionable products. while i understand that your message is also focused on basics like healthy eating and exercise, i'm concerned that you are melding medical advice, news and entertainment in a way that harms consumers. this subcommittee has looked a t a number of scams affecting consumers. in most other cases the scams resulted in financial losses, which can certainly be devastating. but what makes weight loss scams really stand out is they not only result in financial losses, they can potentially put a consumer's health at risk. i hope to hear suggestions today about how we can better empower consumers with tools and knowledge needed to not fall victim to weight loss scams. and what more stakeholders can and should be doing to keep false and deceptive weight loss ads from reaching consumers in the first place. i look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today, and i thank you all very much for being here. senator heller.

>> thank you. thank you, madam chairman, for holding this hearing regarding the weight loss industry. i want to thank all our witnesses for taking time for being here also. we all know that weight management is of interest to many americans. i probably should add politicians to that, too. it's no surprise that the market is quite significant, totalling $60.5 billion in 2013 alone in one estimate. i can understand the appeal these products have for many who are attempting to improve their health and lifestyles. it seems to me that many, and perhaps even most, of these products and services are legitimate. making responsible, substantiated representation about health benefits and other claims. but, unlike any other marketplace, there are bad actors in this space who make widely erroneous claims about questionable products. there are also fraudsters who -- and those who seize upon dieting fads and work to scam vulnerable members of our population. i strongly believe the key to healthy weight loss, a

combination of diet and exercise. i personally would be suspect of a magic weight loss cure or a miracle pill. that being said, i can understand how a person may question their own assumptions when a person who they believe has credibility on the issue makes a claim about any particular product. that's why i'm pleased we're here, joined today by ms. mary engel. who is the associate director of the division of advertising practices within the ftc, bureau of consumer protection. i applaud the ftc's work to shut down the scam artists, and i look forward to learning more about the commission's success this year in bringing a series of cases under the agency's existing section 5 authority. against a number of companies engaged in deceptive advertising of weight loss products. also look forward to hearing her thoughts about how the commission is applying its reasonable basis standard for substantiating health claims. including weight loss and what it considers to be competent and reliable scientific evidence to

back certain claims. while this standard has traditionally been a flexible one, it's no secret that the ftc has pursued more stin gent requirements in recent consent dekrees. it's an open question as to whom these new sub stanuation requirements are meant to apply. whether the ftc has followed its own procedural requirements in applying new standards. and whether the standard is consistent with constitutional protection of free speech. i'd also like to welcome dr. oz here today. the dr. oz show debuted in 2009. reaching roughly 3 million viewers every day. i look forward to hearing from dr. oz on what steps he is taking to ensure that the information he shares and conversation he moderates provides accurate claims. we're informed that dr. oz does not endorse particular products, and he has been the subject of unscrupulous entities using his image in advertising without his permission. however, much has been written about the so-called dr. oz effect. whereby demands for products and

ingredients spike after they are featured on his show. when the celebrity doctor mentioned netti pots, sales for the product rose by 12,000%. internet searches for the device road by rose by 42% -- 42,000%. this company is now the subject of the enforcement action brought by the ftc currently pending in federal district court in florida for unfair and deceptive claims with regard to this product. i would also like to welcome our other witnesses. mr. lee peeler from better business bureau. mr. steven mister of the council for responsible nutrition. mr. rob harrelson of the the trustinads.org. dr. daniel fabry cant of the

natural products association. i thank all of you for taking time to be here today. thank you, madam chairman, for holding this hearing. >> great. would you like to say a word? zbr ye >> yeah. ms. mary koeble engel is associate director of division of advertising practices. bureau of consumer protection at the federal trade commission here in washington. dr. mehmet oz, vice chairman and professor of surgery columbia university college of physicians and surgeons and host of "the dr. oz show." mr. c. lee peeler, president and ceo of advertising self-regulatory council. executive vice president, council of better business bureau from new york. mr. steven mister -- is it mister or myselfer? mr. steven mister, president and ceo, council for responsible nutrition based here in washington. mr. robert hatton harrelson iv, executive director,

trustinads.org. and dr. daniel fabrycant, executive director ceo were natural products association. we will begin with your testimony. we will have you on a clock, which i'm sure you understand. i know you understand, dr. oz, about the clock. but we are not strict about that. if you feel the need to go over by a few moments, we will not have a problem. keep in mind the entirety of any written testimony you would like to submit will be included in the official record. welcome, ms. engle. >> good morning. madam chair and members of the economy too e, i am mary engel, associate member of advertising practices at the federal trade commission. i am pleased to have this opportunity providing information regarding the ftc's efforts to combat fraudulent weight loss advertising. as you know the united states is facing an obesity epidemic. nearly 70% of u.s. adults are overweight or obese. excess weight and obesity are major contributors to chronic diseases and health care costs

and present a serious public health challenge. so it isn't surprising that there's strong interest in products that claim to promote weight loss. unfortunately, where there is strong consumer interest, fraud often follows. in the ftc's 2011 survey of consumer fraud, we found that more consumers were victims of fraudulent weight loss products than -- of any of the other specific frauds that we surveyed. despite the continuing boom in the weight loss industry, there exists very little scientific evidence that pills and supplements alone can help one lose a significant amount of weight. scientists agree that the foundation of successful weight loss is to eat a healthful, calorie controlled diet and increase physical activity. products that promote fast and easy weight loss without changes to diet or lifestyle deter consumers from making these tough, but necessary changes. as was mentioned, the commission filed its first weight loss case way back in 1927 and since then we have filed another 250 cases

challenging false and unproven weight loss claims. in the past ten years, the commission has brought 82 law enforcement actions challenging false or unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of a wide variety of weight loss products and services. since 2010 alone, the commission has collected nearly $107 million in consumer restitution for deceptive weight loss claims. our recent cases highlight how the agency has focused its enforcement priorities on large national advertising campaigns for a creative range of weight loss products with unproven benefits. operation failed resolution announced right after the new year targeted the newest weight loss fads with popular ingredients, food additives, human hormones, skin creams and acai berries. in one failed resolution case consumers were urged to shake their sensa and use 30, 40, 90 pounds or more without diet or

exercise. in another consumers were urged to rub in laxit o,n's almond shaping creams touteded as having body slimming capabilities that could trim inches in weeks. in a third consumers with a taste for the rare might tree liquid homeopathic hcg drops made from a diluted form of human hormone to lose a pound a day. each of these cases resulted in a settlement with the ftc. the companies were ordered to pay consumer redress and to back any future weight loss claims with well conducted, human clinical studies. despite this long history of ftc enforcement, weight loss fraud persists. this is because it's in the area where consumers are particularly vulnerable to fraud. there's an enormous amount of money to be made. and people intent on committing fraud will gravitate toward where the money is. we've recently noted some disturbing developments with respect to weight loss advertising. first is the reliance on pro pry tear studies using erroneous or even fabricated data. this was true in our case against sensa and in our earlier

case involving skechers toning shoes. these kind of practices add a layer of complexity to weight loss investigations. a second trend is the appearance of weight loss fads in mainstream media supported by trusted spoex people. our pending case against npb advertising shows how the marketers of pure green coffee dietary supplement capitalized on dr. oz having featured green coffee bean extract on his show and calling it magic and a miracle. when consumers see products, ingredients marketed in specific ways on respected media outlets or praised by hosts they trust, it can be difficult for them to listen to their internal voices telling them to be ware. that is why we have long sought the partnership of the media to screen deceptive diet ads before they run. our recently issued gut check reference guide sent to media outlets throughout the country advises the media on seven weight loss claims that experts say simply cannot be true and that the media should think twice about before running. finally, we recognize that

consumers are the first line of defense against weight loss fraud. the ftc has developeded a full arsenal of consumer educational materials ranging from traditional publications that lay out the facts for consumers, to online teaser websites. today we launched a new interactive online consumer quiz. i want to thank the committee for focusing attention on weight loss scams and for giving the ftc an opportunity to describe its role. while we may never eliminate weight loss fraud, we will continue our efforts to pursue the perpetrators, work with the media to help prevent fraudulent ads from running and educate consumers that trusting their gut instinct can be a strong protective mechanism. thank you, and i'd be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you, ms. engle. dr. oz? >> thank you, members of the committee. thank you to members of the economy tee for convening this session, this hearing and for allowing me to testify. consumer scams and fraud related to weight loss products have

plagued me and my work educating the public since i first started in media long before my talk show launched in 2009. it's a problem i have spent time, energy, broadcast resources and money trying to combat. i'm encouraged that the u.s. senate has decided to prioritize this criminal enterprise and believe that the attention provided by this hearing aened the contributions of other witnesses will help. because we can together with our collective brain power douse the flames of this uncontrolled wildfire in the interest of protecting the consumer. a bit of history. after i finished my training in 1993, about a decade of training, by the way, i began practicing cardiothor rasic surgery. as i performed thousands of surgeries ob patients whose hearts had been ravaged by obesity, i realized we needed to better educate people who needed to take part in their own care. for that reason i went into public life to teach. i started as a guest on the oprah winfrey show in 2004 and had my first experiences with scam advertising at the time. we discussed substances like acai berry.

there wasn't anything special about my description of them but immediately internet ads began springing up using pictures of us, show quotes claiming ms. winfrey and i were supporting these products and selling them. ms. winfrey and i and six attorneys general filed a civil suit against the companies make z these ads. despite the expense and law enforcement cooperation it had very little impact. ten years later we're back. this phenomenon has grown dramatically in sophistication and scale so that i am forced to defend my reputation every single day. these ads take money from trusting viewers, many of whom believe i'm actually selling the items. just to be clear, in case it comes up, i have never sold supplements. out of sheer frustration i have taken a number of measures to deal with this problem to protect my viewers. recognizing, and i accept responsibility for this, that the passionate language i use to describe supplements was fodder for these unethical advertisements. my show has tempered our editorial on promising supplements. we have been more stringent in presenting opportunities and have included opposing voices on these segments. this to my knowledge has had no

disearnable impact. marketers are able to select a single phrase. the clip you showed and others of similar ones, if you look deep sbeer into the showing, i' almost always mention something about these are crutches designed for short term support. you won't get there without diet and exercise. to go further, i have numerous shows on what the exact anatomy of a scat shn shows. i devote a portion of every single broadcast to look directly into the camera. it's the last thing i say to the viewer. tell them and reassure them i don't sell anything. if they see my name, picture, any part of the show involved in an advertisement do not buy the product. any show you happen to wander on, you'll see me saying that at the end. we also created oz watch. a way for viewers to report violation and scams. oz watch has collected more than 35,000 complaints from viewers. we hired a private company to help with complaints and police the web and have issued more than 600 cease and desist

letters. after months of investigation paid for by us i confronted an egregious advertiser on my show in part because we found -- this is the part that hurts me. not only was he using my name and stealing my name, he was also only providing e ining 10% active ingredient. whether it works or not, that's the separate issue. if he doesn't have the product in it, it can't possibly do anything. last night i went online. i was still able to purchase this product if i wanted to. it's a fairly shameless series of perpetrators that we're dealing with. i have also taken action on my own without the assistance of state and federal agencies, but i do believe that working together we can achieve a lot more. before offering any suggestions, and i have a few, let me address the criticism that my show may be fueling the internet scamming problem. i'm respectful of these criticisms p. i encourage a nation searching for answers to their health woes. we often address weight loss because as you all mentioned it affects about two-thirds of the population. the only message i gave was to eat less and move more which is the most important thing people need to do. we wouldn't be very effectively

tackling this complex challenge because viewers know these tips and they still struggle. so we search for tools and crutches for short term support so people with jump start their programs. e use alternative solutions commonly used in other countries, other parts of the world. a traditional chinese medicine. we feature cleanses and no diet programs by promising authors. many of these are controversial as are the supplements we research and profile. i would rather have a conversation of this material on my stage than in back alleys. because the conversation will still happen. especially if we can give viewers the boost that motivates them to engage in wise dietary choices. however, today is not a referendum on complementary and alternative medicine. we're not here to decide if vitamin supplements make sense. the problem we've been invited to discuss, internet scamming and fraud, will resolve only when state and federal agencies who have jurisdiction over the scammers amplify their enforcement and a public/private cooperative effort is undertaken inner nest that includes everyone on the panel in front of us incloo you hadding ltc

leuate mat product manufacturers, internet ad hosting services and media outlets like mine. i need to be a part of this. i feel passionate about doing this. i want to play a role. since my time is up i'm not going to cover suggestions. i would like to offer some thoughts maybe in the questions later on about how we can create a quick reference registry, incentivize whistle blowers and maybe create a private sector funded bounty to assist the ftc in this very difficult, very challenging task. thank you. >> thank you. good morn ing. i appreciate the opportunity to testify on the ongoing work of the advertising industry self-regulatory system. particularly as it applies to weight loss advertising. this system was created in 1971 by the nation's leading advertising trade associations in cooperation with the council of better business bureaus. since that time we have pioneered a rigorous form of self-regulation that is impartial. it is administered by the council of better business bureaus. it is comprehensive. it applies to all national

advertisers in all media. it's transparent. all of our decisions are publicly reported. and it's effective. companies that do not participate in the process or don't follow the recommendations are publicly referred to the appropriate government agency, usually the federal trade commission. we work on a case by case basis actively monitoring national advertising for questionable claims and practices. and we apply ftc-type standards to those claims. each year we issue almost 200 decisions on a wide variety of advertising issues, including about a dozen last year that addressed advertising of weight loss claims or required the companies to stop or modify the ads in question. self-regulatory claims for weight loss products include issues ranging from technical, easy to remedy disclosure questions to questions about the validity of complex underlying -- that support the

advertiser's claim. for example one recent nad decision addressed advertisements for a product called garcina cambosia including claims it had been clinly proven to provide four times more weight loss than diet and kpersz. some of the claims were contained in a special report on how to lose 28 pounds in one month. with two healing cleanses recommended by dr. oz. other claims supported -- other claims resulted -- cited results of specific studies as support for the weight loss claims. in this case the advertiser told us that that special report that i referred to earlier was posted by an unauthorized third party and the advertiser immediately took steps to take the report off the internet. the nad determined that the remaining specific product performance claims and ingredients claims should be discontinued in their current form. the advertiser fully cooperated with the review and agreed to discontinue the claims as do about 90% of the companies that

participate in the process. we had a very similar case with one of the other ingredients that's popular in this area, raspberry ketone. our casework complements that of the better business bureau system in protecting consumers. bbb has handled hundreds of advertising review cases locally, including claims associated with weight loss products and services. bbb has also worked to resolve complaints about business practices and are uniquely positioned to identify local and national scams as they emerge and warn consumers about them. we are a major outlet for the educational material that the ftc described. because we have over 100 better business bureaus located around the country. last year better business bureaus handled thousands of complaints about weight loss products and services, including a growing number of come planlts about weight loss clinics. bbbs often find unsubstantiated weight loss claims are also associated with problematic

billing practices and auto ship programs, underscoring the adage that misleading weight loss claims frequently lighten only the consumers' wallet. these overall results are consistent with those observed by our st. louis bbb that serves eastern missouri and southern illinois, except that the st. louis bbb has not seen the rise in the number of weight loss clinic ads in that particular jurisdiction. self-regulation works only if it has the support of the industry and the government. in the area of weight loss, two associations in particular. the electronic retailing association and the council for responsible nutrition, have stepped forward to provide the types of no strings attached funding that allows us to do our impartial monitoring and decision making work. similarly, although there is no formal relationship between the advertising self-regulation process and the government, decades of support by the federal trade commission have been absolutely critical in the

success of the process. so although there have been significant efforts by the federal and state government to control unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims, more can be done, obviously. one of the things i think everybody agrees on is a type of state and federal enforcement actions of the ftc has been bringing are critical to controlling this type of advertising. in addition, trade association members, including representatives of the weight loss industries need to follow the example set by the electric retailing association, and the council for responsible nutrition and step up and support increased self regulatory monitoring in the marketplace. good for businesses and good for consumers. finally the ftc's renewed effort to enlist consistent support of the media and guarding against the most egregious types of

weight loss claims a key step. network broadcasters have fairly sophisticated process for network ads and similarly in the new media google has recently introduced a new approach to ads screening that's tailors to that specific new media. but there are lots of other media outlets, independent channels, cable television, cable can satellite radio, and radio that are not doing as much. and finally, i guess i just close with an anecdote. this weekend i got a spam e-mail. it was for a product called forzcolin. it said if i took it it would never have to diet again. and -- when i went on the internet and used google earth, the return address was for a p.o. box. so it was sort of a regulatory trifecta. spam e-mail for a red flag claim that no one can substantiate with a seller nobody can find. thank you. >> thank you.

mr. mister? >> good morning. i'm steve mister and i'm the president and ceo of the council for responsible nutrition. we are the leading trade association representing the manufacturers and marketers of dietary supplements functional foods and their nutritional ingredients. we empathize with the many americans vulnerable to false promises for losing weight fast with everything from rubber and creams and exercise gadgets and, yes, dietary supplements. collectively americans spend over $40 billion a year trying to lose weight. the nutrition business journal reports that dietary supplements and meal replacements formulated for weight loss are a $5.3 billion a year industry, a small fraction of the total, but a significant sum nevertheless. we want to be clear, there are a number of dietary weight loss

supplements when combined with sensible eating that have been shown to be safe and beneficial for weight management. and the dietary supplement health and education act requires that all supplements must have substanceation for their claims and that includes weight loss claims. it requires that they must be well-conducted human trials with statistical benefits, and along with the consumes duped with this, the responsible person stands to lose when they take advantage of misleading and unsupported ads and i'm here to re-enforce the committee of our members to help address testify scams and frauds in the weight loss marketplace. unfortunately, the reality of the current weight loss market is that it is a tale of two industries. legitimate manufacturers who responsibly produce products

that work and make claims that are within the bounds of the law, and on the other hand, the unscrupulous players who prey on consumer desperation and their insatiable desire to be thin and will say anything to make a quick profit. and these claims are made in the advertising of weight loss products as you heard today and crn has publicly support and will continue to applaud the numerous enforcement actions brought by the ftc in recent years and the more than 438 million in restitution and civil penalties assessed by the commission against deceptive advertising with respect to weight loss products since 2004. enforcement sweeps like the ftc's operation waistline and more recently, failed resolution, and its media awareness campaigns like gut check help to remove misleading claims, but they also alert the public while sending a message

of deterrence through the industry and we applaud them for that. the reality is in this internet age along with the proliferation of cable television, talk radio and various online media and the increasing pressure for ad revenue among shrinking print media, both the ftc and fda have insufficient resources to combat the number of deceptive claims in the market. some media outlets will turn a blind eye to advertising copy that clearly violates the law and deceives consumers. in 2006, crn began a self-regulatory program to help self-police the advertising claims of dietary supplement marketers. crn has committed over $2 million to underwrite this program which has already investigated almost 200 challenges of the claims made by supplement marketers many involving these weight loss products. i'm proud of the track record of this program for providing fair, thoughtful and transparent

decisions for achieving a high rate of industry participation and for the precedence it sets with these decisions to deter others in the industry to make similarly fraudulent claims. crn's members are committed to manufacturing, marketing high-quality, safe, beneficial products and ensure consumers receive accurate information. we the challenge for legitimate weight loss products essentially this. american consumers unrealistically yearn for a magic bullet and unscrupulous marketers will take advantage of these desires with hallowed promises. like a successful weight loss program, the solutions are not easy. significant first steps should include increasing resources and priorities for enforcement of the existing legal requirements by both the ftc and the fda. expanding and strengthening self-policing programs among manufacturers and marketers in

the industry like our initiative with the nad and calling on media outlets and online retailers to conduct their own advertising clearance before accepting ads with claims that are illegal and simply too good to be true and finally, educating consumers to be realistic about their weight-loss strategies and their expectations. to make them less vulnerable to outrageous and unsupported claims. thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the committee. >> okay. thank you. >> chairman mcgcaskill, distinguished members of the committee, thank you. i'm rob heraldson. in my testimony i will highlight how our member companies are incentivized to keep bad ads out of our systems and note how they are investing significant resources in this area and have already removed millions of bad

ads from the services. trust in ads.org includes internet industry leaders, aol, facebook, google, twitter and yahoo. we found this organization to work together towards a common goal. protect people from malicious online ads and deceptive practices. with this effort, we're bringing awareness to consumers about scams and working collaboratively to identify trends in deceptive ads and best practices and sharing our knowledge with policymakers and consumer advocates around the country. trust in ads.org offers guidance to consumers on how to avoid scams and through the regular release to what we call our bad ads trends alert. consumer-friend consumer-friendly and digestible reports that exam trind or trends that we're seeing and provide examples of bad ads in websites that the companies have removed. we highlight the steps that companies have taken to combat the problem and get the consumer useful tips on how to make good

choices online. our website also includes a dedicated page where people can go to learn how to easy report a suspicious ad on any member companies websites. our first report released in may detailed ads for phony tech support services and yesterday we released our newest report on fraudulent ads related to weight loss products and dietary supplements. member companies have allocated significant resources to keep bad ads off their platforms without question. ensuring a positive year experience is essential to maintaining a vibrant internet ecosystem. the sale of numerous weight loss products and dietary supplements through advertising is seen across all mediums. print, broadcast, radio and the web. while most entities selling these kinds of products provide accurate and truthful information regarding the overall effectiveness, some bad actors in an attempt to entice consumers market products with outrageous claims and promises of dramatic weight loss.

for the bad actors attempting to use online advertising, these claims violate the member companies' advertising policies and existing laws aimed at protecting consumers. we applaud federal agency's for recognizing the weight loss scam problem and their active efforts to educate consumers about misleading claims. in addition to its active law enforcement against scammers, the ftc's consumer information website has an entire section devoted to weight loss and fitness outlining many advertise that users could encounter on the internet and other places and debunks their claims. stopping the ads critical for online advertising companies as well. collectively, our member companies have hundreds of individuals on their respective teams spanning policy, engineering, network security and legal, that are dedicated to identifying and preventing this illegal activity. fortunately, most of these types of ads never reach the user and are immediately rejected through