but having two separate product classes for con dennising and non-con dennising doesn't look like it will be something that's put forward. >> looks like my time's about expired. so i'll yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i too want to thank the panel. i know you've been here a while already. for mr. mcgwire, mr. cosgrove and mr. urich, how important is early stakeholder input for the rule-making process? what are the additional challenges that you face when d.o.e. issues a notice of proposed rule-making without having consulted with you beforehand? mr. mcgwire, let's start with you. >> i think it's very important from an effectiveness point of view. if the manufacturer hasn't had the ability to be in a dialogue with the government about the proposal and how they expect the efficiency requirements to be achieved and do some testing,

then you're really dealing in a vacuum. this is what happened with the proposed dishwasher rule. these are technical matters. it's very important that not only manufacturers republican gauged early but all stake holders. this asrac process does do that. but the asrac process is useful once a decision has been made that will will be a new standard. what we're talking about is a change in the process for determining whether there should be a new standard. if there is going to be one, consensus is always the best. we feel we will do better as the advocates feel given a give and take putting data on the table and not wondering where the data came from. >> before we go any further i really want you guys to get the dishwasher rule right. i'm the dishwasher at my house and if the dish washers don't clean i've got a real problem. it's going to be double work for me. mr. cosgrove, go ahead. >> i certainly agree with what

my colleague says. i think what i've heard is listening to this conversation is at least by the manufacturers, this is not an assault on the standards. we want the energy-efficient economy to thrive. it's good for business, as lowell pointed out. that said, it can be more transparent. the department of energy has some true experts in their field. but so do we. and it should be as was stated. let's put the numbers on the table, and then let's bring the business people and say okay, the cost of efficiency improvement goes like that. but the efficiency curve is almost flat. at some point we've got to call enough. >> got you. thank you. mr. urich? >> i think it's very important because industry has the information that this route's going to be based on. it has information on what technology's available.

it has information on the cost. it has information on the products that are being sold today. both on the different efficiency levels. so if that conversation doesn't occur, what is the regulator looking at to make their decision on is there significant energy savings, can there be energy savings and should we move forward with the rule? it's very necessary for that dialogue, and i think d.o.e. would like to have that dialog but again they are tied by what u.s. congress has put in the act in the serial rule makings where you're mandating these rules every six years and they just don't have the time to do a lot of times everything they need to do or like to do to get these rules out and also meet the court order from the 2nd circuit to make sure they meet all their deadlines. >> let's continue with you, mr. urich. the d.o.e. has proposed new standards for some of your products while the underlying test procedure is also changing.

why is this a problem for you? >> it's a huge problem in that i stated earl yes we need to know what the rules are. how our products can be measured. and again, it's getting d.o.e. the right information. if the test procedures aren't set, how do they need how products are performing out in the field? >> is it safe to say it's pretty dadgum hard to innovate when you don't know how you're going to be measured at the end of this? >> you don't know what the target is. you don't know what you're going to be measured on. >> if you don't know where you're going any road will get you there. okay. mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back 45 seconds. >> we thank the gentleman from ohio. the chair will recognize the gentleman from oklahoma mr. mullin for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. thank you for having this meeting. i'll be honest, there's a few meetings we have in here that i had to study hard on because i'm not familiar with it. this is as i would say in my wheelhouse. i understand this situation

extremely well. miss knoll i'm going to talk to you for probably the remainder of the time. because a couple of things you said, and i just want to set the record straight. one, you said huge savings that these energy savings standards the d.o.e. has put out has put huge savings. that was your words, right? based on what? >> based on analysis. >> what analysis? >> analysis that aceee and the appliance awareness project that's done as well as energy zone analysis. >> are you really looking at bills and prices? because you said huge savings and then you said up to $500 a year on energy cost. is that correct? >> correct. >> in oklahoma the average household today their total energy bill a year is $1,296. so you're saying that because of your savings, you know, that bill would have been $1,796?

is that right? >> absent the standards. >> but if i go back and i look at 2008, the mid-line -- just a mid-line whirlpool dishwasher the average use was about $29 a year is what that unit cost to run at the same time the cost of the unit was $375. today the same unit is $399 and it costs $32 a month to -- or a year to run. >> the standards program's been in effect since 1987. >> i'm just talking about -- you said huge savings. >> mm-hmm. >> so i'm trying to figure out where the huge savings are from. because right now we're just talking about -- we're just talking about dish warnewashers. dishwashers we can see went up. they cost more. so that's not a savings. and they cost more to run per

year. so just give me an opportunity again. where is huge? huge would be massive. i mean, i'm thinking like big-time. that's huge, is your word. $500, i guess you could say that's huge. but i don't see it. that's the dishwasher. so i'll give you the mike and let you go ahead and try to explain that for me. >> in my opinion i think $2 trillion in savings to consumers is a lot of -- >> you say 2 trillion. i'm trying to figure out what the $2 trillion are. d.o.e. comes in here and makes all these outlandish claims all the time. how much they're saving the mid-level households and all this stuff and how much energy is down when energy cost is actually up. and then you're in here making claims that the household is saving money and i'm just not seeing it. if anybody on the panel can help me, let me know because i don't want to make a claim that's not true and right now i'm seeing a claim that's not true.

go ahead. miss miller. >> i think it's a valid question to say what is this analysis based on. and i think to reiterate some of the other remarks made by other members of this panel it's difficult to see where those claims come from in d.o.e.'s analysis. and if you're looking at dishwashers specifically, if you look at the standards that were finalized in 2012, they assumed as you mentioned before, mr. mcgwire, that the payback period would be about 12 years, which is only as long as your dishwasher is going to last. and i think they assumed that households would save on net $3. >> let me read you a manual for a startup for a new dishwasher now. on top of it costing more to run, quote, this is out of the manual, says "run hot water at sink nearest your dishwasher until water is hot. turn off water for best dishwasher results. water should be 120 degrees before it enters the dishwasher." this is the new standards that we have to have out.

so not only does it cost more to run, miss knoll, now we're having -- we're wasting water, which this is a big issue nowadays. we always talk about water savings. especially let's go to california. let's talk about california for a second. they're supposed to run, waste hot water and let it run 1/4 this is the manual that comes for dishwashers now that says that. refrigerators. let me use refrigerators real quick. refrigerators in 2008, average whirlpool refrigerator cost $999. that same unit comparable today is $1,299. energy cost, also up. now, these are two major appliances. we're talking about refrigerator. we're talking about a dishwasher. where's the huge savings? d.o.e. and the argument on all these energy-efficient appliances are always out there talking about huge savings. and the american people think it's huge. and yet i gave you two examples of -- >> mr. chairman.

>> gentleman's time has expired. thank you. seeing no further witnesses seeking time the chair asks unanimous consent to enter for the record a multitude of statements on the subject matter from a number of agencies and concerned citizens. without objection, so ordered. in closing, the chair wants to thank all the witnesses for your time, expertise and your insights as to how to use hair blow dryers to dry dishwashers dishes in the dishwasher p. the chair reminds members you have five legislative days to submit questions for the record and executive eors, statements for the record. without objection this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you.

c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, bloomberg bna legal editor lance rogers talks about the supreme court deciding to hear two death penalty cases during the next term. then the latest on the college

rape incident at stanford university. kristen lombardi, center for public integrity senior reporter, talks about what that incident has done to raise awareness of sexual assault at colleges and universities. and federal efforts to help support rape victims and make college campuses safer. from philadelphia, pew charitable trust small dollar loans project director nick bork examines the newly announced payday loan rule in an effort to prevent debt traps for consumers and what it means for the industry and payday borrowers. and from gainesville, florida we're joined by dr. christopher hess, assistant professor at the university of florida health center for movement disorders and neuro restoration. dr. hess looks at parkinson's disease and its impact on over 1 million people in the u.s. includinging legend muhammad ali who died this week after a 32-year battle with the disease. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern

saturday morning. join the discussion. "american history tv" on c-span 3, sunday morning we'll simulcast c-span's washington journal live from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. eastern. with guest craig shirley, author of "reagan's revolution: the untold story of the campaign that started it all." then at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind the 1976 republican national convention and a close race between president gerald ford and former california governor ronald reagan for the nomination. see ford's acceptance speech and remarks by ronald reagan. >> i believe the republican party has a platform that is. a banner of bold unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades. >> at 6:00 on american artifacts we'll visit the belmont paul women's equality national monument in washington, d.c. and see the wark of cartoonist nina alander. >> she creates a youthful

invigorated intelligent woman. you can see in this image in particular she's very slender. her skirt is above her ankles, which was also quite different fat. you can see the changing face of fashion at that time as well. her hands are on her hips, and she throws her hat into the ring of politics. >> a political cartoonist for the national women's party from 1914 until 1927, she contributed over 150 cartoons in support of the women's suffrage campaign. saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history. >> a tenth of the black population would lead the race to freedom. he developed this notion at the beginning of the century. when he developed this notion, there were 9 million african-americans. 90% were in the south. of this 9 million less than 20,000 had a college degree. >> georgetown university professor maurice jackson on author and civil rights activist w.e.b. dubois. his early life and his

relationship with other activists. at 10:00 with the approach of the 40th anniversary of the smithsonian's national air and space museum in july, real america will showcase a series of nasa films. this weekend we'll look at the 1966 film "science reporter." food for space travelers. examining the problem of feeding astronauts in weightlessness on long duration missions. >> the use of algae, fungi, higher plants, bacteria or a combination thereof where you would have essentially a small farm in space or a microcosm as you call it. it would produce your own food. and you might concurrently regenerate oxygen and pick up co2. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. our c-span bus continues its travels across the country to

honor winners from the student competition. recently our bus stopped in maryland in washington, d.c. at montgomery blair high school in silver spring, maryland 41 students were presented with awards in front of classmates, teachers, parents and local elected officials for producing 14 winning videos including the first prize student cam dot documentary entitled "driving forward." ben miller, william ederer and charles grieder won $3,000 for their documentary on infrastructure spending. our bus also made a stop at woodrow wilson high school in washington, d.c. where mark jackson and ali sefsef both received honorable mention for their videos and were awarded $250 each. and maya grieve, david fadu sxlchlt ali rahsheady won $750 for their videos on money and politics and poverty sxoand homelessness in the united states. a special thanks to our cable partner comcast cable for helping coordinate these visits in the community. and you can view all the winning documentaries at studentcam.org.

former senator kent conrad and former deputy commissioner of social security james lockhart helped write a report for the bipartisan policy center about retirement savings. on "washington journal" they discussed the report's findings and their recommendations for helping americans save for retirement. this is 50 minutes. >> senator kent conrad of the bipartisan policy center, are americans ready to retire? >> many are not. one of the things that leaps out at you is looking at the statistics, you know, the best estimates we have is about 40% of the american people will run out of money in retirement. and the federal reserve just did an analysis. they found that 46% of the american people would have a hard time coming up with $400

for an emergency car repair. so we've got serious problems in terms of retirement security and in terms of personal savings to be able to meet the everyday needs of the american people. >> james lockhart is also with the bipartisan policy center. and he was a george w. bush appointee and many financial commissions throughout his career. mr. lockhart, what percentage of the american people depend solely on social security? can you give us some statistics? >> you have to do it sort of by quintiles. >> what is that? >> 20%. so the lower 20% is almost 90% of their income is coming from social security. and if you go up obviously the top 20% reasonable but not a lot. the important thing is sort of the middle and the lower. that's what we tried to do with this commission is try to help those lower income people in retirement. we're actually increasing their retirement benefits

significantly. we put in a new minimum basic bent with the idea that we're trying to reduce poverty in old age. in fact, we reduce it by about 30% if our proposals are implemented. >> so we've learned that 40% of seniors are going to run out of money in their retirement and that the lowest 20% in america incomewise, 90% of them rely solely on social security. >> yes. they don't have any personal savings. and one of the things we're also trying to do is look at the personal savings and the retirement savings. and we're proposing a new plan that would allow smaller companies to easily put into into 401(k)s for their employees, having a sort of a centralized investment manager which would allow them also to reduce the liabilities the companies had. and we think there will be a big pickup from that. in fact, some of the numbers we show that they would increase savings for sort of the middle

income by over 50% by the time it's all totally implemented. >> kent conrad, does social security need to be reformed? >> we have no choice. as we know, social security is headed for insolvency. that's according to social security's own trustees. and at that point, and it's only 18 or 19 years away, everybody will have to take a 23% cut across the board. so getting this program back on track is critically important for people who are dependent on social security. and it's not only the bottom 20% that jim quite rightly says depends almost solely on socialist security. the fact is a significant majority of the american people are very dependent on their social security benefits to make their retirement comfortable and secure. so it's absolutely essential we get about the business of getting social security back on track. that's important not only for the individuals who are

dependent on it. it's important for our overall economy. >> well, mr. lockhart, you referenced the fact that companies, you're looking at companies in your proposal here for retirement security to help provide -- what's the reason that companies should be responsible for somebody's retirement? >> i think what we're suggesting is companies help the people save. it could be they don't have to put money in themselves. they don't have to match. many do, and that's really great. but i think it's a benefit that a lot of people want. so we're proposing any company with less than 500 people could join this nationwide scheme. and they could match or not match. but it would make it much easier for people to save. one of the problems is we have a very complicated system and it's very hard for many people to figure out how to save. and if it's done automatically that will really help bring savings up in this country. >> how long have you two been working on this retirement

savings proposal for the bipartisan policy center? >> two years. more than two years. and we've had 19 commissioners. republicans, democrats, conservatives, progressives. people who are deeply knowledgeable in the field. one of the things that's so striking and not only about social security but about our retirement system, half the people in this country are not participating in a retirement savings account at their place of work. half of the country. so that's a big opportunity for us to make a real difference. and as jim was explaining we proposed these retirement security accounts that would make it dramatically easier for employers to offer retirement savings accounts at their place of work. all the employer would have to do is do a payroll deduction and send it in just like they send in payroll deductions for people's taxes that work for them. so we relieve them of the fiduciary responsibilities, the

administrative burden, and there would be third parties who would be fiduciaries. they would be responsible. they would get the fees. the fees would be very low because millions of people would be involved in these plans. >> we've divided our phone lines a little bit differently as we talk about this retirement savings proposal put out by the bipartisan policy center. we've divided them by age. if you are under 40, 202-748-8000 is the number for you to call. if you're between 40 and 61, 748-8001. and for those of you 61 and over, 748-8002. what about an expansion of a government savings program? did you include that in your proposal? >> well, we have a couple things that do that. one of the things we're suggesting is for younger people is a savings match. up to age 35 and lower income people is one way to get the

savings started for people. i think it's really important to start out saving when you're young and continue that habit going forward. so that's one program that we're suggesting. but we're also relying very much on the private sector to do this. another thing we're suggesting is after this retirement security plans are in place, by 2020 we're suggesting any company with over 50 employees actually has to participate in this program or have their own 401(k) plan or be in the treasury my ira account. >> how do you convince a business that oh, this is a good idea for you economically and hey, i barely make enough to feed my family, i can't be providing this? >> first of all, from the corporate standpoint and employer standpoint, i actually started a small business at one point in my career, and it was

very expensive to do a 401(k). we had 30 people. it's almost 3%, 4%, or 5%. what we're saying is we're not going to make employers do something like that. all the employer has to do is have a tax deduction. which they're already doing for fica, for state income tax, national income tax. so it's not a big deal for the employer. and it's a benefit for our employees. and many employers would like their employees to have more savings. certainly that's one of the reasons when i started my small business that we did a 401(k). i think companies would like to do it. if they can do it cheaply with a lot less liability than they have today. >> kent conrad, you spent several years up in the building behind us. is there the political will to, a, reform social security or raise taxes or cut benefits or implement a new retirement savings proposal? >> perhaps not right now.

just before an election. but look, the clock is ticking. we've been meeting with colleagues. we met with colleagues after we rolled out the report yesterday. i'd met with colleagues the day before. republicans and democrats. and i can tell you they're very interested in what we're proposing because we make social security solvent for the next 75 years and beyond. we dramatically increase those at the bottom end. those who are the lowest earners in our society, many of whom are in poverty. we reduce poverty among the elderly by a third. i want to go back to this question of having businesses offer these plans. we don't require them to match the contribution of the employee. they can do that. of course it's desirable that they do. but to participate in one of these retirement security plans, all they have to do is do a payroll deduction and have the money go to the plan sponsor.

the plan sponsor will gather millions of employees together in a large pool which will make the rates very inexpensive. and this third party provider will be responsible for all the administrative burden, the fiduciary burden. that will be taken off the employer. so we think employers will -- we've talked to hundreds of them in preparing this report. and they have told us, oh, if you're going to simplify this, if you're going to lift the burden off of us, we would be happy to participate so our employees have a way of saving for retirement. >> so a florist and gas station businesses could join in exchange or a xoptive, something like that? >> in effect it's a cooperative. there's a management firm or even a tech company that gathers the money, keeps the records.

selects which investments are available. but the individual would have the option to do their own selection. but there would be fallbacks so there would be some standard options as well. make it as simple as possible for everybody involved is what we want to do. and as we said before, if we can implement this, this will increase the savings for middle americans by about 50% by the time they retire. they'll rely less on social security, which i think is very important. >> have i.r.a.s been successful? >> i.r.a.s have had some success. but again, it's hard for an individual because you have to make the decision and there's no easy way to do that. what we're suggesting here is automatic enrollment. so when you join the company you're enrolled, you can opt out but really we've seen the behavior, they've done it in a lot of 401(k)s now and we've seen the participation rates really skyrocket. >> let's take some calls because we've got a lot of callers on the line already. and michael is first in

naperville, illinois. 61 and over. michael, are you ready for retirement? >> caller: well, i am. but peter, please don't cut me off because i think that this is -- the discussion is a bit of a false premise and i don't know the two gentlemen on there. i don't want to speak disparagingly of them. but i think in some respects they're misleading the american people as to what's really happened. historically it was lyndon johnson in the '60s that commingled the social security with the general fund and that disguised the depth of the deficits that we have been running for 50 years. now, what they need to do, number one, is claw back all the tax breaks for the 1% for all those 50 years as a first step toward solving this. and i would like them to explain to me what good does a 401(k) do

you when you're not making enough money on your regular paycheck to make ends meet? we create jobs that are paying $8, $9, $10 an hour and then you can't save any money because you don't have enough to live on to begin with. >> all right. michael, that's a lot of stuff for our two guests to respond to. but very quickly, tell us your story. how have you saved? are you planning on relying on social security? >> caller: i have -- i'm lucky. i'm very lucky. i have social security and mine is substantially above the average. i have two small pensions. and that's the key. pensions. not 401(k)s. i have an i.r.a. and i'll tell you, you can't save enough. and then you're swimming with the sharks where all of these investment companies cater to the 1% again and all you do is pay big fees to lose your money. that's it. but i'm the lucky one. my health care is also

subsidized. so i'm doubly lucky. >> what age are you planning on taking your social security, michael? >> i have taken my social security at age 65 because i had a wife that was ill and she passed last november. so i had to retire one year before i was scheduled to because i get full certainly security as of age 66 which i turned may 13th of this year. >> thank you very much. what do you want to address from what michael had to say, mr. lockhart? >> he's done it right. that's the good news, that he has saved, he has -- he does have a pension, and that's important. you made the decision. and everybody should when they think about retiring look at the various options. as i'm sure he knows if you retire at age 62 you take a big haircut in your benefits. and if you go all the way to 70 you get it significantly higher. but you have to make the individual decisions depending on your situation. >> but when you look at this

chart from your report, most people take it at 62. >> yes. and from a lot of people that's a mistake. for some people they can't work longer. but for many people it's the best way to save is to wait for the retirement security because you don't -- you don't want to outlive your benefits and your other savings. and if you can get -- it's 8% a year increase from age 66 to 70. it's a really big increase if you wait. so part of our proposals are to help encourage people to work longer and try to wait as long as possible to take social security. >> kent conrad, what would you like to say to robert? >> well, very thoughtful, his comments. and look, he's put his finger on a big problem in our country, which is income inequality. we know that's pervasive throughout our society. what we've tried to do is in the mechanisms available to us try to counter that trend.

again if you look at the results of what we've produced, it would do the following. it would increase retirement savings according to the urban institute by 50% by the time it's fully implemented. that is a dramatic improvement. and how does that happen? it happens because we make retirement security savings plans much more widely available throughout our society than they currently are. second, we provide more incentives for employers to participate and a match. we provide a whole new saver's credit. $500 of match. every dollar you put into savings if you're under the age of 35, if you have $25,000 a year of income or less, $50,000 for a couple, the government would match your savings dollar for dollar up to $500 a year. on social security it's most dramatic because we would actually increase the bottom

quintile, the bottom 20%, by 35% over what is currently scheduled. we would increase them 60% by what is currently payable. and we cover all of the cost. so that we extend the life of social security by at least 75 years. in fact, we achieve sustainable solvency so the reserves are actually still increasing after the 75th year. so that means we avoid having everybody face a 23% cut in social security that is coming in 18 or 19 years. so no, do we solve every problem facing americans who are insecurity in their retirement? no. but do we make dramatic progress with this proposal? absolutely. >> william good, virginia, 61 and over line. william, give us a quick snapshot of your situation. >> caller: good morning. i'm very fortunate for someone who started out with absolutely

nothing, and i'm now collecting social security and i had a pension. and a lot of the topics that have already been discussed by you guys. but i have two things. number one was in 1976 when i got my first job i saw this line on my first paycheck that said 5% taken away. and i asked them what is this? and they said that's your pension donation. they didn't use those exact words. well, i didn't particularly like it. i had two small kids and all the bills. but i can tell you now 42 years later when i look in the bank on the end of the month i'm very glad that they did that, and i did it for 42 years. second thing is -- and i'm not one of these people who begrudge people making a lot of money. i really am not. but i just sold stock in a major company and i owned it for three years, and i did some research into it.

and the gentleman, all of the top executives of that company, it paid a very good dividend. they did not get a salary. they got stock options and they -- that's how they got paid. and i figured it out last year the executive who runs the company had 6 million shares of stock and the stock paid a $2.42 dividend per year you can figure that up. and as far as i know he paid no social security -- >> so william, what's your point? >> caller: that something needs to be done to revamp this so that people when they get to 62, 65 that the money is there. i.r.a.s, i can't tell you how much money i've lost in them in 42 years. >> thank you, sir. mr. lockhart, you're a republican. you worked for george w. bush as associate -- or principal deputy

commissioner of the social security administration among other places. do taxes need to be raised on social security or the income limit need to be raised on social security? >> obviously, social security is insolvent and in 18 years even the people that are talking over 61 will have their benefits cut by 23%. so we need to do something. there's no doubt about it. what we've done is try to create a very balanced plan. about 50% comes from benefits and about 50% comes from taxes. so yes, we are suggesting that we need to raise some taxes. there's a cap of 118,000 where you pay taxes today. we're suggesting it goes up to 195,000. >> why not unlimited? >> why not unlimited? from our standpoint we thought that was too unbalanced. we were trying to create this balance. we had republicans and democrats. and to get everybody to sign on that was sort of the number we could agree on.

it's about 85% of overall wages. from our standpoint it made sense. and we also are suggesting the 12.4% that's charged now for the employee and employer increase by 1% over a ten-year period. so it is a very small incremental increase every year but even that helps a reasonable amount. but the other thing we did is very importantly as the senator said we're increasing benefits for the lower income because we wanted to create a very balanced program. >> senator conrad, you were up there for 26 years and you served on a lot of these commissions, chaired the budget committ committee. is it going to happen? is this report -- first of two things. is this report going to see action? and are some of these proposals actually going to happen? >> you know, of course i don't know. i've always been an optimist.

i've always believed that our system at the end of the day will perform. i must say that confidence has been somewhat shaken by what i've seen the last five or six years. but i would say this. if you look at what is coming at us, it's undeniable. everybody is going to take in social security a 23% cut. that's going to happen. in 18 or 19 years. now, we can avoid it. we can avoid it. if we take some common sense steps and both the left and the right are going to have to give some ground if there's going to be an agreement. and i can tell you on this commission that was made up of democrats and republicans, academics, people who were -- have given a lifetime to try to solve these problems, everybody gave up something that they would like to he see in order to

achieve a much larger gain. and that is to fix social security and fix it for a long time and do it in a way that helps those who need it the most, that ask those that have the most in society to give up a little something, absolutely, we are asking the 1%, in fact more than the 1% to give up a little something. but i tell you, everybody is better off than they would be if we waited for a 23% cut. the other thing i should say, with respect to non-social security retirement savings, to say to the half of our fellow citizens who don't participate in retirement savings plan at work, we're going to make it possible for virtually all of you to have access to a retirement savings plan at work. and just like the gentleman said who'd been saving for 42 years how pleasantly surprised he was by what he's got now, we're going to give you that

opportunity. now, it's going to be up to you because you can opt out. you can say no, i'm not going to have that 5% withheld. i'm not going to have 3% withheld. i'm not going to have anything withheld. that is your right. it's your money. but at least we're going to give you the opportunity. and again, i stress, half of the american people have no retirement savings plan at their place of work. we can fix that. and if this commission's proposals are adopted it will be fixed. and that's not a partisan issue. that's something everybody should be able to agree on. >> and as you talked about earlier, if people are automatically enrolled in a savings plan, the participation rates go way up. particularly in the lower income levels. you can see the charts here. the red is with an automatic enrollment, voluntary enrollment is in the blue. carl in houston, texas, 40 to 61

line. carl, how are you planning for retirement? >> caller: yes. i do some work for myself at the same time i'm holding a job. but my concern is these are the same gentlemen that whenever -- >> carl, turn down the volume on your tv. just talk through your telephone. we're listening. >> yes. my concern is these are the same gentlemen who when everybody was saving money through their employer they complained about that and found a way for everybody to lose that money. now they're sitting asking everybody to give 5% of their income to more private industry. they stop the employers from having to -- from having to give pensions and stuff and employers and they're still working on

that. how can they be trusted to handle 5% of working people's income? i just don't trust them. >> thank you, sir. senator conrad. >> well, first of all, we're not insisting on any particular percentage. the 5% was a reference to the gentleman who called in who said that's what he was contributing. but secondly, i would say this to you. under the program that we are proposing, individuals decide. they decide if they want to contribute or not. they decide where their money is invested. they want to keep it in cash, that's their business. that's their decision. but at least they have at their place of work a chance to have a savings plan. and in addition, we are fixing social security. at least our proposals would fix social security. so that we all don't fas a 23%

across the board cut in just 18 years. so we're not relying on somebody who's made mistakes in the past. we're not relying on the goodness or the kindheartedness of some business. this is a plan that would give people an opportunity to save, and it's a plan that would give a chance to get social security on sound footing for the foreseeable future. >> and each one of these investment managers would have to be certified by a government board. so we would have an extra step to make sure that they are safe and their procedures are strong and they're implementing the plans as they suggested they would. >> according to the social security administration, half of americans over the age of 62 get 85% or more of their income from social security only. mr. lockhart, were you a pro poentd back in the 00s when there was an attempt to reform social security and let you

invest it privately? >> i was certainly involved in the bush proposals, very much so. and what we've done here is instead of putting that personal account within social security, these new retirement security plans we're talking about is outside social security. but the same idea is that we really need to get personal savings up in this country and retirement savings. and we need easy mechanisms to do it. so yes, i was involved. i think we made some good progress there. it was funny. i probably did 100 town halls with members of congress and senators and whatever around and what i heard back then, and i don't think it's changed much, is the younger generation wants changes to social security. they know that they're going to have these big cutbacks. some of them don't think they're going to get anything out of social security. so from our standpoint i think what we did is tried to build on that. president clinton had some proposals in the late '90s. and we were trying to build on some of the things that happened before and really tried to reach

a consensus. >> hannah, detroit, michigan, 40 to 61-year-old line. hannah, give us a quick snapshot of your retirement planning. >> caller: well, actually, i do have a 401(k). i don't consider that actual retirement planning because the congress predominantly the congress, and i will say to some degree president and the supreme court has helped them to totally rob the masses. we watched as what we called the mortgage failure took place, but yet they paid these people back who purposely destroyed the whole wealth of the country. now you're asking people to trust you again. let's tell the people about all the ious. social security was robbed by congress. put that money back. then you don't have to worry about solvency. you keep wanting to privatize things. so again, those that are out there can come in, find a way to

steal it and then you'll be oh, we've got to come up with another plan. congress, first thing you all should do is yourselves should implement term limits. we're tired of you. we do not trust you. and we know you're very deceitful. you've been there, you're comfortable, you're cushy, you're living off our sweat and labor but you don't do anything for us. everything you do is either done for the corporations or some other country or yourselves. >> all right. hannah, i think we got the point. senator conrad, you retired in 2013. but when she talks about the commingling of the funds, if you both would address that and whether social security funds are used to mask a deficit like an earlier caller said, et cetera. >> i happen to completely agree with her. i felt, and if anybody could check my record, i'm no longer in public life. but you can go back and see, i proposed the so-called social security lockbox. i got it passed in the united

states senate. to stop raiding social security money to pay for other bills. i thought we should separate social security funds from general funds because the fact is to me we were raiding social security. we were using social security surpluses not to invest, to have the money set aside for the future, but we were taking those surpluses and using them for general fund expenses. it did mask the size of the deficit. i probably gave 100 speeches on the floor of the senate, and they're all recorded. you want to go look at my record, it's about as clear as any could be on that question. >> the lockbox issue. >> yes. i mean, the u.s. government owes social security $2.5 trillion. it will be paid over time. and in fact, at the moment there's less cash coming in to social security than going out.

so we already have a problem already, not in 18 years. it's being masked because we are drawing down the trust funds and getting interest on the trust funds. but from my standpoint i agree with the senator. it should have been segregated. it wasn't segregated. but the money will be paid over time. the problem is that 2.5 trillion is not enough to cover the problem. and in fact, if you next 75 years, the whole is $2 trillion and our proposal is to fill it and create solvency. but it'll take dramatic changes to social security. davis is in wilmington north carolina. are you ready for retirement? >> yes. i went out at 62. first of all, thank you for taking my call.

i never was a question if i would start taking it at 62 because you don't know how long can you take it. i don't understand why there is limit. why when you reach a certain income they stop taking it out. and i know this may be a little bit socialist but why do the rich people that don't need it still get it? it don't seem like people like warren buffett and people like that, let me just put in one thing thereabout my social security. but also, i worked for a good company that add defined pension plan. they are going the way of the -- oh, i can't think of anything old-fashioned, but they are going away. that supplement is not social security and it is not the social security that's been there every month and i thank the lord for that. but why are they allowed to raid the trust fund? >> all right, thank you, davis.

we talked with mr. lock hart a minute ago, senator, about the limits on social security contributiones. what's your take on that? >> my take is that there is a long history to social security. social security was started during the franklin roosevelt administration and there would be a relationship between what one paid in and what one got out. now the truth is, let's be absolutely truthful with each other. those who are the wealthiest pay in more and get out less. so the relationship is very progressive. the fact is, social security does transfer income from those who are the most fortunate to those who are least fortunate. that already is the case. that is a fact. and if we take it out completely

wbt amount of wages subject to social security taxation, if you took it out completely, you would destroy the relationship between who goes in and what comes out. what one pays in and what one gets out. that breaks the bond after social insurance program. so remember. the fundamental idea from the time of frang franklin roosevelt is there should be something of what you put in and get out. why did franklin roosevelt establish that principle? because he wanted to make sure that everyone in society was supportive of social security so it would be there for the people who need it the most. what we're saying is, social security now is going to go broke in 18 or 19 years.

that means everybody's going to have to take a 23% cut that point. that would be a disaster. especially for the people that need it the most. our proposal is not only to fill in that hole but also makes the system more progressive. ask those at the top to pay more. and to get not as much back. but to allow others who really need it to get more. and not just a little bit more, but quite a bit more. because we know 9% or 10% of the american people who are elderly are living in poverty. we're saying we want to do something significant to lift a million people who are elderly and living in poverty. >> yesterday when we were meeting ace discussing this conversation between the producers and myself we started talking about pension. then we started talking about

employers and benefits and then into contractors and to the gig economy. is that the trend where we will be outsourced, contracted, where we won't have these opportunities for pensions and savings plans? >> i think the gig economy is certainly happening at this point. i think with our retirement security plan, there will be the opportunity for the individuals to contribute through them or through an ira. what we need to do is create opportunity for people to make it a lot easier. that's one of the key things we are it thinking about. but also to the social security question, it is more aggressive. which means that lower income people are getting more and higher income people are getting less than they expected. and they are paying more for that. one of the things we are proposing, a really small thing, but for some of your listeners, maybe they care a lot, that upper income people have to pay all their taxes on social

security. many people don't pay taxes on social security because they have low income. but there is a point where they pay taxes. but a hundred percent of social security is taxed at $250,000. so again we are going after the 1% a little bit. >> nancy, knoxville, 40-61. hi, nancy, are you ready for retirement or planning for retirement? >> my husband and i are planning for retirement. he is working very hard for that and i am trying to save very hard for that. my question is, we're the sandwich generation. social security and other benefits, we have been fortunate and worked very hard to be in that position, our biggest stressor has been trying to educate our children on top of care for parents.

and we've had parents on social security alone, we manage and help them. our biggest concern has been even though we're fairly medically knowledgeable, the ability to project their needs financially because they are living so long. and at this point, medical science and longevity is putting, i guess you could say, putting a financial burden on this. how do you plan for that with your older parents? i'm not the only one facing this situation. but we also have children trying to finish college and enter the work force but are struggling to find employment but they are finding it, thankfully. >> okay, nancy, we got a lot there. let's ask senator conrad.

>> she has a lot on her finger. women who are 65 will live to be 90. something over 20% of men who are currently 65 will live to be 90. so that puts at risk running out of income as you get older. so we do a series of things to try to address that. we encourage plans to create lifetime income for those people who are participants in the plans. so we remove a lot of the things that prevent them from offering lifetime income solutions. so for example, you know, typically when somebody retires, they take a lump sum. we say, we ought to have the choice of taking it part of it as a lump sum and part of it as a lifetime income option so they get a paycheck every month for as long as they live, know that some will live shorter lives, some live longer lives but to

reduce the chances of people outliving their retirement savings. >> other thing again, i said it before, but again, i think it is important issue, it is to try to delay taking social security as long as you can. and maybe using other accounts first. that bump up in benefits is significant and that is a lifetime annuity and goes up in inflation. very, very few pensions go up with inflation. >> one thing to mention we haven't talked about, one of the proposals is for the surviving spouse and social security. the way it works now, if there a couple, one dies, the survivor gets the higher of the two social security payments but loses the other one. that means they have a dramatic drop in income. we propose you keep your own

social security benefit plus three quarters of your spouse's social security benefit. that would make a dramatic change for couples all across america who are worried about outliving their income. that would make a huge difference for example a widow who might lose her husband when she's 75 years old and all of a sudden lose one of the two social security checks. instead we would say, no, you get to keep your own, plus you get to keep three quarters of your departed spouse's. this would make a huge difference for somebody like the most recent caller. >> bipartisanpolicy.or g. sandy beach tweets in.g. sandy beach tweets in. >> huge issue. this is one reason half the people in the country are not

participating in retirement plan at work. the part-time and so they don't have one available to them. we would extend the program. there can be automatic enrollment by employers of their employees. and they can actually have a contribution from their employer. now that would be the employer's choice but they would be able to use the myra program which relieves them of the administrative responsibility, fiduciary responsibility. all they have to do is transfer part of their employee's earnings to a myra account. they could match it and enter those people automatically.

and again, the people having their money transferred could say, no, i don't want to transfer at the department but at least they have the opportunity and that would dramatically improve retirement savings as well. we are proposing a clearing house. because right now we know people will have seven or eight jogs in their careers. that means an ira here, 401(k) here, another savings plan some other place. through this retirement clearing house, they would be able to aggregate their funds to better manage them. and sometimes people forget they had a fund at a place of work. and they just lose the money. this would help prevent that. >> why is it so complicated? you have myra, you have law, you have iras, you have limits on how much you can put in there. does this all have to do with tax law? >> a lot of it was driven by tax law. what we're trying to do is make

this more people centric and less law centric. that's why we are trying to do it more simply if creating this retirement plan. it is unfortunate, one of the things we're suggesting, actually, is that we really look at how we score retirement plans. we talk about a tax expender, because there is tax deduction in pension plans. in reality, it is an investment in the future. we want to make sure it is scored that way going forward. >> according to the federal reserve, 46% of the adults do not have available funds to cover a $400 emergency expense and 27% of respondent's 60 years old plus have no retirement savings or pensions at all. arthur, memphis, tennessee. arthur, give us a snapshot of

your retirement. >> yes, i'm over 60 so i draw social security. all you have to do is raise the cap on social security for the next hundred years, is that true or not? >> that is true. the problem is that there is no way of getting it passed in the congress of the united states. a lot of things are possible but if it doesn't get passed, it doesn't mean much. the hard reality is what that does is it totally breaks down the relationship between what people put in and what that will get out. and franklin roosevelt started social security. fundamental security means there will be some relationship between what you pay in and what you get out. his concern was that you start breaking down the willingness of people to participate and support it.

something to think about. >> jim you're on the washington journal with former senator conrad, former deputy commissioner and social security administrator lock hart both with the policy center today. hi. >> good morning, gentlemen. couple ideas. you can just comment after i'm done. first one, i think obama care will be here a while. why can't we take the residual amount that these people are credited and instead of letting them have that money now, take it and let them put it in health savings account that won't good away for when they are older. that would be one. or when you put in that $2,000 towards your ira, can you use that as a tax credit.

that residual money can go into a fund that can stay with you your wheel life until you retire. and in addition to that, why can't we start moving some hard assets like say choice property at yellow stone park into social securitys that don't leave the money in a drawer with ious. put hard money transfer from the government into the social security funds? then you have -- you approach that problem at two ends because you have hard assets in there and you could basically sell it to social security and you would reduce the deficits. >> all right. let's leave it there. james lock hart, we talk about complications. >> and add m sm more. >> yes. certainly health savings accounts are a very helpful thing. i have one myself. and i think if you can save money through health savings account it is important, another way to save, potentially for

retirement to cover medical expenses and retirement so you can use it if you have to as you're working. a bolivia in hard assets. frankly, we did look at potentially investing social security funds, but again that's one of the ideas that is a step too fahard at this point. some have done it. and they've done it successfully. some put money in stocks and bonds and it turned out well. but i'm not sure we're ready for it. >> i would say this, is a position of jim and i on opposite sides of the political fence and philosophical differences, this is where he and i disagree. we could not convince our fellow commissioners to go there. we did believe it would be wise to put some of this money into what the gentleman describes as hard assets which could be real

estate, could be equities, but you know, other commissioners were not prepared to go there. >> we have two things i could say. number one, according to the modeling that's been done by the urban institute, if our program were adopted, retirement savings of the middle class would be increased by 50% by the time the program is fully implemented. that's number one. number two, we make social security solvent for 75 years and beyond. so there would be no 23% across the board cut in 18 or 19 years. and by a third and lifting a million people out of poverty. and part of the reason for that

we dramatically improve payments by lowest earners, lowest 20% in the country and we dramatically improve payments to surviving spouses. >> mr. lock hart, pro proposals to you that you want to add -- fz. >> well one of them is just so common sense and foundational. it is increasing financial capabilities. they need the compounding interest and people retire and. the other thing is we haven't talked about it at all is home ec wit and that's a very important part of retirement at this point. using that home ec wit better is something proposing as well. >> if you want it see the plan put out by the bipartisan policy

center. >> book tv has 48 hours of non-fiction books and authors every weekend. here are programs coming up this weekend. this saturday and sunday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. book tv is live from the 32nd annual fest in chicago. one of the midwest's largest free outdoor literary event drawing more than 150,000 book lovers to the two-day festival. saturday features thomas frank, author of listen liberal or whatever happened to the party of the people. lindhy west with shrill. notes from a loud woman. cesee seymoure hirish. and elizabeth hinton with "from the war on poverty to the war on crime." author sydney blumenthal discusses his book a self-made man. political life of abraham lincoln.

1809 to 1849. and bradley birzer. then saturday night at 9:15 eastern, oklahoma congressman tom coal talks about his personal library and his reading habits. sunday night at 9:00 on afterwards, california senator barbara boxer talks about her book, the art of tough. fearlessly facing politics and life plus her life and career in politics. senator boxer is interviewed by minnesota senator amy kobishar. >> look in the back of my mind, it is tough. i said, back to the will and good but if we have to turn back and walk down the stairs now, there is a bank of cameras down there and we will tell them that we weren't able to see anybody. he said just a minute, goes back, and says okay, go in the side room and joyce mitchell will meet with you and we told him you have to open up and they

did. >> go to book tv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> speaking to a meeting of planned parenthood, hillary clinton talked about securing the democratic party nomination and securing endorsements from prominentt politicians includin president obama. here is part of her remarks. >> we reach a milestone together this week. thanks to you and people all over our country for the first time a wol will be a major nominee for president of the united states. [ cheers and applause ] and yesterday i had the great honor of being endorsed by president obama and vice president biden. and by senator elizabeth warren. [ cheers and applause ]

so it's been a big week and there's nowhere i'd rather end it than right here with the planned parenthood action fund. i'm grateful to the entire planned parenthood family. you made this campaign your own. whether you knocked on doors in iowa or rallied in california, this victory belongs to all of you and it belongs to the 1,000 young activists who came together in pittsburgh last month to get organized. >> it belongs to the staff, the donors, and to the providers. providers like dr. darmish in texas who call out donald trump when he said women should be punished for having abortions

and the open letter she wrote defending her patients' rights to make their own health decisions should be required reading for every politician in america. [ cheers and applause ] and i am deeply conscious of the reality that this victory belongs to generations of brave women and men who fought for the radical idea that women should determine our own lives and futures. and it belongs to the women and men who continue to fight for that idea today, even in the face of threats and violence. when a man who never should have had a gun kills three people at planned parenthood in colorado springs. leaders in this room voted unanimously to keep health centers across america open the next day.

and the ceo -- the ceo of planned parenthood rocky mountain made a promise to patients in colorado and beyond, but she said our doors and our hearts stay open. that is really what planned parenthood is all about. so today, i want to start by saying something you don't hear often enough. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you. thank you for being there for women no matter their race, sexual orientation or immigration status. thank you for being there for

natasha mcqueen in brooklyn who told me how planned parenthood caught her breast cancer when she was just 33 years old and saved her life. thank you for being there for college students getting std testing. the young people who have a tough question that they are afraid to ask their parents. the sexual assaults survivors who turned to planned parenthood or compassionate care. trans gender teens who come for an appointment and find the first place where they can truly be themselves. thank you for being there for your communities whether that means taking on hostile politicians in louisiana or handing out clean drinking water in flint, michigan. [ cheers and applause ] and thank you for being there for every woman in every state

who has it miss work, drive hundreds of miles sometimes, and endure cruel, medically unnecessary waiting periods. walk past angry protesters to exercise her constitutional right to safe and legal abortions. >> i've been proud to stand with planned parenthood for a long time. and if president, i will always have your back. you can watch the rest of hillary clinton's remarks at planned parenthood along with the road to the white house events we cover at c-span.org. in advance of the democratic party convention in july, the

party's platform committee held hearings in washington, d.c. on proposed changes to the party platform. in this hearing, members heard testimony about immigration and the status of undocumented immigrants. there is 2 hours and 40 minutes. >> okay. angela glover-blackwell from policylink. she's ceo and president. she is a leading voice in the movement to use public policy to improve access and opportunities for low-income people, communities of color, particularly in areas of health, housing, transportation, education and infrastructure. without further ado, let me turn the attention to you and to your testimony. >> thank you very much. i am so appreciative of having the opportunity to speak before you and appreciate your accommodating me in this way.

this notion of thinking about how we create greater opportunity and level the playing field has to begin with the conversation about the nation shifting demographics. we all know what's happening. we know that by 2040, the majority -- by 2044, the majority of the people in this country will be of color. but it is much more urgent than 2044, because what we know is that we have an aging population that is white. of those people over 65, 80% are white. of those under 18, 46% are people of color. we know that by 2030, the majority of the young workforce will be of color. and we know that since 2012, the majority of all children born in this country have been of color. and so, as we think about the future, 2030 is the time we need to think about. that's when the majority of the young workforce will be of color. if we don't get everything that has to do with preparation and inclusion and participation

right for people of color, the story for the nation is not a happy one. i like to think not just about people who live below the poverty level as deserving and needing our attention. i look at people who live 200% below the poverty level. that's 105 million people, nearly a third of the population. 53% of people who are african-american live in that group. 53% of people who are latino live in that group. and as we think about how it is that we're going to create a society which all can participate, prosper and reach their full potential, we certainly need to have a safety net that allows this nation to live up to the qualities that it thinks it holds dear. people should not be suffering. people should have food, they should have housing, they should have adequate income. the safety net must be strong. but we also have to think about pathways to the middle class. we need an agenda that actually understands that people who are native american and asian and african-american and latino are

anxious to be entrepreneurs. they start businesses at three times the rate of people who are white. we need to be thinking about that. we need to understand that if we get the equity agenda right, we get it right for the nation. here's what we have to be thinking about. we need to grow good jobs and we need to make sure that those jobs are accessible to the people who need them. we need to build capacities. of course that means we have to start school ready to learn and have a strong k-12 program, but we know we have to be talking at least through community college. by the end of 2019, 47% of all jobs in this country will require at least an associate's degree. only 28% of latinos, 28% of african-americans have it, only 14% of foreign-born latinos. we've got to focus on building those capacities. but here's what we have to do that we haven't done nearly enough of. we have to remove barriers. we have to remove barriers and we have to expand opportunity. we know that we have not done

right by so many people who have been incarcerated unfairly, unjustly for too long. we have to remove the barriers that they face when they come back, but we also have to expand opportunity. we live in a nation in which where you live is a proxy for opportunity. we need to invest in places, understand that we are a metropolitan nation, that as the cities, as the poorer of our regions, we need to make sure those places provide the support system that people need to thrive and that we're investing in transportation so people can access jobs wherever they might be, that we are building communities that are healthy and allow people to thrive and they are safe, that we are thinking about with every dollar that we are spending how do we create the jobs that allow people to be able to live in their communities, contribute to their communities, and that their communities can become part of the regional economy. it is regions that participate in the global economy, and everybody who lives in the

region is needed for those regions to be competitive. and so, when i think about the future, i think that the future could be very bright, but the asset that we have to acknowledge, that we have to invest in is the people who are going to be the future. and it requires that we invest this inequality that has become absolutely toxic -- hollowing out the middle class, baking in poverty, stalling mobility. we need strategies that get this economy working again. it means the people who are going to be the future have to be working, too. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any questions from the -- yes, neera. >> hi, angela. thank you so much for your comments. my question is really two-fold but very quick. one, how do we change the understanding in the country writ large that addressing some of these disparities is really

in the economic benefit of the entire country, something i know you've worked a lot on. and then the second question i have is are there -- i really appreciate your comments about place-based solutions. and is there a model, is there a community you think the committee should really look at as a model for addressing the needs of all communities, investing in all communities and ensuring that there's really economic opportunity for people of color in those communities? >> thank you for your questions, neera. policylink has looked across the nation, and we have developed something that we call the national equity atlas. and it lays out data about the shifting demographics as i've just described, looking at 50 states, 100 regions, 100 cities and the entire united states, looking at the shifting demographics, looking at the economic indicators of

well-being, but also looking at what the benefits would be if we got equity right. if we were to close the gap in employment between people who are white and people who are of color, we would have a $2.1 trillion addition to the gdp, and that would be on a yearly basis. if we get it right for those being left behind, we get it right for everybody. there's no question about that. and regarding this notion of place, the current administration has really taken some bold and effective steps in this regard, trying to expand the work of the children's zone into the promise neighborhoods and the promise neighborhoods are beginning to show results, concentrating on those places, providing resources, pulling together collaboratives. the promised zones initiative that's encouraged cities to be able to be creative and innovative and make commitments for what they want to achieve for those left behind, and it allows them to actually have the flexibility that they need to be able to move to the top of the

line and show what they can do. the secretary foxx has been extraordinary in the way he has articulated transportation as an opportunity agenda. and there are some examples of communities having the leeway to do local hire so that our infrastructure investments, we ask several things -- where do we need to put infrastructure to be equitable? where do we need to place our focus on jobs to be equitable? and how do we make sure that infrastructure investments help the entire region to be equitable? so i think there are many examples that we can pull from. >> thank you. >> anyone else? thank you very much. >> and now i'd like to invite don cravens jr. from the urban league, senior vice president for policy and executive director of the washington bureau. thank you.

>> good day. my name is don cravens. >> and i serve as the senior vice president for policy for the national urban league and also as the executive director of the national urban league's washington bureau. as you know or you may not know, the national urban league is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights and urban advocacy organization dedicated to economic empowerment and historically underserved urban communities. founded in 1910, the urban league has empowered and improved the lives of tens of millions of african-americans all across our nation, and we've done it through our 88 affiliates who provide direct services to men and women in those communities in over 36 states, including the district of columbia, and we also conduct policy research and advocacy in

our washington bureau, which i am very honored to oversee. it's appropriate that the national urban league is here with you today. when i saw the title of our session, "leveling the playing field: creating opportunities and removing barriers," that's what we do at the urban league. and just three weeks ago, we released our annual report, "the state of black america," the 40th anniversary doc of the state of black america. and what the state of black america has done for 40 years since it was begun by mr. vernon jordan, our president and ceo at the time, it continues to highlight the inequalities that exist in the urban areas, it continues to highlight the wealth gaps that exist in the urban areas, and this year it even highlights the unemployment rates that in some urban areas are triple for african-americans and latinos compared to our white brothers and sisters. but we didn't just highlight problems in this year's state of black america. we also talked about solutions. and our president and ceo, mr.

morial, who apologized for not being here today but will submit video testimony next week and written testimony, lays out his plan for solutions in our "state of black america," and his plan is called "the main street marshall plan," to coin a phrase from the marshall plan after world war ii, when we reinvested and rebuilt europe, war-torn europe. we believe it's time to reinvest and rebuild america, the urban communities of america. this bold and strategic investment, dare i say overinvestment in america -- wouldn't it be nice to overinvest in america? in america's urban communities? it requires a multiannual, multiprong commitment over the next five years that would course correct our urban communities and our main streets. the urban league will submit this plan in detail before the june 18th deadline. as i said, we will do so both in writing as well as via video. our president and ceo who could not be here today will do that. we ask you respectfully to

consider allowing the state of black america as well as the marshall plan to be part of the democratic national committee platform. i will talk a little bit, very briefly, about the key components of the plan today, since my time is limited. we are looking for investments and improvement in education, employment, housing and infrastructure, the same four empowerment goals that the urban league had in mind when it was started in 1910 when african-americans were leaving jim crow south, moving to the north for better opportunities. the urban league was founded for that reason, and we are still fighting for those reasons. education. we are talking about things like universal childhood education, doubling the pell grants so that more young men and women can attend college here in america. and employment, we are talking about a federal living wage indexed to inflation. we are talking about a new main street small and micro business program to make sure that that

would be especially targeted to minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses. and why is that? because women and minority business owners tend to hire people who go to church with them and live in their communities, people who look like them. and if we're going to deal with unemployment in our urban communities, we've got to get businesses that can hire those folks as well. housing. we want to see a revised home ownership tax credit program, expansion of financial literacy and a home buyer education and counseling program, an expansion of the section 8 program to make sure more families who qualify for section 8 can achieve the american dream of having a home. and finally, we have got to invest, and again, dare i say overinvest, in the infrastructure of our urban communities, whether that be transportation, whether that be building or whether that be broadband so that our young men and our young women have the same access to the world wide web and to the technology that is out there. we have to invest in the infrastructure.

in conclusion, president obama and many of the members of congress who have left today, they were very successful. and i worked in the senate at the time. very successful in righting the american ship after 2009, taking us from the brink of depression, while we were in a great recession, and righting the ship. however, the recession's recovery, the recovery from the recession has not hit every urban city. there are many, many urban cities that are still struggling. the economy and the infrastructure of these communities have been shattered not by bombs or by tanks, like in europe, but by indecisiveness, neglect, malfeasance, corporate malfeasance, government indifference. we cannot continue to rely on the policies that have proven ineffective in communities with high unemployment and low income. you see, we are not asking for a new deal at the urban league. we are demanding a better deal for the urban communities of america.

we must focus our resources and our efforts on the neighborhoods where they are most needed. and so, acting chair, i'd just ask that again, we will submit our written testimony next week in a video testimony. we will ask that our state of black america and our marshall plan be included part of that and ask that you respectfully review that. and i'll just say this in closing. several years ago in 2013, many of the historical civil rights organizations as well as some others put forth the 21st-century agenda for jobs and freedom. and i didn't have enough copies to pass out today, but we will include that as well. that was a collaboration with the national urban league nan, the naacp, the coalition on black civic participation as well as many of our other african-american leaders. it even delves further into some of the other issues, the social justice issues and some of the other issues we think that we should be looking as we develop our platform for the party. with that, ma'am, i will yield for questions. >> thank you so much. questions? paul? >> thank you for your testimony

and for your emphasis on investment, mr. cravens. would you want the platform to draw attention and to point a finger at the disinvestment, the political and economic decisions that have eroded in the well-being of our big cities? i mean, it's one thing to call for adding investment where it's lacking, and you've identified the four key areas in which that needs to be done, but you want the platform to go further? because you use the words that are -- that we headlined this session of removing barriers and expanding opportunities. and when we talk about removing barriers, we're making an implication that there have been wrong-headed decisions that are hurting people now. and we have to decide how explicit we want to be about that in our platform. what's your advice?

>> my advice would be we must definitely pay attention to the past, and you have to acknowledge things so that we don't repeat those things. what i would suggest and i would caution against is pointing fingers and focusing on the negative. what i've been very proud of to see with both of our candidates in this election cycle is both of the candidates have said we've got to stop complaining about the past and we've got to focus on the future. and so, all i would say is, yes, let's look at past policies that failed to make sure that good intentions don't -- no good deed goes unpunished. make sure good intentions don't lead to negative results. but i would absolutely caution against us pointing fingers, because some of the people who put barriers in place unintentionally were some of our very dear friends. i mean, some of the policies that exist in the inner cities were done by friends. and the intention was not to harm people. the intention was maybe this will help. we've learned from that. and so, my advice would be let's move forward. let's have a robust agenda on how we can rebuild, how we can

invest and how we can work together to better things in those communities. >> ms. parker? >> yes, thank you. thank you for being here today. my question on the national urban league is it says it's dedicated to economic empowerment in historically underserved urban communities. >> yes. >> and i primarily say african-american and a little bit about hispanic. >> yes. >> do you also work with the urban native community and asian american communities? >> yes, many of those communities. all of those affiliates are their separate 503 c organizations, each run by a man or woman who is their ceo. many of our urban league affiliates, depending on the geographics and demographics of that area absolutely partner in many, many different ways to provide the services and the empowerment. and i'm also proud to say the urban league does not turn anyone around when they walk into the door of the urban league.

we've got so many programs that our affiliates, whether they be re-entry programs or after-school programs workforce training programs, if that's what that community calls for. the urban league doesn't say, nope, you're a little too dark for the urban league, you can't participate in this program. we are open to all of those urban communities. we've just, as i said, our history was formed -- we were formed because african-americans were leaving the deep south to escape the vestiges of slavery. and when they got to the north into urban areas, they found they were still having problems with education and housing and employment. so, the urban league was really a collaboration of different leagues that got together and said let's see if we can help people find a better life. >> okay. >> but today, the modern-day urban league, we try to help where we can be helpful to anyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity. >> great. >> thank you. >> dr. west? >> yes. i want to thank you so very much for being here. you're part of a very rich tradition, and i think it's impossible for us to reflect on a progressive urban policy without coming to terms with the most comprehensive report on the state of black america.

and it's true, it's primarily on the black side of the chocolate slice that the urban league is highlighted, but we've always embraced others, because i'm very much a part of the same tradition. but it seems to me, and you tell me what you think, that what i like about this main street marshall plan is that it puts a priority on black poor and working people. see, oftentimes, the success of

black upper class and upper middle class overshadows the plight of our precious black poor and working poor. now, we've all, all americans citizens across the board and all black folk, but oftentimes, the poor and working classes get pushed to the margins. and what i like about this -- of course, i've already read this, so this come out a couple weeks ago -- >> yes, sir. >> that you have just brought a vision. so, i just want to thank you for that and let you know we will be wrestling with this as we write this platform. >> dr. west, thank you so much. what i will tell you is when i saw the title that my boss chose for the marshall plan -- >> absolutely. >> "from poverty to prosperity" -- >> that's right. >> as an employee, i was very proud of that, because you're exactly right, we have focused a lot in modern-day america -- we've all fallen victim to it. >> that's right. >> on helping those who already have a little bit get a little bit more, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but we have to focus on people who have nothing. and there are a lot of people living in our urban communities who have nothing. >> absolutely. >> and are struggling each and every day. so, we hope this marshall plan, and the platform you're working on, ladies and gentlemen, helps all of those folks. look, from poverty to prosperity, and there's help every step along the way. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. mckibbon? >> just one particular thing as you're submitting more testimony. i'd be grateful for particular suggestions around public transportation. i think it's an area that we've lost hold of in a lot of ways in recent years, policywise and one

that i'd be grateful for some pointed and explicit suggestions about. >> we will do that, and we will also, because this question was asked for the lady who testified before me, the economic benefits of the public transportation. not only the access and the ease of travel and the social effects of public transportation, but the economic aspects, the short-term gdp growth that urban transportation -- when we build stuff, the jobs that are created, the wealth that is generated, the people who get a sense of pride in building those things. so we will definitely present that in our detailed plan. thank you. >> representative reese? >> thank you. i, too, want to thank you and marc morial, and certainly my local and state urban leagues for the work that you have done. and i know that in our party we just, we have diversity. we heard from the indian nation and we've heard from the asian pacific americans. and i don't think it's bad to hear from the urban league

focusing on african-americans. i know in ohio over 100,000 additional african-americans voted in ohio to help us get to the white house. and so, the question becomes, with this group who has been a loyal base to our party in our platform, i look at is that a salesmanship of why you should vote for us, because you're included. so, i guess my question to you -- we've had a number of training programs that we partner with the urban league and the micro business piece, but i want you to focus on the business piece because i know we're going to do a lot on poverty. a lot of people go to poverty. but coming from an african-american-owned business myself of my parents of over 40 years where there's been little help, i think that's a component, because a lot of millennials want to be entrepreneurs or are entrepreneurial. and sometimes we don't have them included in the process.

so can you maybe talk about the micro loan program or the need or some policy that we should have in there for minority businesses and not leaving african-american businesses behind? we lost so many during the recession that never recovered. so do you have anything in there that maybe you think in our platform that we could speak to these minority businesses who are not on wall street but are on main street and are located down a street in our neighborhoods? >> representative reese, i could talk about this all day. it's my passion, small business. before this job i got a chance to work for senator mary landrieu from the great state of louisiana. she was chair of the small business committee and i was staff director of that committee and i did that for four years and i love it. it's my passion. so thank you for that question. one of the things i'm most proud of at the urban league is we have 11a entrepreneurship centers. one in your state. it is part of the net work where they have entrepreneurship center, minority business development agency has their own centers as well. but what we have been able to do

at urban league is make sure our 11 centers abide by stringent requirements and that i am seeing firsthand, here in washington, a dynamic entrepreneurship center that helps with start-up and talks about people that dr. west was talking about, about the businesses that already have ka pa passi capacity. how do i get contracting here in the hub of the contracting of the world? we start with all businesses, we don't care what color you are. but we focus on inner city so most of them are african-american. it is one-stop shopping. financing, contracting, counseling. i believe more investment in those programs would have an immediate infect. when you ask people in the government to invest in counseling programs many of my friend on the other side of the aisle say that's a waste of money. i would say, prep accidentive reese, that's just not true. when you invest in the small

businesses then you invest in the small development centers then there is a high rate of development. you're a small business owner. how invaluable is counseling? how invaluable is having a peer to discuss, an expert to ask and call on for advice when you need that help. who can introduce you to that banker to provide you access to capital that you really need. so one of the things this party can do is reaffirm our commitment to small business administration which president obama has done. i love this stuff. i promise, madam chair, i'm not going to overdo it. past administration before president obama cut small business administration more than any other agency in the federal government. so for the past eight years we have been rebuilding small business administration. but more programs like that, stronger minority business development agency, small powerful muscular organization in the department of commerce. my personal opinion is that that agency should be strengthened and grown because they make a direct impact on minority and

women-owned business. more focus, reinvestment in people, could make a difference in those businesses. those people will get requirement. who will hire people from the inner city. >> thank you. thank you, so much. we very much welcome additional information on these particular point in your written testimony as well. >> thank you. >> our next testimony comes from gail mansion. she is the board chair of reconnecting mcdowell. reconnecting mcdowell is an initiative that is a multiyear effort to recreate a brighter economic future. from mcdowell county, west virginia. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon to you. thank you for joining us. >> well, thank you for allowing me to join you. and it's certainly an honor to be here speaking on behalf of reconnecting mcdowell and west virginia. this was an initiative that was started four years ago.

by myself and randy wine winegarden, president of ast. the goal was to reinvigorate and revise a community that had been totally devastated by the energy bug, the lack of coal mining in that area. so children education, housing, health care, all became issues in which mcdowell county became top in the worst of. in all of these lists. and not only first or top of the list in west virginia but across the nation. so reconnecting mcdowell was an initiative that created a partnership to start turning this picture around. and what we knew, i'm also a former president of our state school board and president of

the national state school board and which means i'm old, but been around for a while, so what we knew is one entity cannot solve the problem. the state school board had taken over mcdowell county ten years ago because of the low success across the county and schools. and ten years later achievement had not improved at all. and so as a state, what have we done? the county had tried. and the state tried. and they did not success either. what we found out was when children are hungry, when they're neglected, when they don't have a home, that all of these services that we have to look at children holistically, and when you think about appalachia, west virginia is the only state that is totally in the appalachia complex, we're talking about areas that are very isolated.

we say rural. rural by geography. rural by salacious, what we call hollered. so how do we address those issues and ensure that children get the same opportunity and quality of education that ef child in our state and in our country deserve? and so when this initiative started, this partnership, that was our goal. to improve the achievement of children in west virginia. but in doing that, also improve the economic development and economic recovery of that area. because in order to sustain and grow, it has to be the multitude of those. and so we have a partnership of over 125 partners. partners from all walks. from national levels, state levels, local levels, business

community, labor community, faith community, nonprofits, corporations, private citizens, because it takes everyone. filling one part, taking one from column a, something from column b, something from column c. andant grating all this so as we work together we're creating an effective sustainable project. not only sustainable just in mcdowell county. there are other mcdowell counties in west virginia. but more importantly, there are are mcdowell counties across this country. we know that about 1 in every 5 children that graduate from high school comes from rural america. we can't afford to lose a fifth of our population of our children in the future because we are not offering the same quality of education, the same

opportunities, the same resources. we look at mcdowell county and 28% of these children do not live in a home where an adult is gainfully employed. almost half of the children in this county do not live with a biological parent. and this is due to incarceration, drug abuse, so they live with grandparents. they live with foster parents. sometimes they look for anywhere they can go at night. the county has one of the highest rates of obesity, accidental prescription drug overdoses, and an array of serious health problems. so the schools face those issues and also face the issue of future turnover. primarily because there is no

housing available in mcdowell county. teachers that are recruited to teach there live in blue field or beckley which is an hour's drive each way for the teachers to come. and of course when a teaching position becomes open in beckley or bluefield, those teachers leave mcdowell county and go to where they can teach closer. there is nothing more sad than to have a high school student look you in the eye and say, why do teachers not like us? what are we doing wrong? why do people not want to come and teach in our schools? and that's heart breaking. and so as a result, and 125 partners later, we have undertaken several steps to move forward and we have moved forward. we are showing some success in mcdowell county. but one of the initiatives is

now to build a renaissance village, a housing unit, building, for teachers and other professional people in what we call downtown mcdowell, welch, west virginia. which would have retail services on the first level. to hopefully inspire economic development. and then the upper floors would be apartments. >> ms. mansion -- >> yes? >> i'm sorry. you can't see the clock here. we are running a little long. but i do want to ask you a specific question and we have a few minutes left. >> okay. >> in terms of the specific policies for the platform, how would you prioritize recommendations you would make for us to address the issues of mcdowell and other similar counties facing the crises you note? give us a couple of specific policy recommendations if you could in the few minutes we have

remaining. >> okay. and i apologize. i think first and foremost, for sustainability, and anything you begin like this, you want to be sure that you're able to sustain it over time when so when the original partners are gone it is still growing. you have to work with the people in that community. you can't go in and do it for them. you go in and do it with them. but it takes that whole multitude from the national level state and local working together to assist and provide the support and resources that are needed. the closest analogy that i can make is that if indeed it takes a village to raise a child, who raises the village? and it's that partnership that you form between business, stave community, all these different entities. coming together that can provide the resources and support that

allows that community to grow, form its foundation and be able to sustain itself. >> thank you. are there any other questions from colleagues? thank you so much for your testimony. and now i'll turn it over to neera. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i would like to invite lucy mcbeth up. she is the mother of jordan davis, national spokesperson for moms demand action for gun safety in america. we look forward to your testimony. >> chair and distinguished committee members for giving me a few minutes of your time. my mother is lucy. i'm the mother of jordan davis who was shot to death in a convenience store parking lot. this has been deemed the music case because it was thought he was playing his car stereo too loud. in a matter of 3 1/2 minutes my

life has been forevery changed. more than three years have passed since jordan was taken from me but as his mother the pain never really goes away and i'm without him every birthday, holiday and every time i see a young black man's face. but this isn't an issue that is just facing black mothers. although it happens to women who look like me far too often. this is an american crisis, and a public safety issue. i had the talk with jordan. i told him to be mindful of his surroundings. i schooled him on racism. i thought i did everything right, even sending him to live with his father in florida as i faced my second bout of breast cancer. as we all know, no one is immune. it doesn't matter if you're in school, in the movies, walking home from the corner store or even in the house of god. however unlike other epidemics,

this is one where a solution is well within our grasp. i believe we all have a responsibility to prevent as many of these fatalities as possible. and a common sense place to start that we should all be able to agree on is keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and the mentally ill. who shouldn't obviously have them in the first place. that's why i was so proud to stand behind president obama when he announced new executive actions aimed at narrowing loop holes in our laws to make it easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. these measures were important but we need congressional action to permanently and comprehensively close the loop holes on our laws. to do that we need all of our political leaders to lead. and let me be blunt. it needs to be our first priority as a party because everything else we democrats

care about, like health care and social security and voting rights, are moot point if we cannot keep our children safe. now don donald trump and republicans like to say that democrats are trying to repeal the second amend mendment. let's be clear. no one is proposing that. i repeat, no one is proposing that. we know how to protect the rights of responsibility gun owners while keeping guns out of the hands of violent and mental illness. they support comprehensive background checks. even 82% of gun owners in this country are in favor of background checks for all gun sales. law enforcement officials across the country support them too. and when so many of our kids are living in fear, and dying in the

streets, everyday, we simply cannot ignore our moral responsibility to save lives. that's why i believe that we need to repeal a law that continues to grant irresponsible gun manufacturers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits, even as they are making money, hand over fist. this is a protection that almost no other industry in america enjoys. it makes no sense that it is easier to sue the mae maker of y gun than a real one. we need to permanently close the loop holes that still allow dangerous people to buy firearms at gun shows and on the internet. and we need to close the charlston loophole. today a convicted felon or someone with a dangerous mental illness can walk in a gun store and if their background check is not completed within three days, they can still be sold a firearm.

because of this loophole and the last five years, gun dealers have proceeded with more than 15,000 sales to prohibited people because their background check could not be completed within the three-day period. that includes the gun that was sold to the madman that murdered nine god-fearing parishioners at mother emmanuel church. i remember what it felt like when i heard that news. and watching the reactions of the family members in charleston, so much of my own anguish came rushing back. and i know many americans fill frustrated and powerless to do anything about it. we attend prayer vigils and offer kind words and thoughts and that is not enough. but what i have discovered, what all the mothers of the movement have proven, is that collectively, we can use our voices. voices may not be louder than gunshots, but they can be just

as powerful. people just need to know the power that they hold. this is a problem that has ravaged an entire generation of kids so what is it that we have to do? we have to begin to have a renewed sense of passion and engagement. for too long we've let the nra and gun lobby stand unanswered. those days are over. we are all in this country together. that means we're supposed to be our brother and sisters' keeper. we have the chance to empower ourselves and i'm living proof that anyone can make a difference.