the 114th congress gavels in this tuesday at noon eastern. watch the senate live on c-span2 and track the gop congress. new congress, best access on c-span. >> up next, a senate hearing on how americans are financially preparing for retirement. then a discussion on some of the economic stories of 2000 15. later, a conversation with elena kagan. >> a senate finance committee hearing on retirement savings and the tax code. topics included policy experts. they talked about the gap between how much americans are

saving for retirement and savings stated after retirement. and you reap lord says americans 's accounts are rising. this is just under two hours. >> the finance committee will come to order. would you take a look at the state of retirement savings in america, it is clear that something is out of whack. the american taxpayer subsidizes retirement accounts. still millions of americans nearing retirement have little or nothing saved. the fact is the incentives and savings in the american tax code are not getting to those who need them most.

of the pack savings has about $59,000 set aside for retirement . according to the government accountability office, 9000 taxpayers have fire a -- ira accounts worth $5 million. it would take several lifetimes of work for the typical middle-class american to save that much money. how did the massive ira accounts come to be? in many cases they seem to be stock deals that most investors would never have access to. executive buy stocks at a special rock-bottom price sometimes fractions of a penny per share, and used in an ira as

a tax shelter. it starts out dirt cheap but it turns to gold in the ira shoots up in value. why do investors have all the tools available to them and no one should begrudge them their success? the ira was never intended to be a tax shelter for millionaires. it was designed to help the typical american save for retirement. the committee continues to modernize the tack coat. -- tax code. it is crucial to use taxpayer dollars wisely if oh. the same study included another alarming piece of information. nearly a third of workers have no pension and nothing set aside for retirement. it is a fact that millions of

americans are walking on an economic tightrope and are unable to save. report after report has shown america's a middle class at best struggling to stay afloat. five years after the great recession it remains tough for many to find and keep a steady job. the cost of a college education continues to rise. millions of americans have had their wealth tied up in their homes. they are not yet close to a full recovery. many working families continue to see their take home pay drop. workers are changing jobs more frequently than ever before. tthey find it difficult to save without portable saving accounts. women face special challenges that have to be addressed. that is also true of part-time workers.

this "leave it to beaver" idea of a worker saying with fo -- staying for 40 years and her time with a pension is outdated. the committee is examining the issues. one proposal is being pursued by my home state of oregon. less than half of businesses offer retirement plans to their employees. many oregonians have trouble saving anything at all. the state set up a retirement savings task force to look at solutions. yesterday they recommended the state set up an auto ira program for any worker who was not covered by an employer retirement plan. a percentage of paychecks would go into the savings accounts and contributions would rise with time. it would not be mandatory.

employees could opt out at any time. it certainly has the potential to have the first step toward retirement security. the tax code should give all americans the chance to get ahead. making it easier to save is the best way to accomplish that. that is what it is important to look at how it can improve these incentives and ensure that they help middle-class americans repair for retirement and not just set up tax shelters for millionaires. senator hatch, i look forward to working with you as usual. >> thank you very much. i think this is an important hearing and topic. we have an outstanding panel of witnesses. i think we will have a very interesting discussion. this has been an important topic

to this committee. it is always been bipartisan. most of the major pieces they have passed in recent decades have been named from senators from the committee. i am talking about legislation. and the other body it came to be known for the two excellent legislatures but i'm trying to say our providers in this committee. i believe the tradition can and will continue. during the recent markup we did work on a multi-employer pension reform done in the spirit of bipartisanship here at i have -- bipartisanship. i have report where they received high marks. i hope they will work with me to receive the highest marks. it is my hope that the tradition of bipartisanship will continue

and that the next retirement bill will be known. we have always had incentives for savings. there are no bad savings. congress has revisited saying this. congress increased the limits to 401(k) plans so that today a worker may increase desk attribute $17,500 to a aura when k -- 401k. they can also contribute several thousand dollars more beginning in their 50's when many finally get serious about savings.

they might have left the workhouse for this. other plans that allow deferrals to better enable when for their retirement. it worked. since 2000 this has grown from $3 trillion to nearly $6 trillion just i the market downturn in 2000 and eight. it has grown. increased contribution limits work so well in 2006 congressman the provisions permanent and the road was overwhelming. the retirement policies we have pursued have been about helping them save more of their money not less.

democrats and republicans have worked together to respond to a mutually shared all -- goal. they agree that managers needed to have some tax benefit and the game to take on the burden of adopting and maintaining retirement plans. members have resisted partisan impulses. we have been able to craft a policy. many have been concerned that there is a strap she -- shouted g -- strategy into another pension background. class warfare can send so much. i am willing to disregard the goodwill of the last 25 years. that would be unfortunate. i hope it does not happen in our

hearing today. what i hope to hear today, we need to know how much incomes americans are projected to need and have and if there is a shortfall. what policies they have to reenact the cap. what i do not want to hear today are slogans "bang for the buck" " the system is rigged." without substantiating data. we need serious proposals not slogans. thank you for holding this hearing. let me extend a special welcome to scott. he has helped utah people save for retirement. i am grateful that you would travel all the way from utah to be here today to help us make

this a useful hearing. thank you for being here. >> thank you. i think you are very right to stress the bipartisan tradition in this committee of focusing on these kinds of incentives to create opportunity for folks to get into the middle class. i look forward to pursuing that with you. the approach is really fact driven. that is why we ask the accountability office to help us get an assessment of the most recent development in savings. one way or another you and i are going to be able to leave the committee in a bipartisan way and i look forward to pursuing that. we have six witnesses. we have one that is still very talented of a scholar who is still battling delays.

john has figured a way to a group that. we are glad he is here. he is the founder and former ceo of vanguard. our next witness will be the chief economist. our third witness will be scott betts. our fourth will be a professor public policy and corporate management at the john f. kennedy school of management at harvard. she was the first academic to do research and automatic enrollment 401(k) programs. our fifth witness is dr. andrew biggs. he lives in oregon. i told center stop now --

senator stabbedenow that i am wearing my duck tie and i have not worn it for two weeks. i could not hold off any longer. >> i am glad the fight is between two democrats this time. >> welcome. we look forward to your presentation. mr. brown will begin the questioning. >> my career began more than 63 years ago. in 1974i founded the vanguard group, a new company on the mutual fund seen.

now we manage $3 trillion for the other peoples money and have become in the largest funds in the world. the principal reason for that success is since 2008 the single firm has accounted for almost one half of the entire cash flow . it was founded with a single focus, to serve mutual fund investors. the vanguard group is not owned by managers or the public nor by u.s. or foreign insurance companies. we are owned by our mutual funds which in turn our owned -- are owned by our shareholders. we are uniquely a mutual mutual fund complex. we operate on an ast cost

basis. we are rebated to our shareholders. as you know, the index mimics the portfolio of prices of stocks or bonds. it does not require any advice and carries a rock on an expense ratio as low as two to five basis points compared to other fun group is charging 200. it has accounted for more than 350% of net cash flow since

2007, taking in $750 billion while the funds were losing $550 billion. the picture is clear here it constitutes 33% of u.s. equity. of vanguard trillion dollars were owned by investors with their own nest eggs. we are sharing the nation's retirement plans are shark sure he -- structurally efficient. we imagining -- aren't managing the costs. our retirement system today is neither structurally efficient

nor fiscally sound. each one of the three legs is headed for a serious train wreck. others seem to assume that social security and pension funds. one is fixed with relatively few small changes. defined benefit plans. most people he underwater by $4 trillion or more. it will require much more realistic returns. the a person is in the cards as well as higher employer contributions. defined contribution plans for the fastest-growing component.

excessive costs. long-term wealth could be increased by 65%. from $561,000 to $927,000. a $366,000 advantage by taking the cost of the system down to where it needs to be. we need larger contributions from employees. we need to reduce this. we need to have some requirement

for employers to maintain their contributions. we need to expand this. we need to limit high-cost purveyors in the ira's. we also need judiciary duty for our managers. so far they are virtually ignored by policymakers and legislatures. i will live more fully in my prepared testimony. forgive me for going and also over in my time. c>> thank you for the opportunity to testify. i am the chief economist for the world's leading association of regulated funds. we manage assets of more than $17 trillion answer more than 90 million shareholders. they manage about half of the

defined contribution plan and individual assets. ici has devoted resources to making and communicating an accurate assessment of america's retirement system. such an assessment must recognize key facts. they are working to build retirement security for the majority of americans. the tax incentives for retirement savings are key to the successes and strengths of that system. while there are opportunities to improve our system, changes should not put today's system at risk. these statements may contradict much of what you often hear. not only does social security cover nearly all working americans that 80% of retiring hopefuls has accrued pension

benefits. it wide range of government and industry research demonstrates this has become stronger in the past half-century. the poverty rate among the elderly has fallen since 1966 from 30% to 9%. at the lowest among all age groups. the amount of assets mark per household -- per household raise. they are receiving income has increased by more than 60%. the median private income that retirees receive after adjusting for inflation has increased by 40%. this will transform social security into a strong foundation and create a

framework of laws and tax incentives on which voluntary private plans have wrote and thrived. as important as this is, the nature and role of these incentives is often misunderstood. the tax incentives takes the form of tax deferral. contributions and earnings are cap when a with dutch retiree withdrawals the income. the initial tax reduction is never deliver. this is the incentive to save. rather than creating an upside down incentive for savings, tax deferral equalizes the incentive to save across all favors and all income groups and encourages

support from pension plans among a wide range of workers. the american people suck more the retirement plans including tax incentives here it in a survey it 86% disagreed with the idea of eliminating the damages of defined land and 83 opposed reduction and limits. despite the strengths and successes of our system, changes should build upon the existing system. they support measures to promote retirement savings, the social security on a strong footing in a plan for all americans foster growth, help smaller employers but offer similar features.

what essential to the ideas is that they do not undermine or replace our current system. this system depends critically on the tax incentives congress has provided for tax savings. proposals to reduce the benefits would not nearly effect income workers and reduce their to fire but they would undoubtedly reduce the number of employers of the many benefits a plan for dissipation. a retirement system has many strengths and successes very this will enhance retirement security for years to come. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> the next what this will be mr. scott betts. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to

talk to you about our retirement system. i am the senior vice president of natural benefit service programs. specializing in the design and administration of all types of employer-sponsored retirement plans we have more than two to 25 employees -- 225 employees. our goal is to give every working american the ability to say for a working retirement. every working on retirement plans and can tell you call five retirement plans are proving successful. what i see is born on the importance of statistics. the over warming -- overwhelming participants make less than $100,000 per year. 43% of participants make less

than $50,000 per year. an analysis by the employee benefits research institute found that over 70% of workers earning between $30,000 and $50,000 participated in retirement plans when a plan was available. weston 5% -- less than 5% contributed to and [indiscernible] -- two ano an ira. if increasing financial security is the goal, increasing the plan is the way to get there. that is why is important that no harm be done to the structure of tax incentives that help them contribute to the employees themselves to the retirement plans. the tax incentives is unique. a tax deferral. not a permanent right off.

contributions are not taxed this year. every will be taxed in the future when individuals take it from the savings. also the incentive for plans like the home mortgage deduction. there are limits to make sure this is not discriminate in favor of more highly understated employees. the result is an incentive that is more progressive. you will see that families earning under $50,000 pain 9% -- pay 9% but receive 20% of the benefits. the good news is over 60 million working americans currently benefit from these tax incentives. the bureau of labor statistics reports 70 percent of civilian workers have access to benefits at work. 81 percent of those workers participated in these

arrangements. in spite of these positive numbers there are still millions of workers that do not have plans available. more should be done to encourage and help employers set up these plans in a cost-effective manner so their employees can say for their retirement. there are some changes that should be made to streamline. you're safe retirement has the right focus and strikes the right islands. this would allow business owners who may be reluctant employers a way to save for their work place plan.

would also permit small employers to banded together in multiple employer arrangements while providing critical safeguards for adopting employers through creating a new designated service provider. these can discourage employers from continuing to sponsor plans. the current retirement system works well for tens of millions of americans that have access to it. we need to do more. the key is enacting reforms that'll provide a savings vehicle for their employees. your bill is a big set in the right direction and expanding the availability of work place plans. >> thank you for being here.

>> we can strengthen the retirement saving system. public policy has historically promoted savings using financial incentives. in the night it stayed this is up to a limit from taxable income. the joint committee places the magnitude out $127 billion annually. lower income taxpayers are also able to save as a tax credit. it encourages employers who sponsor a savings plan to provide their own financial inducements for employees to save, mainly an employer match. we have examined the responsiveness to financial incentives. a rather consistent finding is

the behavioral response is not particularly large. i survey the academic literature on the impact of one type of financial incentives matching on contributions. they are fining striking me similar results using a variety of different data sources. it increases plan participation by around roughly five percentage points. this is modest at best. this can impact how much individual say. this does not come from the magnitude of an incentive so much on the fact that at some point the incentive expires. in many 401 k programs they provide a match only to a certain amount. the saver's credit gives moderate income households an incentive to save for retirement

but only for the first $2000 contributed to a work place savings plan or ira. when financial incentives are limited, the threshold becomes a focal point as individuals decide how much to save. this suggests the threshold may be a more important important matching scheme. the relatively small impact suggest that a failure to save is not primarily the result of inadequate financial incentives. the literature on behavioral economics and savings outcomes points to frictions that impede

savings, procrastination, lack of financial literacy determining how much to save and how best to save for retirement here at the temptation to spend. in many cases this leads to increases in assets accumulation that effect it. before discussing policy alternatives let me note that from a behavioral economic standpoint it is ill-suited for them to say. the tax code is complicated. it is difficult for the average taxpayer to assess the incentives they see. in a recent project that i am working on, my coworkers have found most individuals do not accurately understand the tax implications of saving in a regular 401(k) or ira.

assessing the incentive would likely be a daunting task. i attempted to do so in preparing these remarks and quickly gave up. individuals are more responsive to immediate rather than delayed financial incentives. many financial incentives are delayed. the benefits of tax deferred compounds are delayed. what could perhaps be a very effective financial incentive to encourage individuals to enroll in a savings plan small but immediate financial reward is not allowed and savings plans under current law. if that is not a savings panacea, what is? the most effective method is on a monday enrollment.

the effect on participation rates can be sizable and is greatest for the groups with the largest savings rates initially. expanding the reach of automatic enrollment is the most promising step we can take to increase the americans that are saving for retirement. this means continuing to increase the number of employers to use automatic enrollment, increasing the number that offer savings lands and providing simple savings alternatives for those that are employee that are ever likely to employee savings plan. this includes auto ira proposals until say -- and facilitate judiciary liability. we have a saving systems that make savings complicated one making it easy for individuals to tap into their retirement savings.

another policy response of the status is to encourage retirement wealth accumulation, to reduce leakage from our system. the lessons from research are clear. if you want individuals to save make it easy. if you want them to save more, make it easy. if you want employers to help their workers safe, make it easy. if you want individuals to save less, make it hard. >> i got the drift and it was all about easy. i want to make sure everyone understands one point. you have been a leading voice. you give the individual the last word. the individual can choose not to auto enroll. they can opt out. >> the individual can opt out. >> thank you. achy for the opportunity to testify today.

the word "crisis" is often overuse. it is often harmless. it sometimes causes people to look before they leap or leap before they look weirk. we have 50% of americans at risk for insufficient retirement income. the total retirement savings cap may reach $14 trillion. another study claims americans collect only a pittance from their ira and 401(k) programs. others are arguing that they are not working and should be scrapped. these claims are overblown. these are non-solutions to a non-crisis. this analysis is complex. i might simplify it with two sets of back -- facts. the majority of today's retirees

are doing well. 75% of pollsters they have enough money to live comfortably. data on poverty and other measures show the most retirees today are able to match their preretirement standard of living. the best research out there using quotes from the best retirement experts projects future generation of retirees will have about the same level of retirement security as today's retirees. they will have the same replacement rate as individuals born during the depression who supposedly enjoyed a golden age of retirement security. it encourages some of the same data. the employee benefit research into also projects they will roughly hold steady with today's retirees. but those two facts together.

some americans are underprepared for retirement. around 25% with relatively bottle saving shortfalls. the shortfalls are targeted. one study finds the single left educated women are twice as likely to fall -- likely to fall short in retirement. while we do not need to reinvent the wheel, we do need to do something. i am in favor of auto enrollment pension plans. less educated workers are less likely to be offered pensions on the job. marco rubio allowed those who are not offered by the employer implants to purchase paid in a savings plan. others have proposed a super simple pension designed to reduce administration and compliance cost for employers ways likely to offer pensions. you have reference state these

plans to enhance offerings for workers who have not offered plans on the jobs. your own legislation has provisions designed to offer this to low workers who may not otherwise be offered one. this may not be enough. many single women without a high school education are likely to have only sporadic attachment to the labor force. it treats single woman far less well than married women. we have proposed this to have a flat universal benefit that would go to all retirees. on top of that individuals would say supplemental retirement. this is qualitatively similar to

that of the u.k., australia canada and new zealand and the u.s. could affordably reduce the poverty rate from today's level of roughly 9% to approximately 0% while increasing real retirement savings among those who should be saving more. the lesson of all this is that there are no simple problems or solutions. >> senator brown has a hearing in a few minutes. let's start with him. >> thank you for the special area here. a political scientist named ben lautenberg decided to try to find out what person represented america best.

the income was about 60,000. half of american was poor then she. they certainly would not have a defined benefit. she would probably have less equity in their home. she is in her men 50's. if you look at the number may be up to 50,000. take the middle. she will have to rely on social security for most of her income when she retires. ohio is not much different than other states. the majority people on social security rely on socials or two for more than half their income.

the person in the middle will get no more than 13 or $1400 a month. we know she is right in the middle. half are poorer than she is. in your testimony you make another -- a number of important points of adequacy. they can rob unsophisticated investors. they can rob them of the ability to adequately say. the doctor said make it easy. should congress make it mandatory to auto the role and auto escalate in the low index funds. should they make it mandatory? >> auto enroll is easy to say. why not have mandated. i will be the champion for

mandating pension funds. all of the investors in america are a giant index fund. they can go to an index on. if they want to fight among themselves, they will try to out guess this. is mathematically correct. it will have a more important qualification. >> auto escalate is good. >> the income goes slightly higher. we will go into that fund. >> these things are right and correct as principals. the fact of the matter is every

family is different. should you want to escalate for a man with six children all going to college and a wife who is maybe ill? when you go from generalities to particulars, it is tough. >> that is why you get the option to opt out. thank you. you said you should not already had to be in the middle class to get access to tax preference savings vehicles. they should be designed to help workers get into the middle class. what our policy changes we need to make to ensure this happens russian mark --? what policies do we give people a lift to give assistance into the middle class. >> the biggest problem with the

current system is that many workers do not have access. their employer is not offering a savings lamb or they are not eligible for the savings plan the employer is offering. initiatives to encourage small employers to offer a savings plan, the small employer is like the individual investor. joe from joe's pizza does not have an mba does not have dedicated human resources professional. he is no better at picking a savings plans and his employees are at picking from a thousand mutual funds what the best way to save for retirement is. having an option that is easy for joe's pizza to opt into would help close the access

gap, allowing communities to have the chamber of commerce sponsor a pension plan were joe does not to worry about few to share your liability. -- judiciary byy liability. it would go a long way to closing the access cap. it provided incentives for companies to open plans to all employees. part-time workers are excluded. these are simple measures that could go and long way. another point i brought up in my testimony is currently all right now does not allow for companies to get a small financial incentive to sign up

for the savings plan in the first lace. if you did not have automatic enrollment or even if you did you could not say sign up before the end of the month and you will get a $50 amazon gift card we will interview in a john foreign ipad, things that -- drawing for an ipad things that companies have used to get employers to sign up. those are not allowed under current law even though the literature on employee behavior suggests that small rewards are very effective. >> thank you. senator hatch. >> i would assume you go. >> no, please. >> you have real life experience trying to convince them to adopt a retirement plan. can you explain further what are

their motivations when they make a decision? what sort of things convince them to say no to setting up a new plan? >> thank you for the question. working with employers for many years, it has been the incentives that the government has allowed in these lands that have incentivized employers to set them up. hey they have motivated the employer's to provide these for their employees. the incentive is very powerful. many like to do because it is the right ink. many jobseeking employers will ask very to you have the 401(k) plan? that instance it is a cheap piece. if that were changed or removed many would end those plans. also the incentives is what

allows many new employers to start and get benefits into these plans. i would think the power of it is there. it is demonstrated in the numbers of americans. >> the end result of many of the proposals i've read about what effectively cap employee to florals. many seem to rely on the premise of workers who increase their savings rate proposals assume that reduce tax incentives for companies will have no effect on the willingness of the business to keep its plan or operation or start a new plan. i do not believe that. if they raise contribution levels but increased tax incentives to save. two or three things will happen in the says. contributing to pension plans because they are too complex and extensive to with without adequate tax incentives.

employees will stop saving so much because the tax incentives will be for most workers. i do not think academics generally understand either of these points. what does your real-world experience tell you? after you finish maybe you would care to comment. >> it is very powerful i'm making these decisions. the tax incentive to contribute is very motivational. i agree a lot of the auto enrollment stuff has added to the number of americans participating. it is the incentives that motivate them. >> there are two points i would like to make. the first point is about the tax incentive. what is the incentive to save? as you know, the current system

for retirement savers is that we do for our taxes. we make a contribution we do not pay income taxes on the money that we put in or the earning that we build a we take money out of the traditional plans to pay the income tax when it comes out. it is therefore age of for all not a deduction or exclusion. it effectively gives zero tax rates on the investment. that is the incentive. it removes the tax wedge and allows a return for the investor to come to the point of the market return as opposed to a below-market return. why is that important? some of these proposals to cap the upfront deduction would actually turn on its head the tax incentives. one example is to cast the

upfront deduction a 20% and give you a credit. anyone in an income level above 20% would have to pay a tax going into the plan and then they would pay their full tax rate coming out of the land. what this would do is distance and devise someone who is putting into the plan in the upper income level and make it almost preferential to put into a taxable account here they would have to hold the money in the retirement plan for 13 years to catch up for that extra tax at the beginning. i think these proposals make it a credit and sort of put a tax penalty on it. none of them would be a better to pull off. the contribution limits are really important. one reason they are currently important is people's willingness to save for retirement changes over their

lifetime. we find individuals as they move into their 50's and 60's are more likely to the and contribute at the limit. 15% of people in their 50's and 60's are contributing at the limit. >> packages ask a question. -- if i could just ask a question. what behavioral economics has shown a couple of successes some of us are concerned that it contains some room -- some would provide full-fledged tackles of private citizens. it seems as though some behaviorists operate from the notion that government democrats are infallible and need to tell fallible private citizens of their mistakes and how they should allocate their resources. a former treasury official in the obama administration had written about behaviorally

informed financial services regulation. one of these schemes is to nationalize all late fees on credit he's, gift card ishares a small call went to be used by others to help fallible private citizens. what do you feel about such a proposal? do you believe they need to make decisions for private decisions on credit cards and retirement savings that they are not doing what the technocrats want them to do? >> i was not prepared to answer that question why walked into the room. i know who you are talking about. i have read the article more than once that you referred to. i guess i would say -- >> take a swing at it. >> i'll answer a slightly different question.

my view of behavioral economics is what it does is tries to expand the scope of understanding of what is actually driving behavior and what are the tools that you could use to influence behavior. whether you want to take a light handed or heavy-handed approach, that is a matter of personal preference. i hesitate painting them with the same brush. you are going to find people along an entire spec term. i will be happy to go back and look at the article and send you a response what i have more time to think about it. >> i have questions for each one of you. i apologize that we have run out of time. >> thank you. as you and i have talked about in the past, this will be a focus bipartisan tax reform. we look forward to working with

you. >> thank you. this is a very important issue. i appreciate the focus now and look forward to working with the. i really should start with saying i'm a little surprised at what feels like an optimistic view that most people are saving and somehow people are going to have enough and they are doing well. i will thoroughly couple of different numbers. the boston college center for retirement research would have at least a $6.6 trillion deficit in in terms of what people were saving. 2013 92% of working households do not meet the targets they needed for savings and somewhere between $6.8 trillion and $14 trillion. i am concerned about differences. i want to ask specifically.

i do not think we have talked about this morning. as he look at what happened in the great recession and people losing their jobs in their homes and he lost the equity in their homes which is a major way that people save, middle-class families as well as retirement, and we look at what has happened to so many folks we know a lot of people took hardship withdrawals. we are told that they increased as much as 40%. they were saving and they had to take the hardship withdrawal because of what was happening for. on top of losing the equity on the home. i am very concerned about full who are now -- folks who are now caught up short because what was way beyond their control. i would ask you first are there options that you would suggest that would help these workers

rebuild a secure retirement who got >> well, it is not an easy problem to solve area i do think that we have to face up as we look at the system and according to 33% of our population has no retirement when at all. the federal reserve says, about 25% of our households are prepared for retirement. i lived that kind of data is more important than all of the data about how many dollars a year. here's a case where i think since should override and the provisional data than the complex data which concludes which you have found out just about any answer you want. how somebody is in real trouble

is not easy. lucia face the fact that the lower quintile of american salaries are 20,000 a year for the cost of living adjustments in 1979 and those people are not able to say if we want to help them, there's simply no records and increase for social security. , it is costing us 800 billion dollars over the five years alone as we look at their retirement account pension contribution and i support this as a major area where we are focusing on tax policies area we also do know that according to the cbo, the top 20% of

households received twice as much of the cash benefits as the bottom 80% combined. we understand why that is but the question as we are looking at tax reform, the households that neither the lease help in savings and retirement are getting the biggest help. and the people who needed them most are getting the least help. how would you suggest or would you suggest we do anything to improve the targeting of the tax incentives? and if anybody has a thought on how we get help to those who got put in a whole? >> the high-end of that, something i will and in for alan scholz because i read the book. the people at the high end has so many retirement plans compensation, reimbursement for taxes, things in my opinion socially outrageous.

and get all kind of benefits above and beyond what we can do anything about in our retirement system. that's the place to begin reform and whether or not those savings are so easy for our wealthiest citizens can be transferred to those on the low income scale. it is desirable. i cannot tell you how to do it today. >> thank you very much for i was asked everybody briefly. >> if you think about the entire retirement system, putting plans with social security, it is a progressive situation. it's great sort of the joint incentive as it creates sort of the -- it creates some of the joint incentive. if you scale back, individuals

take advantage tend to be in their peak earning years, if you carve that back or tinker with how those tax incentives are created, you can have higher income employees not interested in participating anymore and employers may decide it is better to give the current conversation that compensation. we could reduce. an example is in 1986 and we -- the following year not only did high income workers not anticipate in ira but even low income. it is complex by why it happened. >> a very could question at -- a very good question and if you could give short answers, that would be good. chris and the interest of time, do anybody think we ought to -- and how?

>> i would increase incentives or remove the disincentives. we can expand -- >> you would do it for everyone? quick to there are disincentives to old in that is difficult for small employers. -- >> there are disincentives that makes it difficult for small employers. >> if you world about low income and taxpayers they are not particularly financial lurid and you can great complex tax incentives and not get a lot of traction because they are not solving the problem. the reasons of those hostels are not saving because they are facing small tax incentives and they do not know what to do and their employers do not offer a plan. a more sizable margin for

spending public dollars would be too great to the incentives for employers to offer savings that automatically enroll low income workers to cut that solves the problems in action and individuals not knowing what to do. >> i would briefly reiterate a point for my testimony which is the folks that end up in retirement with a lot of savings and wealth are often people sporadic attachment to the labor force during their working years. folks for whom employer-based saving plans are not going to do very much but folks who also followed through social security. social security serves a lot of these folks not particularly well. -- who also falls through social security. i think we do need to rethink who is falling short in what we need to do for them. >> that is important, i will

have to stop. >> thank you. >> in your testimony, you stated our current taxation system is "more progressive than our progressive income tax." that's an important point. karen savings -- current savings. i will give you chance to elaborate on how the current savings are actually progressive. >> thank you, senator. in my testimony, i tried to demonstrate americans who earn less than $100,000 basically represent 20% of the tax collection area that same group of americans receive 49% of the benefit through the employer-sponsored retirement plans. that seems more progressive. in addition, the many employers

that provide important contributions because of the way they are designed, nondiscrimination rules and incentives for employers to put more dollars in that are not covered in this. >> for dr. reid, several proposals that were limited the ability of upper income individuals to deduct retirement contributions at 28% limitation as an example. you discuss this with senator hatch from the employer standpoint. i would ask you how your research suggests employers defined contribution plans such as the president's? >> it is important to keep in mind that a 401(k) plan is an employee benefit and something when an employer is looking to attract employees said notes

which rights they will offer this benefit like they would any other benefit. if you have something in place that makes participating and that contribution plan unattractive for a group of potential or existing employees employees will say i will use my resources elsewhere it may simply increase wages or something else and not offer a plan of. example i gave was putting put a cap or credit in place, what will happen as the individual employees would have to pay a tax going into the 401(k) and the full tax rate coming out. and for some of these employers would be better off simply putting their savings in a taxable account outside of their employer -- employee's plan. they will say it is not a benefit that my employees want and i will not offer it anymore. it is having the vet employer plan and there and in place and being able to in many cases

enroll people and increases participation. i think we would be taking steps backward from the action congress has taken over the last 50 years and purchase will reduce plan participation. >> i am going to go back to mr. betts. employer-based retirement plans are important while 80% of full-time workers have access, this number is only around 50% for employers working for small employers with fewer than 100 workers. as someone who has worked with businesses and the administration of retirement plans, what you see as the biggest barrier to employers particularly small employers offer retirement plans? the more port in question is the second one what single reform if implemented do you believe would do the most to increase the number of small businesses

offering retirement plans? >> thank you. there herself all older rules that were put in place -- there are several older rules put in place. new rules have done better at managing the nondiscrimination requirements. one of the ones that could be removed are the top heavy requirements. that has disincentive eyes many small companies but is the risk of how much money they may have to put in a plan to satisfy the rule. and another big step would be senator hatch's starter k provide employer plans to start contributing with no risk to the contribution on till the time the employer is more financially stable and can benefit. >> my last question would be, what are your thoughts on the reform proposals such as chairman camp that would put

more retirement savings into 401(k)s and iras and congress consider consolidating the type of accounts to reduce confusion for savers or is it important for individuals to have more options? >> while i was in favor of simplification, one of the concerns we would have for consolidation is some of the proposed license or hatch's and others trying to find a way to make a similar for small employers to offer a plan could actually then, if we narrow the options make a more difficult for small employers to offer a plan. web been in a favor of starter k to enhance and broaden the scope of offerings of retirement plans. >> mr. betts do you have anything to add? ok, i am done. >> thank you. >> thank you from holding this

hearing. it is a critically important issue. it has been 15 years since congress and i recognize we had a significant problem in our economy. 15 years ago, our economy was growing per our workforce was growing and income was growing. every indicator was positive and that was everything but savings. ratios were negative during some of those times. we recognize we do not have enough money in retirement security especially middle-aged and younger workers. we tried to do something about it and were able to get a couple of significant provisions incorporated in our tax code. i will sort of build on that. the first principle was to simplify and increase the catch-up contribution because of the point of some of your worries when you are young, your families and homes and these issues and you do not think about retirement until later.

the purpose is pretty simple and that is access to retirement plans. if the employer does not offer a plan, there will be limited access. if you simplify and the limits are high enough, or employees will provide implants and that's been the result of higher limits and more simplified plans. and we also recognize that when employers put money on the table , more money will participate. look at the federal government. our workers participate because they do not want to leave money on the table. it is much more likely workers will participate. one of the things we tried to encourage. the alternative is to try and the money on the table to the government. as important as the tax is, it is not enough for lower wage workers a younger was to

participate like will like them too. the savings credit was the sultan to. it worked. millions of americans are using the savings credit. -- the savings credit worked. it was important not just for people enrolling but the investment option is more sensitive to the person's age which means there will be better investments instead of making the decisions themselves. you mentioned investment literacy and that was part of what we try to do. as a result, we've made progress. more money is in retirement options. as you know, we have gone through recession. you try to encourage people to spend, not safe. as a result, we have lost ground. we have to do a lot more. web been on the defense trying

to preserve the options we currently have. it is time for us to move forward. that is why i was pleased about this hearing. how can we build on what has worked and the issues that many of you talked about with a middle-aged a younger workers not putting enough money away for retirement? there are easy things we can do. the senator and i have entered legislation for the clarification and it deals with the practical problems that church plans have. another easy think -- yhinh, -- thing, and lots of companies trying to do what is right for the defined benefit plans and diaper serving the options but the rules can be challenging. we should ask on that. i would hope these modest change can be done quickly. we shouldn't wait for the comprehensive when we can get

some progress made. we shall move forward and improve the automatic enrollments and continue to try to simplify. let me start with dr. reed, one of the things that frustrated me is when you designed these plans, we made it to easing for people to take retirement money out for things other than retirement. one of our objectives is to have security and an income source that takes pressure off social security which was never intended to be the sole source of income for people who retire. what can we do to make coverage more lifetime options for retirement funds that are there rather than having money taken out too early through lump sum or other purposes? >> the current system if you look at what people do within

their 401(k) or iraq, the vast majority are rolled over to ira 's and individuals tended to start tapping the money at 70.5, the minority of individuals that do not. ideas to help individuals to spread out that the savings over the life time is valuable. our concern is driving tax incentives for a particular product. for many households, they are heavily annuitized it they may have their lump sum for emergency purposes or health care needs or something like that. you wouldn't want to penalize these individuals for wanting to keep a log some. other types of proposed to the people spreading that overtimes would be valuable. we want to make sure these are private neutral approaches. >> one is to give an exemption

for retirement funds from contribution for purposes you named it so you can keep a nest egg. one of the concerns is people taking money out that shouldn't and we want to do incentives not any one product. income flows that can help people not outlive their him, which happens to fridley. thank you -- and that happens too frequently. thank you. >> i'm interested in working with you and senator portman of the clarification ask. for those following, this important legislation does what it sounds like. retirement plans of churches that generally are not subject to arisa. we have a situation where you ought to preempt state law so you can add these auto enrollment features that are so popular. we have something pending and

will work for sensible solution. senator casey? >> thank you for the hearing and i want to thank our panel for your presence today and work on these issues. i will start not only because of his pennsylvania residents his impact in our state and country, but we are grateful you are here. i want to ask you about the basic dynamic that is played out over a number of decades, the shift from defined benefit to defined contributions. and the implications of that. as you noted the transfer of trillions of dollars in savings to individual investors and from corporations give me a sense if you can as we try to design policy around the question of giving those individual

investors the tools they need to deal with that, the basic change. the question of educating investors, what more can we do? what a model works in terms of giving them the opportunity to become that are educated? >> what we have to do with what we designed a 401(k), design a system and turn it into a retirement plan system. if you think it through, you get close to where you want to be. greater utility and efficiency for investors, there is no question in my mind that it would be improved if they get the cost out of the system. even more than that, owning the stock market senator. such an easy thing to conceptualize.

and we find that investors in mutual funds, it is in my testimony, die day you can pick a good manager for a lifetime of investing -- is the idea that you can pick a good manager for a lifetime of investing. and making the wrong fund choices is another 2% a year. if you would simplify the system and at the same time, investors would have a lot of mystery involved in sign up for a plan. >> is there any experience of based on your work or the work of vanguard asked to -- as to the age or level or the time an individual's life where ended -- where education can be especially significant? is it started earlier? we have had legislative attempts

to make sure that even students at a very young age are exposed. are there any strategy that vanguard has or has been successful with? >> to give my own impression, the way we introduce young people to investing, stock picking contests. that is sending the wrong message to them. which is told a compound interest table and show them how a percentage point amounts over a lifetime to one astonishing amount. when you get to a higher level of age, i do not think there's a single well very few to be fair, this is cool or financial professional who would not tell you what i am telling you inefficient system, ill serving mutual fund investors. i have in my testimony a

statement that is far stronger about the inadequacies, given by david swenson, the manager of the yale endowment. if we listen around, you can say i have a vested interest. i would like to have more competition. it comes down to simplification and on the market all like different managers. >> i will beg to submit questions for the record. the less than a minute i have, i want to ask you -- you made a pointed reference to automatic enrollment and the benefits of that. if you had to look this purely from the point of view of tax code, either where we are today or where we hope to be, and

recommendations for improvements we can make to the code to make it more effective? make changes to tax code to make -- >> i have a one-word answer. s-0i-m-p-l-f-y. >> what chances would you hope to make? >> i think the tax code is very complicated and for middle and high income taxpayers the alternative minimum tax and how it makes it a complete mystery. you have no idea what the incentives are or the penalties to do something on the lower end

of the income scale and interactions between the tax code and social welfare programs. i think very few individuals accurately understand the incentives tax they are saving. the motivation behind it with a low income families and incentive to stay is well-intentioned. if you cannot -- if someone was a phd in economics and cannot sit on a figure out in 10 minutes, it's too complicated. the fact we have so many different ways to save makes it complicated. better off saving and not just retirement system. if i'm an employee at my employer offers a stock purchase program, 401(k), and health savings account and have a limited budget from which i can save, it's complicated to figure out where i should put the

money. and 529 plans and lots of different ways to save. some simplification and consistency across these different plans would be helpful. why a 401(k) three b has to have different rules than a 401(k) versus ira. a lot of it does not make sense. there are a lot of things to do to make things simpler and more straightforward for employers offering plans and individuals trying to decide how do i save for health care, education, a mortgage. >> thank you very much. >> senator portman you are already on a roll with your church clarification plan as from old auto enrollment. just keep going. >> excellent. our panelists say they agreed? >> we are getting --

we are getting's course as quickly as possible. it should not involve that many people. i think it's constructive. >> i appreciate your interest. and i was hearing some the great testimony. what a terrific panel. i know ben was here earlier and we did a lot of work in the house on these issues and we introduce the church plant recently as sooner will what introduced another bill on the issue of nondiscrimination testing issue. something would've told to treasury about and it will be another good clarification program that will help. i'm excited about what would've been able to do. i've statistics. charts a 401(k) and ira's, some are critical of the programs they hear is the reality even

when there are tough economic times would've had. would've gone from $4 trillion to $5 trillion inir -- in ira's to over $10 trillion and does not that. -- and that is not bad. we have to keep it up. encouraging every small business to offer something so every employer has the opportunity and keeping it simple. we have a simple plan they came out of work in the house for small businesses actually called simple. there is more work to be done in terms of taking us on competition and cost of liabilities. i would like your views on how we can make it better. hot one moment -- auto

enrollment, when i talk to companies, 75% participation on average to 95%. that's a great opportunity. there is more opportunity there i believe to expand to more companies. recently, senator warren and i introduce a bill we hope will get outlined which is simply the savings plan with an option from government bonds to a lifecycle plan. i do not know what you all think about that and it seems to me to make more sense for federal employees. if you're interested in that, it is weeks in what do. you think of that for the default in the savings plan? >> in the private sector, the defaults will put in place and the rules that congress has put in for a lifecycle fund have been extremely popular.

they do help sort of get the younger investors into and saving more heavily in the stock market. even while there was talk of younger investors pulling out of the stock market, the lifecycle funds certainly tom a excuse individuals in the 401 -- certainly, it gives individuals and though 401k contributing. the concept for smaller employers to help them more easily offer a plan would be beneficial change in adding to our system. >> i agree. >> i can clearly agree with changing the default program. a huge volume of evidence shows it is extremely persistent fund automatically enrollment. most of the assets will be going into the bond fund. and senator casey's question

earlier, how do individuals learn about, more financially literate? that is evidence as they learn through experience. if you want individuals to learn how to start market works and diversification, having them invest in a lifecycle fund which has a better mix of assets makes a lot of sense. >> there are so many things i would love to talk about and one are the distribution rules. one i find intriguing, should we eliminate minimum distribution rules for plans under $100,000? a lot of people 70.5 are still working. unfortunately, i left a ceo of a major steel company and they are trying to keep their older workers because they have a serious skills gap. what do you think?

>> anyways that we can encourage people to spread out their balances over longer time and we find people wait and do not withdraw until they hit 70.5. life expectancies has increased it merits looking at, whether it needs to be adjusted and other ways. as long as what we do this sort of product neutral again what we want to make sure is we encourage how you are investing and that distribution age available to everyone. >> i think your conclusion is correct there ought to be some objection for minimum distribution requirements that can be taken out without being required to be taken out. i would say on the savings program, i think the savings program needs a portion of an option, if you will, where investor can say i want my money

safer for the last two years for retirement and i know what the market will do. if you really want protection late in the retirement before you retire, she should have a very highly safe -- >> the lifecycle funds and you go to work the end -- and you go toward the end. let me ask a general question. there is discussion about savings in general and low rate of savings and this country and how it affects the economy and the senator and i believe and the chairman does as well and there's talk about a universal savings vehicle. it came up in the bush administration and came up again about new ideas about a universal savings local available to everyone. like what they are doing in canada.

roth type vehicle. what you think of that as it relates to retirement? if you are to pull out for anything, you would have more leakage and less assets, but is that ok because you are decreasing savings and literacy? >> quickly witnesses. >> i will pass in the interest of time. >> i do not know the particulars of the proposal you are talking about, but i do not know if it would make sense to have a universal savings program where you could take it out for anything unless you have much stronger incentives to encourage accumulation and the plan. if you let people take off or anything, they have to put money -- and that the pope more money in the first place. you would need every level out

there and eight counterparts. we know from behavior economics that people engage in mental economics. one problem right now is will allow people to take the money out, so is not clear if the 401(k) or the universal savings plan. >> i didn't know -- i will let you go now if you have any doubts if you will send it to me. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you for this important hearing. according to a new america foundation, 92% of americans are not meeting their retirement savings. medicare and programs like snap and what have an impact on them. i want to look at ways to encourage more savings and certainly offer more of a

lifetime stream of savings. mr. betts, i was wondering if you can comment on programs like a lifetime guarantee annuity product as a way to instant americans to further save and a way to help them make more efficiency out of their dollars. something that w further incentivized by congress. -- that can be further incentivized by congress. >> we do not get into the products. we have seen current legislation introduced opportunities into the plans to have annuity-based structures to better retirement of these plans. our biggest focus is expanding the access so more dollars are going in. we would like to see less of the

disincentives there prevents small employers from starting the plans so that more americans can be contributing. as they grow, video players will put more employer dollars in. from our perspective contributing. we know at retirement, there are variety of different situations and people need the flexibility to make what they need, the right amount of tools for the american person side of their plan is important. >> do you like the annuities businesses are offering? do you think they are successful? >> they have the place -- they have though laser for the right type of person who needs that structure. -- they have the place for the right type of person who needs the structure.

>> the rates are so terribly low. i found there was a place for annuity and eliminate longevity risk. they are so unattractive today i think investors and their visors out to vaguely think about whether they are attractive investments and think about a savings plan, universal savings and we know from history because of inflation putting money in savings over the long run is a loser's game. a negative return of 1% a year. we have to think different about short-term and long-term investments. annuities have a place but they have to come out of the commercial space and more of a public system where there is a fair return. tiaa does a pretty good job of it. it has to be, the annuity for the investors and not for the salesman. it comes down to the costs are

horrendous. but i do not think anybody would disagree with that, take the cost out in the rates will still be low. for certain type of investor who was to ensure the longevity i think they are an attractive option. >> don't you think given the crisis we are facing, it is important to have that fixed? >> the yes, and we shall that opportunity. >> thank you. >> let me tell you it has been very helpful. there are a whole host of issues to be examined, if not a topic for today i feel strongly about getting people to save very early in life and that's what they're talking my savings account. there is common sense approaches you can take. what of the areas that struck me early on is when you talk about

people's modest means and eligibility's can be damaged because somebody sets aside money and they set it aside early on and ways those kind rules to build savings early. today, you have to be troubled by where this debate has gone. the accounting office told as well off taxpayers, 9000 of them have $5 million in their ira's accounts. we have seen press reports of executives with ira's balances over $30 million. you contrast that with what you all have been talking about for the last two hours with the median ira account balance in 2012 being about $21,000. it's pretty clear there is important work to be done. i think i would like to do just

in terms of wrapping up his have you all almost pretend that the roles are reversed a you are on this side of the day it's as senator hatch and i are going to try to stimulate your retirement savings. the way the debate will start is right now the american taxpayer is putting out about $140 billion each year to subsidize a retirement account. this is the second biggest tax expenditure, second-biggest in the cold -- code. you take that juxtaposed to what the general accounting office told us about the mega ira's and $21,000 people have a median amounts in their account. it's clear this committee is

going to have to choices to make. what i would like to do is go down the row and as each one of you for one suggestion, one suggestion of where as part of that effort, with a 140 billion dollars in used to assist these accounts, where would you make a change to get a bigger bang for the taxpayer but? -- buck? this is going to be similar to what the debate will be, making the choice along those lines. >> the first thing -- >> you get one, not a first. >> limp -- eliminate the text adoptions which will impact large investors i would not do that in that situation. >> i would charge expand the

system to measure a more small employers are able to offer plans, starter k. >> similar answer to remove the disincentives and increase incentives for small employers to start. starter k. >> you do not get to $5 million in your 401(k) or ira by investing up to the limits we currently have and putting it into mutual funds. you get there by putting into employer stock and getting really lucky. for every winner with employer stock, there are lots of losers whose companies go bankrupt. i don't think it makes sense to encourage gambling through the tax code by allowing stocks as an option. >> you would support a change in that area? >> yes. >> i would echo the other witnesses and simplified by

offering small employers to get low income workers and improve the incentives to offer the plans. >> ok. at this point, we have senator nelson on his way. what i would like to do is ask our guests, can you stay a few more minutes? when senator nielsen returns he will ask his question and the finance minister -- finance committee will adjourn. we will suspend for a few minutes and the center will be here. thank you for your professionalism and patience with us on a hectic day. nancy must still be stranded in amtrak land. all right.

>> the senator has arrived. senator, it is our plan that you will ask the questions that are important to you and you will adjourn the committee. is it acceptable? >> ok. questions that are important to you because you are on the committee of aging as well and we had a hearing about the extraordinary debt that is carried and would you believe by seniors of all things, student loan debt? and to the point at which

seniors are then if they can't pay, lo and behold, their social security is garnished and that brings them below the poverty level becau you can garnished themse to -- them to $750 down to that level. $750 a month for senior citizens today is lower than the poverty level. >> you are doing very important work and i am sorry i am going to have to go. the fact that so many seniors have racked up these eye-popping dance that in effect are going to color so many of their retirement decisions in the future is especially important and i love forward to working with you.

>> what i want to ask the panel is what impact it has on workers trying to put money aside for retirement? anyone? chris it was them in an impossible situation. student loan debt is enormous. i do not see how you can save beyond that. >> umm, that's right. we recently had somebody talking about, our true savings plan here. the senate has a very successful lan if you're in a company called a profit-sharing plan. the question was propose an idea of opening up a thrift savings plan type entity to everyone.

want to give any thoughts on the concept? yes, sir? >> i mentioned this in my written testimony and i reference in your colleagues from florida was advocated the idea. there are practical issues that need to be overcome, thrift savings is for government employees, streamlined bookkeeping. it is a very easy plan to administer and handle. i favor the of giving savings options for low income workers who are not offered pensions by their employers would explicitly through the tsb or a structure that looks like the tsb, is a very good idea. it is simple, low-cost, offers annuities site you can convert the bells to lifetime income. when you look at it, it answers a lot of questions we have about retirement security. a lot of people do it.

>> how would you go about setting up administratively a plan like that for anyone who wanted to buy into it> >> do you have a running through the individual employers where they would not run of the plan or deduct the money and send it to tsb or run through an ira or individuals would have to do it? having the employers may make it less attractive for the employees. through ira the employee makes the decision and that has no burden on the employers. many employees would fail to do it. how do you make it cheap and easy? the problem with small employers, large employers, it is electronic bookkeeping fairly easy thing to do. your computer does it for you.

small employers are likely to be writing up the check by hand each month and the difficulty of how to make it work for them? a key for encouraging retirement savings is making it easier for small employers to offer these types of plans. >> senator, the thrift savings with all the long-term money in it except for the short-term reserves, 100% index funds. they charge, i believe, 0.025 a year. which you could argue is even better than the vanguard 500 index which charges five basis points, twice as much. the savings plan has a portfolio accounting for participants and beneficiaries and pays in a different sort, so probably about the same. i would as a thrift savings in a different guise is available

to any employer of any size in the nation. >> to echo both points, if you would open up thrift savings to potentially millions of employers, you would have the thrift savings anymore because the administrative savings they get from one employer with long tenured employees with large accounts, those efficiencies. would go away there are options within the private sector through mutual fund, index funds if you choose, low-cost actively, and you can call up any of the companies or discount broker and open up an ira, small employee can work with one of them to open up sort of payroll deduction plan through an ira. the private market has something working very well. >> i am not able to speak to -- >> turner your microphone.

>> i'm not going to speak to the tsp program above my colleagues expanding the accessibility of these plans is very important. you have a one-year bills -- you have in one of your bills that would allow small employers to offer these retirement plans, savings plans with these types of investments that is similar to tsp. >> i agree with what the other panelists have said. >> well, thank you. thank you for participating in events/-- in this.they hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> up next, a discussion on some of the possible top economic stories of 2015. after that, a conversation with elena kagan. and then q&a. the president of la raza. >> the 114th congress gavels in on tuesday. tracking the gop led congress and have your say as events unfold on the c-span networks, c-span radio and www.c-span.org .