they worked when the worst recession since the great depression came, and they were out in the street. this country must do better and i pay tribute to all of you who came here today to join in this effort that has to be renewed. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much for those kind words. speakand i used to times a dayltiple on this issue.

cannot be a more timely conversation and could be not more timely because the labor market -- is the worst part is a -- benefits have expired, both of which we have done in recent years. i wanted to provide some broad economic context that motivates the reforms. talk about some of the economic benefits of ui, and talk about some of the ways the current system could be strengthened and present proposals the president put forward, but notably, these proposals have a lot in common with a lot of the proposals in the new report. the most important thing is not even any of the specifics, but making sure we are all having a conversation, both about the ideas i will be talking about, but other thought-provoking ideas be jobseekers allowance,

which merits further discussion and consideration. to start, with three economic problems that i worry about every day, and the ui reform, currently plays a role in helping with and can play an even better role, i wanted to begin with number one, the decline in the labor force participation rate. the council of economic advisers put out a report on this topic. the basic upshot of it is labor force participation for decades was rising because women were entering the workforce. starting around 2000, that process ended. the process --- aging of the

population and the great recession -- recession. all of that combined to put us on a downward trajectory in terms of labor force participation, and introductory that i would be worried about that would continue going forward, unless we take steps. one thing we point out is if you look at international context, the united states has lower labor force participation rate for prime age men and women than many other countries and that is notable because our unemployment insurance system like the rest of our social safety net is notably less generous than other countries. we need labor markets that are not just flexible, but also supportive and help people find jobs. the second issue is our ability

to respond to future recessions, and the two main policy tools we have our fiscal policy and monetary policy. fiscal policy does not face an economic constraint, but unfortunately may face some political constraints in terms of its time we use. monetary policy, because we have real interest rates which have been declining for decades across a range of countries and were low even before the great recession, have less scope for interest rate reduction than we have in the past, and thus last room for monetary policy to respond for recessions, which makes the improvement of automatic stabilizers all the more important than it ever has been. the final challenge we are dealing with is the changing nature of the employment relationship. recent research by alan krueger has found that if you look in nonstandard employment, independent contractors, temporary workers, that it is rising quite rapidly, from 9% in

1995, to 16% in 2015. the parts of the economy that have gotten the most attention is a small portion of this, but is growing and understanding how we can revise our system as a whole, including unemployment in light of trends like this, is important. it is also important that the majority of people are in more traditional, standard employments. we don't want to invent a brand-new system, but we want to make sure it works for this increasing group of people. i want to briefly go through why ui is economically important. traditionally, the two arguments you would hear are that it provides household incomes would it -- households income when they need it most. if you look between 2008 and 2012, 11 million people were

lifted above the poverty line by unemployment insurance. the second, which is closely related, is it acts as automatic stabilizer, reducing recessions. it does that for two reasons. one is, it is automatic. it does not require the government to do anything or -- statistical agencies to report on anything. the second is the gives money to people who are temporarily low income, thus most likely to spend it. the congressional office has found the unemployment insurance is among the most effective automatic stabilizers in terms of bang for the buck. in the last decade or so, economic research has added two other reasons why unemployment insurance is so important and documented. the first is you only get unemployment insurance if you

are looking for work. unemployment insurance can help keep you attached to the labor force, keep you looking for a job rather than just giving up and leaving the labor force entirely. that is important because once you give up, it is even harder to get back into it. when you look at that trend in labor force participation, this is particularly important. unemployment provides liquidity and helps workers find better job matches. you can imagine a world where you punish people for being unemployed and if you had that world, people would probably find a job very quickly, the job would be terrible for them and their future earnings. this allows them to find a better one. i want to talk about some of the downsides and trade-offs. all programs have downsides. when i was in graduate school, the chart we sought to illustrate, the downside of

unemployment insurance, was this one. it showed the chance that you left unemployment when your benefits expired. people would say look at that. that is in the case of austria. people leave unemployment. if benefits expire earlier, they would leave unemployment earlier and everything would be better. it turns out economists have taken a look at this, and this effect is one, but the other up next i was talking about related to liquidity, giving you more money and flexibility, so the question is, those people who left unemployment, why did they leave? it turns out it was not because the benefits were expiring, it turns out benefits were

expiring, so they no longer say looking for jobs because that is what you need to be doing to be unemployed. you that the odds people become unemployed, become employed, those are unrelated to the duration of benefits. think the benefits are doing is, it might cause higher measured unemployment, but the majority of that is for the people who say they are looking for a job, which means they are classified as unemployed, rather than giving up and leaving the workforce. there is some trade, and that is why unemployment insurance benefits replace only a fraction of your earnings and are time-limited. the right trade-off depends on the situation of the economy. i want to briefly put on the table six shortcomings of the current system that could be strengthened, and these are shortcomings that are very similar to the one i did find in the report we are discussing,

some of which they have talked about. the first is the decline in coverage, down to about a quarter of people. this is in part because of changing economic circumstances, but a lot of this is a deliberate choice on the part of state. nine states have cut the number of weeks below 26. in north carolina, it is 13 weeks. those, as well as tightened eligibility in most states, those choices have reduced the percentage of workers that are covered by unemployment insurance. on the second issue, -- in terms of the response, the administration's proposal is to make 26 weeks mandatory and to cover a wider range of workers, including part-time and people who lose their jobs due to certain pressing circumstances. the second is the insolvency of state programs.

we saw 36 states having to take emergency loan in the last recession. even today, 60% of states don't have enough money in their trust fund to cover a single year of benefits in the recession. basically the type of standard you want to look at in several states continue to be in debt. what we propose is to reform the unemployment insurance financing mechanism which would make it more efficient and fair, as well as taking it better able to deal with solvency. taking a tax base which has been frozen at $7,000 for a long time , raising it up to $46,000, and indexing that to inflation, going forward. at the federal level, we would make that revenue neutral by cutting the federal tax rate, but we would expect a lot of states which would have to match the new tax base to rise up and get additional revenue to

improve their solvency. the third issue is ineffective countercyclical triggers. they are ineffective in two ways. the problem is during a recession, they have basic balance budget requirements and they are expected to cut spending, not increase it. the government is in a better position to borrow in a recession. the second is the way to triggers themselves are designed. at the end of 2013, the ui expired even though the duration of unemployment was higher than any previous recession. we put forward a proposal that would reform the trigger and make them 100% federally financed and they would be triggered by sustained high

unemployment or a large rise in it. next is incentives to reduce unemployment. you see dean baker and -- on the left and right have proposed this idea, something we did in 2012 unemployment insurance reforms and something we are getting additional support for, both incentives for states to take up short-term compensation as well as administrative funding in recession. the fifth issue is insufficient support for job search. united states spends 1/10 of a percent of the gdp in the active labor market.

the average is 6/10 of 1%. we are below every country except chile or mexico. we want to propose incentives for states to adopt a variety of different ways that help people search for jobs, and get into jobs, and finally, insufficient insurance against more adverse job prospects. this is that unemployment insurance helps you if you don't have a job, it does not help you if the only job you can find has lower wages. one way to help deal with those trade-offs is to give people more of an incentive to take a new job, rather than taking away the support they get ui. we will conclude by saying we are looking forward to this conversation, and as i said, it could not be more timely.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you both for those terrific presentations. maybe we can start talking about the atmospherics around this issue as you have been so involved in recent efforts to extend ui and in the past to reauthorize it. inevitably in those debates, there is a stigma around unemployment, but yet we see the

beginning, so many americans really experienced it at some point in their employment history. other ways you think we can get past that so we could get a conversation we do not have to be in an emergency situation to think about how we can strength in this program and prepare for those recessionary periods as opposed to having to constantly do it in a crisis moment? >> one way to do it would be to have a discussion in this presidential campaign, to elevate it. the purpose of unemployment insurance, jason has laid out so vividly why unemployment insurance is not a welfare program. it is vital for the nation's economy. we argued that endlessly, and we

said if you cut off unemployment insurance, it is likely that a substantial number of people will drop out, maybe for good. we just need to elevate this discussion as part of what this country is really all about and not leave it to next year. >> do you think that is part of it, people do not appreciate the number of people leaving the workforce? >> there are two and a half million people on ui right now, but during the great recession, 70 million people, including the workers, their families and more than 17 million children, benefited from unemployment insurance. something that affect a lot of people. what i found in the debate last time was really fatigue. by the end of 2013, we had had

this for seven years, do we need it for another year, as opposed to saying, congress originally passed the extended emergency benefits in 2008 when the unemployment rate was at 5.5% and long-term unemployment was relatively low. in 2013, the unemployment rate was higher. the long-term unemployment rate was a lot higher. you should not think of it as you have done it for a certain number of years, we should think of it as one of the objective economic circumstances and do they justify it? 2008 andustified it in they still did in 2013, but people not tired of it and that is unfortunate, part of why we want to make it more automatic so there is less

discussion. >> it is very relevant to some of the issues that are being discussed in its own way, income inequality. also in terms of corporate responsibility. what is happening in the states is the states are essentially ducking this issue, in many cases making it worse, and we need to have a constructive discussion with the world of business about their obligation, because everybody suffers, including the entire structure,

when we have close to chaos. i remember going back 20 years, we talked about these triggers in the present structure. impossible, they don't work. the importance of today is that they will hopefully project this issue into an honest constructive discussion of what unemployment insurance, the role it plays in the lives of people and the economic life of this country. >> you mentioned that the role of states, that obviously creates a lot of the inconsistencies on state to state in terms of benefits, but brings challenges, the fact that it is a federal/state partnership. do either of you have thoughts about how to think about that, moving over, if we were able to think about the program in new and different ways?

>> i could talk about what has happened in michigan, what the state of michigan did was decide they were going to go over to an automatic system. they were going to even further diminish, so they went off to this automatic system and thousands and thousands of people as a result -- when so far it turns out that in the past majority of cases, that was not true, and what happened as a

result of this kind of blind, automatic thought about unemployment insurance is people who were not at fault at all had their wages garnished and have their income tax returns taken back by the u.s. government. there are all kinds of reasons for us to take a hard look and for all of us to do this creatively. >> the federal government pays a decent fraction of unemployment insurance. -- cuts benefits to 13 weeks, and in light of that, it is really important to take a look at what the set of rules are, what the principles you are operating on, and one of them should be that if you want to be a part of this program, you will offer 26 weeks of benefits, and we will give you extra in the event that the unemployment rate in your state is high on a

basis. >> if you do not have a federal component, if it is every state on its own, what happens is there is a race to the bottom, and people are forced to to work -- to look for work, elsewhere and it has a disruptive impact on family life. i said during the recession for people, we thought we should not extend the benefits, just go home and talk to the families of people when you cut the unemployment insurance or it was not extended.

people instead of looking for work where their kids were, or the kids were in school, and often where the spouse worked, you had to pick up and leave, what are the consequences? >> that's persuasive, for some of them at least. can you talk about some of the things the administration has proposed to try to prevent job loss and connect unemployment insurance with training opportunities and talk about what you put forward and if you have ideas -- >> before we get into specifics, i want to make an optimistic point. we did unemployment insurance modernization, let a lot of the

work, the congressman was obviously very deeply involved, that was something that has been gestating for a long time, with different proposals and discussions like the one we are having today. we came back in 2012 and added some things. we have a number of things we would like to see, and part of the spirit of what the president's perform proposal is is building on the success of recent years and making sure having a conversation now, and not because he is it is going to happen right away, but to make sure that when we come back to

it, we have laid the foundation. i think all of the proposals are very much in the spirit of ui is a great program, and we need to build on it to make it even better because of changing circumstances and the economy, but also because of changing circumstances in public policy. that includes all the things i was talking about, before. let's make sure people can get it, it is an important program, it make sure you to prevent you from losing a job or helps you find a job, or a few cannot find the greatest job, helps compensate you for that as well, so broadening the coverage. >> i think the conversation has to go on with the people who had been at odds, but also among those of us who are dedicated to improving the system, because there are different ideas. how you relate job training to unemployment insurance, it has been 20 years ago, when kitty

higgins who was then the chief of staff, who had worked in the labor department since she was 18 eventually became the chief of staff. we tried to start a conversation about how you really intervene earlier, and how you really tried to link job training and other ideas about people sharing less employment, all of these ideas are sometimes difficult and are sometimes a bit controversial, even among people who basically agree, we need to have a very forthright conversation because this system

, and our country, is backwards compared to most countries. it remains true in canada when there is a likely layoff, there is much earlier intervention on an organized basis, in terms of what is going to happen next for those families, ensuring unemployment insurance and building a training and retraining program much earlier. instead, you go to most state unemployment offices today and while there used to be a top service with human beings to provide advice, and many offices, there is almost nobody there. >> something we need to tackle together. we have a few more minutes, so we have time for a couple of questions. >> i think this is incredibly

important. it is incredibly complex, i think on the whole, most folks in this country don't even begin to understand the interdependencies. my own view is one place for the government is failing us is explaining these processes in terms that the general voter can know what you are talking about. alan alda did an amazing thing in explaining complex science to 11-year-olds because that is the level you have to reach if you want the voter to understand it. we end up having metrics that do not work. the idea that the gross domestic product tells us what the average income is and when you have 40% of the income of the upper 1% or whatever, people have a sense that the general public is better off than they are. you have to think about all

these tiny details, and i would get a whole lot of people engaged in coming up with answers. i don't understand where the jobs are going to come from. there was a piece in the washington post, the solution to our carbon problem was to have the federal government buy all of the coal mines in west virginia and not mine them. i looked at how many miners there are in west virginia, 183,000. you talk about your uninsurance, if they don't have income, everything in the state comes to a standstill. i'm asking you to explain it with all the details and places and you have to do it visually. >> thank you for that question. i know jason does a lot -- spent

a lot of time getting -- and you did a terrific job translating the numbers. jason: an expanded version of my remarks will be on the council of economic advisor website and we work together. i'm sure you have done all sorts of floor charts that give brutal images about how many millions of people are being cut off from benefits or what the consequences will be. i think we certainly made an effort and can continue to. >> we try. we will try harder. host: i would note that cap has a paper on using royalties coming from federal resources

mind on federal lands to fund training programs for workers to be retrained to be able to do different kinds of jobs. that is one idea we have in terms of figuring out how we can prepare people for the next set of jobs. we have time for one more question. >> i heard those two interesting things and i wondered if each of you could expand on. bipartisan support, we have not had so much of that. how much do you conceive that is feasible and the second was, making this a leading theme and they president of campaign. it seems to me that is a very high potential item and might even be connected with bipartisan support, but what were you thinking of? >> you are right. we need to have very direct conversations about what we are discussing here. i think what we are going to do

is try to have people tell their stories. just what this has meant in the lives of people. i think that gentlemen in front him.be we close with >> you mentioned some kind of glitch in the automatic system in michigan, where some unemployed people have their wages garnished, and their tax returns confiscated. whatever happened with that? did they get their money back? >> the answer is, we are working hard at it. we had a press conference to go

back to the comment the gentleman behind you made, in michigan, in detroit, in front of the state office, of people who had been impacted. maybe this is a good place to close as you go to the next panel, what motivated us is we tried to extend this program, not endlessly, and we acknowledge there might be some need to cut short the weeks because you could argue about some of those details, but the basic thrust for us was always clear, and that was, what does -- what is this country all about? we just need to elevate

unemployment insurance issues as part of an honest debate in this country, as to what happens in the time of recession. the notion is that it will all come out in the wash, it needs to be challenged by those are the victims of that kind of approach, so that is what we are doing with this problem in michigan, and it is both a federal and a state responsibility, because we have this mixed system, and there is not the suggestion that the federal government take it over entirely.

we have a blended system in this complicated country, and what we need to do is have this debate, what should the federal role and i think as jason has outlined, there has to be certain minimums, but then there has to be a state responsibility combined with that, but the states need to step up to it, and instead, what they are doing now is ducking their responsibility in many cases. employers are doing that, because they don't want their taxes raised, but in the end, if you have another recession, then everybody gets hurt and more importantly, then your next panel will discuss that, we need to have an honest discussion about how you blend training and retraining with the strong unemployment insurance system.

instead, we've been cutting down retraining in this country. you talk about this equilibrium, inequality, though these are vivid examples, so i think hopefully today, we will project this into the dialogue that we are going to have these next months, as we decide who will be president of the united states next. >> thank you. jason: this is a great conversation, and it illustrates the answer to the bipartisan question from before, in 2009, when we raise the number of weeks to 99 weeks in recognition of the economic circumstances,

it was passed in the senate, and number of the reform proposals here set a minimum for states but also set more flexibility and tools for states to use, that many states have been eager for and we have seen support from both sides of the aisle. there have been moments where it really was a partyline debate and it resulted in millions of people being cut off from benefits, that it is not always that way and having conversations like this can help build support to really do things about this in the future . >> thank you for having us. >> thank you. we will do some storytelling from someone who has experienced the system firsthand. we asked the audience to think our panelists for joining us, today. [applause]

>> thank you so much for your leadership on behalf of the american families. we have heard today about how ui is nothing short of a lifeline through workers who are laid off through no fault of their own. three in four jobless workers are without this lifeline. no call to expand and strengthen unemployment protections would be complete without the real experiences of unemployment for families. experiences that speak to ui's vital role in boosting economic security, underscore the expanding of the work force before the next recession, and they demonstrate how valuable similar protections could be for workers who remain ineligible for ui. to share one such experience, it is my honor to introduce our

next speaker. she comes to us from jackson, mississippi, where she and her husband are raising two daughters. after earning her masters degree, she worked in the health education field for a decade. last december, she was laid off from her nonprofit job due to budget cuts. ui has been instrumental in helping her family navigate the difficulties of unemployment, which are made more challenging for her family by medical expenses, while allowing her to search for a job that fits her skills and interests. i am pleased to welcome her. [applause] laquita: hello. as she stated, growing up in

jackson mississippi, the oldest of five, to an army father and full-time working mother, there was a plan for our lives. you go to school, you go to church and you hopefully get a good job and retire, and that was our life plan. i followed the plan, i went off to college and got a degree in psychology and a masters in human services. i returned home to the place that raised me and provided me education to be with my husband and my family, and to secure a life for us. i settled in and in 2012, doctors discovered to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. we settled into a neurologist visits, visiting the eye doctor to learn how to care for my vision, how to care for my neuritiswith optic

family to care for my sclerosis, and what that means when it comes to medical expenses, to our bills, to the medicine i require, and then we settled into me working as a health educator, and i was there for five years and last year, i got the news, i have the meeting that none of us want. they told me it is not you, it is our budget, and so we will have to let you go. then i said ok, now what happens? how does our family survive on one income? then, we learned that unemployment benefits would be available to us, to our family, so we made the decision to remove our seven-year-old daughter from aftercare. she could be home with me since i would be home looking for a job, and that would alleviate some of the burden of our expenses. then we decided to leave our two-year-old daughter in day

care because we knew how important it was that i had time during the day to look for a job. you cannot look for a job with a two-year-old, so we made a decision to sacrifice and leave her there. what did we do about insurance? i had insurance through my job. we made the decision to apply for a chip for our daughters and they were covered because of meet receiving unemployment benefits. then, we look at our budget and we said ok, how can we make this work? how can unemployment sustain us while we're working with one budget, and so we made the decision to pay our mortgage first, that was the priority. all other things would come next, such as day care and we

streamlined things in our home, reducing our cell phone bill, apply for my medications that i needed through a pharmaceutical company and they were able to cover them as a result of me being on unemployment and showing them that unemployment does not mean i am waiting for a handout. that means that i am actively seeking work, that i am looking for something new, i don't want to just take a position that matches no interest of mine, or provides no addition to the career that i plan to move award -- forward in. this is not the end for me when it comes to unemployment. it is a transition to a different getting. for 10 years, i worked in the field of public health, so that is what i knew. for five years, they were aware

of my ms diagnosis, so i was comfortable because if i needed to take a break because of the heat or there were things i had forgotten because of ms, they understood and were willing to work with me. it was a fear of mine, how can i move over to a new position if they are not aware? should i disclose to them? how can i be comfortable in a new place and how can i be sure the stigma or discriminatory things won't happen if i disclose i have m.s. it has given me a cushion. it allowed me the ability to keep my daughter home with me in the afternoons while i was looking for employment during the day. it allowed me to work part-time

or contract positions to keep experienced and not be unemployed for long stretches of time, and that is a big no-no to have a gap in employment. it gave me the flexibility of looking for something new and to be able to move forward in a different career, if necessary. as i keep moving forward in the progression of my career and allowing my daughters to stay in daycare and after-care, i am grateful for unemployment and for what it is giving to our family and for providing what could have been a catastrophic event. it has allowed us to stay in our home, allowed us not to lose our

lights or our cell phones. we qualify for women, infants, and children's program which provides a monthly meal benefit as a result of our 2-year-old daughter and being unemployed, and it has given us a safety net that we may not have had as result of me being laid off. and i am grateful for that because it -- being unemployed would otherwise result -- and many of us go to our day-to-day lives being stressed. like. know what that's disease whereth a bey tell you not to stressed, it exacerbates things

for you. how do you deal with that when you are told you are unemployed or you have a seven-year-old daughter who worries, are we going to run out of money? we say, we are not going to run out of money, we are still going to do fun things or making life comfortable and happy for her, has been a result of me receiving unemployment, and i'm grateful for that. never in my life did i think i would be in a place where i would share the story of unemployment. i always thought i would work, always thought i would follow the line of going to church, going to school, and getting a job. but even in this place, i am still going to church, and if need be, i will go back to school because i have sufficient -- the cusion of unemployment, and i will be back in the market force. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share my story, just many other people's stories. so thank you. [applause]

host: we will start off by thanking laquita for herstory. it goes to the grounding of how we talked about the economics of the program and policy perspective. we heard about the human story about what it is so important, and i'm delighted to have a distinguished panel with us to talk about both policy solutions and how we can get from where we are today to a point where we have a strengthened and more modern unemployment insurance system. i will introduce the panel. to my right is valerie wilson, the director of the program on race at the economic policy institute, a recognized source for policy analysis on the economic condition of america's people of color. to her right, is claire mckenna, a national expert on

unemployment insurance. to her right is a senior fellow at the georgetown center on poverty and inequality, also spent time on the ways and means and was a force behind the modernization efforts discussed earlier. finally, portia wu, leads the employment and training administration, which is the agency that -- so very relevant conversation. i want to start up, we heard a lot about the broad standards, the next recession, i was wondering if the two of you could cover an overview of what we are discussing today with policy recommendations along

those lines for us to react to and discuss. >> to review unemployment insurance is a federal-state partnership. states are granted flexibility in program areas, benefit eligibility, adequacy, and financing, and the result is very significant state variation in key program metrics. for example, the share of the states unemployed populations that receive unemployment insurance benefits, race with income replacement, which varies inevitably, and trust fund solvency, the financial health of the state programs. and jason reviewed some of the ways that states are short in these areas. our proposal advocate a stronger federal role in the federal state partnership by recommending a series of new, broader federal program standards in key program areas.

we really are at a point in the program's history where we can no longer ask states to do the right thing and maintain properly financed adequate unemployment insurance programs. so, our proposal that makes modernizations of interest in three categories, and the first category would expand access to reemployment and services and it would expand job retention measures especially a program called work sharing, which has been referred to earlier. worksharing is a type of

unemployment insurance program that allows employers to preserve -- during a slow that i reducing job schedules in places of laos. -- of layoffs. it has proven effective across the world, but it has never been used in the united states, unfortunately. our second set of recommendations are focused around expanding benefit eligibility and strengthening benefit adequacy, and a number of recommendations should be familiar, but we go further in this area of recommendations and say the administration's strong proposal and even the recovery act legislation of 2009. the proposal recommends a monetary eligibility standard that would apply across states, extending as ability to part-time workers, which plays a significant role in the u.s. labor market as well as expanding eligibility to a variety of other workers and employment

arrangements. i will turn to my co-author to describe the rest of the proposal. >> thank you, claire. i wanted to touch on the allowance which is a new idea, just found in other countries, especially the united kingdom, we think is a compliment to the unemployment insurance proposal we have laid out. first of all, we tried with the proposal to expand the ways in which we thought were defensible based on research and helps with aspects of the program. that it is a contributory program, and secondly, that even as it serves many of the purposes that i will discuss later, and we have already heard from, against recent loss of earnings, a reduction of hours. that means the most robust system will not reach every

unemployed worker. that is especially true in the case of new entrants into the labor force and re-entrants in some cases, people who have taken time out. we propose an allowance that would pay a modest benefit, half of the unemployment insurance weekly benefit on average, and for about half as long, 40 -- about 3 months. people who are actively seeking work. who might this new program particularly help? and some of the beneficiaries and some of the beneficiaries are obvious and and some are not. one group we think is left out

and would be left out of any u.i. system is young people. we have a real crisis in this country with youth employment. there are 5 million young people -- young adults and teenagers from who are out of work and school. to give you a sense of it, the teen unemployment rate, 60%, but among african-american teens, 30%. that you think about people might take time out of the workforce, people will be taking time out for caregiving responsibilities with an aging population, but also responsible of his four children. and while we need programs like paid leave to help people fulfill these duties can we need to take it seriously when laquita is saying is a full-time job to look for work. jobcally you don't get assistance. jobseekers allowance would be a modest benefit that would help acknowledge what we are telling people, but not living up to our in our country. we have people leaving jails in the u.s., and they are not eligible for assistance, so this could be part of a strategy.

as we think about some of the economic trends in the working and middle class to be sure the job seekers allowance reaches up to the social security taxable wage base, which is up to $100,000 a year, this is a benefit that could help fulfill a hole as people use nonstandard working arrangements. legitimatelylways true, so that is something that we acknowledge in the report and ought to be addressed. if workers are misclassified, they are misclassified. this could be a help for that. final thing i want to mention is while this benefit is clearly for a wide swath of the working and middle class, the reality is for those at the very bottom, we

have gutted our safety net in and this is one way states can engage in active labor market policy. people really want to work. this is an important tool that can help us get them there, whether or not there is a recession. >> now i want to invite you to react. you are experts on unemployment insurance, reemployment training and the economy. i would invite your comments on the proposal as well as some of the broader trend and need of the unemployment insurance system. >> thank you for allowing me to be part of the discussion. i agree that if we do not continue this discussion enough , it gets swept aside or

overlooked or not be as urgent as the discussions we are having, that we need emergency benefits. but the whole idea strengthening and expanding the system is critical. we have already talked about how women and people of color are disproportionately and the types of jobs that this certainly have not been covered by unemployment insurance. we know our workforce is growing increasingly diverse. we talked about rising women's participation, but also demographics are changing. 2015,n we see that in only one in four unemployment workers are receiving benefits, it has a lot to do with what the population looks like. another important point you have made talking about strengthening the federal component of the system is the fact there is a lot of state variation. that state variation unfortunately is not random.

it does not have a random effect. many of the states that have not adopted the monetization changes that cut their unemployment duration or tighten the eligibility, especially in the southern united states, that is significant because over 60% of african-american workers live in these southern states. when those changes are made to so when those kinds of changes are made to the system they have a disproportionate effect. the components of the proposal that really try to address what happened to that variation state, variation is relevant. the cost of living varies across states. the certain result in segments of the population really being hurt more drastically when we have an economic downturn.

the other part that is critical is this piece on reemployment services. because when you are out of a job, if you live in a community where many of your neighbors are out of a job, how do you get reconnected to the system? many jobs are identified and secured by people that we know or references that we can get. having something systematic like that, where there is a place people can go to get information about what employment opportunities are available and where they are available and other services that are critical to doing that are important as well. we have already talked about extending benefits to people who are nonstandard workers. really excited to see this piece about the jobs because amounts. .- jobseekers allowance

that is getting to something that hasn't been talked about a lot. but it needs to be talked about when we look at younger workers, those who were finishing school in 2007, 2 thousand 8, 2009, 2010, that was really bad timing that they enter the workforce during one of the worst economic downturns in our history. and they were doing what they were supposed to do. they planned for having a stable, successful life. you go to church and go to school and get a job. but if you get out of school at jobs, when losing 800,000 what do you do? we still have bills, expenses, your parents may not be in the best economic situation either, so i think something like a

jobseekers allowance is critical especially for those downturn moments but also in any economy. look at demographic differences. the black unemployment rate is nearly twice the white and employment rate and it is high because those are people who are looking for work. it is not people who want to make any effort. there are people looking for work that are not finding jobs. economic support helps to stabilize income during those periods. >> porsche, i want to turn it over to you. a reaction, as jason talked about earlier, the administration has a proposal to modernize unemployment insurance and there are a lot of similarities highlighted in our support. it is important we have this debate right now. d.c. areaof us in the

who take metro, we all recognize the downside to ongoing neglect. let's not wait until we are in a smoke and fire situation to take action on ui. we've got a growing economy, a chance to catch our breath. we need to be looking at proposals. forward a lot of great ideas but as many speakers have emphasized this has to be a broader conversation. it's got to have business and everyone at the table to think about how we not only strengthen but also modernize the system. one other theme i will touch on that i was excited to hear about , because of the training administration where we deal with not only unemployment .nsurance but job training i have heard more bringing together than ever before of these two worlds. that makes a lot of sense.

need to talk about unemployment insurance, it is not just an important stabilizer and supporting families through a shock as opposed to a catastrophe, but it is also about the skills in our economy. making sure people have the time to look for the job that is the best fit. inyou have a masters degree computer programming but you can't find a job because of a downturn, we don't want you flipping burgers. plus, someone else needed that job. really, having a good skill match -- but seems we are seeing in the report and the administration proposal of adequate funding to the states that run the system, basic weeks of benefits, making sure people have the time and funds to look for work and also having the strong support to make these connections to make sure that

skills are matched appropriately to jobs. that is the most efficient outcome to our economy. one other question i have is that we talked a lot about the federal state partnership. has the needone for stronger standards across states, particularly in ways that exacerbate disparities. in addition to setting the standards and provides additional resources to states that would strengthen their state economy and their ability to meet these standards. can you speak about the recommendations that your report make and the administration makes and meeting the new federal standards? think it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that states have enough funds to administer their programs.

there is no excuse for claimants receiving their payments late or not being able to properly file an appeal or have some serious challenges navigating new claims manyg technologies which states are currently implementing, so our proposal does advocate increasing federal administrative funding for ui -- i am and it also encouraged by the fact that the department of labor was able to secure additional hunting for reemployment service is -- services. think that in order to meet the needs of our labor market, the reemployment needs of our labor market, we should increase funding for reemployment services and also increase funding for reemployment

services for a larger universe of jobseekers. at 2010, if you had asked me how much i thought the --es

it improves skills and job quality. >> obviously, it can help with stimulus and that is not just during the recession. is fundamentally targeted. it goes to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

it is targeted whether we have an expansion or a recession. it can prevent layoffs. layoffs themselves are hmful. mental healtheir and physical health to their kids in some cases too and it can prevent layoffs. 1.4 million foreclosures were reduced during the financial crisis. unemployment insurance can be a major response when there are disasters, which we can expect more of. finally, it can strengthen families and if you didn't get that from the story, i don't know how to make it more compelling. fundamentally, it can help people escaping domestic violence, who need to separate from work, the need to follow a andse, they have illnesses, this program is not some small program. i think communicating that

clearly is vital. i think broadly, introducing this in the politics of economic instability, finally just think her story did a good job of bringing this up -- that security and opportunity go hand-in-hand. porsche'snt to echo point about the excellent academic research that -- 's point. it is an important point to make as much as we can. from my perspective it would be important to think about how we engage the employer community. my perspective a outside role in state legislatures, especially where much of ui policymaking occurs.

if we can try to engage partners in that community, i think that would help all of us. trying to engage our labor partners who also interact with the employer community on a regular basis, trying to make a really strong case that unemployment insurance is an important program and something they should care about. my co-panelists have already made a lot of excellent points. i will try to summarize. what all of this comes down to is messaging. in order to move this issue forward, we have to first win the messaging battle and that wires getting it out of this whole succession of welfare programs -- as that term was used earlier -- or people not putting forward an effort to work and living off employment insurance instead of finding a job which is actually ridiculous

because you get just a fraction of what you earned. really moving beyond that, talking about how we can strengthen the system, i think we have made some progress. we are talking about strengthening and expanding ui, which was different from just saying, please don't cut it. i think there is still a lot of work to be done on the messaging end of it and getting the story .ut but also the benefits of ui also, the fact that we have just come through the great recession and been in this slow recovery for a number of years, i think there is a greater willingness or ability of people to identify with the need for that, much like we are seeing with the national discussion on inequality. people kind of see, "i am a part

of that." that includes many more of us. some of the events that have happened over the last several years have open people's ears to the importance of things like unemployment insurance and other aspects of our social safety net as well. >> thank you to this amazing panel. i am especially excited we got to have this conversation not a week after ui has expired and we are scrambling to do an extension but we actually have time to think about, how do we modernize the system to help more workers, more families and the economy overall. we can begin to build off these great recommendations to build a political and public will to get there and please join me in thanking these panelists and please come up afterwards if you have questions. [applause]

>> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. this morning, congressman jim to discussjoin us gun control legislation after the two recent shootings of black men by police and the fatal shootings of five police officers by a sniper in dallas. talkessman himes will

about the presidential campaign and the effect of brexit on markets. congressman scott richardson will talk about legislative matters and their future of the republican party. please be sure to watch washington journal, beginning live at 7:00 eastern this morning. years after taking off her us david cameron announced his resignation. he will be succeeded by theresa may. he spoke to members of the press in front of 10 downing street. here's a look. >> good afternoon. i am delighted we are not going to have a prolonged leadership election campaign. i think andrea leadsom has made

the right decision and it is clear theresa may has overwhelming support of the conservative parliamentary party. i am also delighted that theresa may will be the next prime minister. , ands strong, competent she is more than able to provide the leadership the country needs in the years ahead and she has my full support. we don't need to have a long. of transition and so tomorrow i will share my last cabinet meeting. on wednesday, i will attend the that,of commons and after i will offer my resignation. we will have a new prime minister by wednesday evening. thank you very much. >> david cameron's final

appearance before the house of commons is wednesday, live at 7 a.m. -- 7:00 a.m. on c-span2. road.'s voices from the our city tour unit stopped in cleveland to ask voters what issues the next president needs to address. there are a lot of good things, some things work good, but at least we have a health plan in place that we do not need to destroy but we do need to tweak it. when you to make it better. we have something in place to work with and we haven't had that for the last four presidencies. let's build on that and make it stronger. >> i'm interested in the candidate that shows concern for issues of higher education. the cost of tuition has rise to

at a rate of five times and that forces students like me to extend student loans. i can get a car loan for 1% so i am interested in a president that is willing to mitigate that and express concern for millennials like me in similar situations. who it is, thef biggest issue is the polarization. we are supposed to be the united states of america and it is not serving anybody's interest to have this type of polarization by the opinionated's and the blog sphere. if we don't come together it doesn't matter who is president. we are going to get more of the same. no issue is so extreme as we are being told that it can't be solved. it has to be solved by compromise. whatever you think of the other side, it is not going to help.

the next president needs to unite a lot more than is being portrayed in the campaign right now because the division of our country is the biggest enemy that we face right now. >> voices from the road on c-span. rachel off, the first openly gay member of the republican national platform committee urged the party to evolve and called in them not to exclude gays. it included support of language toward the lgbt community but was voted down. we will show you part of yesterday's committee meeting ahead of their national convention beginning july 18. this part is 45 minutes. >> we are getting ready to resume and the first amendment -- thatl be considering

we will be considering is from philip wilson, the delegate from the state of washington. if i could ask delegate wilson to be ready? i see the microphone is on as people were getting today seats. two, line five. the delegate from washington state. >> i would like to insert it between eight and nine. would you like me to read the text? more amendments to go. i appreciate your patience and willingness to work through these. we've got nine to go before we adjourn for the evening.

we have the amendment from philip wilson from page two of the health education and crime plank. please proceed. >> we believe that children have a natural right to be raised in an intact biological family. while brokenness can befall children in a myriad of ways, we acknowledge that children are made to be loved by both natural parents and united in marriage. legal structures such as no-fault divorce which divides statees and empowers the should be replaced by a fault-based divorce. would you like to speak to that? focus has been on the parents or the adults and very little has gone to children

, although some of that is addressed in other areas in this platform. really, a child does not have -- is not going to go into court with their parent is taken away from them at five years old. they are not going to be found in court saying "i have a right to my father." the structures we put in place for the state are really important to protect children. the adults will be able to take care of themselves in ways that the children are just not going to be able to do. vee legal structure we ha should encourage family staying together rather than the state coming in to split up families. that is what happens in no-fault divorce. is theppens as a result state grows bigger because now you've got all these other people to take care of.

gk chesterton, a philosopher from 100 years ago said frivolous divorce will lead to frivolous marriage and that is where we are at today. i would like to submit that has an amendment. >> the amendment is on the floor, discussion? delegate from kentucky. >> thank you. i would like to speak on this quickly. this amendment is nothing new. it was proposed during the subcommittee level and it failed because it never even received a subcommittee felt there were a few problems with it. i will just raise one. we talked about -- it talks about an intact biological family. this does not account for the vast number of adopted children that are in our families all across this country.

so because of that, i am thinking in the interest of time , may be since it never received a second in committee we might want to just move on from this. >> the chairman is to apologize for not asking for a second for getting it. it is moved and seconded. the delegate from new york? i'm sorry, ohio. pro-marriage but i don't think this is for the platform. right now, people aren't getting married. 72% of african-american children are raised by single family homes and have never been married. the number is growing amongst mainstream. traditionaln marriage. we don't want people to have divorce but in the time we are living in it is what it is. this should not be a part of our

platform. we need to get to the nuts and bolts of this platform so we can advance our party because we have a lot of work to do. this is not something we can legislate today. it is not legislative. you can't tell people who not to live with. right now we want people to take care of the children they have. i would ask that we please not get into this type of conversation and move this along so we can sell our party and our candidates and move forward for a victory in november. [applause] >> the delegate from south carolina. .he question has been called all those in favor of voting immediately, please say aye. .> aye >> the amendment is defeated.

the next amendment is from any dickerson, delegate from new york. >> welcome back to the 21st century. we are glad to be here. off -- ok.ut andage two, line 10, 11, 12. ,> i want us to keep in mind addition versus subtraction to start off. we really need to attract more people to the republican party and not cause people to flee in large numbers. not just gays but people who love them. millennials, who by and large support nondiscrimination in larger numbers. this is only going in one direction. we are all for adoption. the first line says families formed by adoption strengthen

our communities and a noble our nation. i have two adopted boys. they are fantastic. adopted on theas same day that a gay couple was adopting their little girl. she is now a young woman and she is strong, healthy and raised in a very stable and loving family, which should be the hope and dream of every american. >> so far, so good. then we get into this. i am going to be advocating that we strike this language. we support measures such as the first amendment defense act to ensure these do not face government discrimination because of their views on marriage and family. what we have got here, first of all let me say i agree that

religious freedom for private amenizations, absolutely to all. however, we need to distinguish between private orgs and those who receive public tax funding dollars. this language is not just asking for religious freedom. it is asking for taxpayer-funded organizations to turn away people. to turn gay couples away. freedom is not freedom when it abridges the rights of others. we are a party that was built on freedom. society.ilt on a free let's not lose that. it seems like it has gone out the window today. this was tried in mississippi and it was struck down by the federal courts. so i moved to strike this because it is so not

constitutionally able to be held up and it is blatant discrimination on our loved ones, our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. and some delegates even in this room and in the back of the room and everywhere in america that we know and love and do not wish to discriminate against for the very fact that they are gay. test --n, this does not passed the test of attracting. this is blatant discrimination and subtraction. >> discussion on the floor, is there a second? >> the motion has been made and seconded. the delegate from virginia? >> i really don't appreciate the lady from new york implying the rest of us are bigots because we don't agree with her view. this is not helping her cause.

if she wants to imply that anybody is a big it -- >> i did not use that language. >> i have the floor. the first amendment events government discrimination from people who believe in natural marriage. both donald trump and ted cruz have endorsed the first amendment dissent at and it is something we should debate on quickly because most people give support this. >> the delegate from maine. agencies of adoption received taxpayer money? that was the claim that was made. >> no. >> the delegate from south carolina? >> the question has been called and seconded. all those in favor of voting immediately? >>aye.

aye.l those in favor, say >> oppose, >> nay. >> may minute is defeated. -- the amendment is defeated. the one i have first is striking parts from page one and two. page one, line 17 to the bottom of the page and then the top of line two and then replaced with language that is going to appear on the screen. >> we are testing the eyes of our committee members. it is a strike and replace amendment, this first three paragraphs of the section on marriage, families, the three that deal primarily with marriage. if i might read the language that i am proposing instead, i don't have a copy on my phone. >> it is exactly on the screen.

>> i will read you and let you know -- i will read and let you know. we believe that marriage matters. both as a religious institution and as a fundamental personal freedom. because marriage, rigid in life and love and life long commitment is one of the foundations of civil society. as marriage thrives, so our nation thrives. ofbelieve the health marriage nationwide directly affect the social and economic well-being of individuals and emily's and that undermining families leads to more government control over the lives of its citizens and therefore we believe in encouraging the strengths and stability of our families. we recognize that there are diverse and sincerely held views of marriage within the party and that support for allowing same-sex couples the freedom to marry has grown substantially in

our own party. given this journey that so many including republicans are on, we encourage and welcome a thoughtful conversation among republicans about the meaning and the importance of marriage and commit our party to respect for all families and fairness and freedom for all americans. here withnored to be you today and serving as the first openly gay member of the republican platform committee. [applause] >> this amendment that i propose is simple. diversity ofes a opinion within our party on the issue of marriage. tom not here asking you endorse my own constitutional rights, which have been made clear by the recent supreme court decision last year. i have only asked you to recognize that many republicans,

many of the republicans that sent us here to do work this week in shaping our parties platforms agree with me. and we should not be excluded from our party. member under the age of 40, i represent the majority of millennial republicans who support the freedom to marry. i am also proud to be joined by 64% of young evangelical republicans who support allowing same-sex couples to marry. if our party wants the future, we should be mindful of be statistics and we must involve. -- must evolve. we agree on the importance of institutional marriage. askingricans like me are for the opportunity to join that institution, to share in that institution and to strengthen that institution. we are your daughters, your sons, your friends, your

neighbors, your colleagues, a couple that sits next to you in i amh, and one day when ready to marry the woman i love i hope it will be meet. freedom means freedom for everyone including gays and lesbians who should have the freedom to enter into relationships and receive the same protections that heterosexual couples have. in high school, i chose to be a republican. my parents are not republicans so i wasn't born this way. [laughter] to be a republican because i believe in the same principles that you do. freedom, individual liberty and limited government. , stillre, 15 years later in this great party, despite the hurtful rhetoric on these issues. is that youday include me and those like me and

not exclude us by simply acknowledging that thoughtful multiplens represent views on the definition of marriage. thank you. [applause] >> is there a second? second. the delegate from oklahoma. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the sincerity of the maker of this motion. however, this issue was thoroughly discussed in our subcommittee and we have a majority opinion in the original -- in the current language presented here. >> the delegate from virginia? >> thank you mr. chair. i call the question. >> is there a second? all those in favor of voting immediately? all those in favor of the motion

from the delegate from the district of columbia, please signify? >> can i call for a show of hands? >> yes. all those in favor of the motion , please raise your hand to signify aye. let me go back. -- you want it on the boat itself. that is correct. this is the final vote on the adoption or rejection. all those in favor, please raise your hand. thank you all opposed raise your hand. defeated.ent is thank you. amendment atother

this point from the same , from the district of columbia, referring to pages five and six. >> can you please scroll through? it begins with deleting, on -- 30-37, lines 3237 and the first two lines of page six. so online 30, after the word "theed to them" it deletes same provision of law" down to the end of that page and down to

the first two lines of page six. what is shown on the screen is the leading further than the first two lines. >> let's make sure we have that right. this should end with "gender." i want to make sure we have it correct. all rights. -- all right.

it is deleted. i want to make sure we have inaccurately portrayed on the screen. so we strike starting up that same provision of the law is now being used by the eurocrats -- by bureaucrats. to the rest of that page on page five, and then the first two lines on page six to the word "gender." that is what i have. >> i didn't submit this amendment. i think it is the delegate of rhode island. it so wes rachel on can withdraw the amendment if it is not yours. >> i will withdraw the amendment. >> i will be happy to share it with the paper i have. the next amendment is from

connecticut. ,he delegate from connecticut pat longo. >> mr. chairman i have a very quick amendment that requires no conversation. [laughter] , line 37.ve beginning with the last three " onto "we support and page six, the first two lines. that is duplication. the same information about privacy in locker rooms has already been stated in the sentence before on page five. >> we have a motion to strike.

>> that last sentence. >> the motion made and seconded, we would like to discuss it any further? it has been seconded. the delegate from louisiana. >> mr. chairman, i second that it is due -- duplicative. several members of the committee are in agreement. i support the motion. >> the delegate from vermont? >> thank you mr. chairman. we thank the delegate from connecticut and we agree. >> someone else would need to call a question. i have the delegate from west virginia as well? >> i would like to call a question. >> the question has been called and seconded to vote immediately. all those in favor?

a post? .e are voting immediately all those in favor, signify? oppose? it is adopted. next we have an amendment from the delegate from florida. page five, lines 35. i ask the delegate from florida to address. look at pagee a five, lines 30-33. afterose adding a period categories and deleting. the purpose is to follow the principle of keeping language general and rather than alienating one specific person. i urge everybody to support this. ?> discussion the gentleman from california? seconded. additional discussion?

>> mr. chairman, i call the question. >> all those in favor of voting immediately? opposed? the motion is on the amendment. all those in favor? opposed? the motion is approved. i have eric, from maine. an amendment for page 13, lines three and four. i would like you to please go over your amendment. >> thank you mr. chair. this amendment would strike out the language which states that many jurisdictions have their them on a -- have marijuana virtually legalized under federal law. it would change that too many states wrestling with the , as is the legality

right of states on the 10th amendment. >> is there additional discussion? >> yes. >> the delegate from california? i believe that language needs to be left in, that says that it is reminding people that it is illegal under federal law. >> additional discussion before going back to the original offer? the delegate remains. >> the language implies that federal law that is, in this case, has precedence over state law. the supremacy clause states that supreme whenare that law is constitutional and i would challenge anyone in this room today to look under article one, section eight of the constitution and find a place where the federal government was granted authority to prohibit

and decide the legal status of marijuana. if anyone can find that, i will withdraw the amendment but other than that, i would suggest this really is a state issue. this language is not prescriptive. it clarifies that states can decide the legality or illegality. penaltieswant harsher and harsher laws in place them what the government has that is their right. this just clarifies that we recognize -- we've the party of the 10th amendment and the constitution recognize the 10th amendment applies in this issue, not just those where it is continuing to us. asking us to support legalizing marijuana, which is a very divisive issue that we do not have to have. >> the delegate from south carolina? the question has been called. all those in favor of voting

immediately? oppose? we voted immediately. all those in favor, please signify. oppose? the amendment is defeated. the next amendment is from the delegate from louisiana, tony perkins. >> it is page eight. .eople are turning the pages "health after the text there isessionals." an addition. >> we add doctors, nurses, and pharmacists in keeping with legislation that will be voted on by congress on when they. -- on wednesday.

is there a discussion? hearing none, is there a second? favor, signified. opposed, this is adopted. that is the final amendment of this second plank of the republican platform and i would like to call on carolyn from oklahoma to ask for an adoption. >> i do make a motion to adopt the subcommittee on great families, health care and criminal justice as amended. >> all those in favor, signify by saying aye. the second plank is adopted. we will be handing out -- the staff is ready to come through to hand out the final three planks that you approve today in the subcommittee, at number 4,

5, and six. we completed to the one on the economy. the deadline for attendance is 7:30 tomorrow morning. we want to make sure we get those in so we can get them typed in you have all the amendments in your hands. to trygoing to continue to provide them on the screen which i think is very helpful to understand exactly what is going on. >> we are also going to have a benediction in a few seconds. we are going to have a couple of and then thomas from new york is going to give us a benediction to close the evening. >> our policy director will walk you through the timing of the final three sections. would you share with the group? >> we will begin tomorrow morning, taking up the economy and jobs section worse so we

-- alll those benefits those amendments. immediately after the benediction, we will have the new draft of the remaining subcommittees brought in so you can change out the old language and get the which from your binders. we have a filing deadline at 7:30 tomorrow morning. we can have those not only on a copy.av but also in hard there are amendment filing forms by the filing basket and immediately after the benediction you will receive the language for the final sections. >> mr. chairman? >> the german from indiana. -- the gentleman from indiana. >> you are accepting amendments for the first 45 minutes when the section was open. i assume you are permitting that

tomorrow as we open each section? >> yes. those were only available -- those were new sections that had just been done by the subcommittee today. that is why we extend those filing deadlines, because that was brand-new language that those subcommittees had just reported out. it was only a couple of hours available. now, you will have three full reports and the able to have that language all easing into tomorrow morning so those can be filed. it is 20airman, minutes until 8:00. we are being given three .ections that are all new two are new to me. expected to to be read and prepare amendments before 7:30 a.m.. that is unreasonable.

>> the delegate from maryland? >> mr. chairman, just echoing the statement. >> the delegate from michigan? let's go. >> thank you mr. chairman. to depart from the conversation at hand but i wanted my colleagues on the platform committee -- as they lay their head down tonight -- we have yet another couple of folks in our law enforcement community that lost their lives again today. and just within the last few hours, two bailiffs, both retired police officers in a courthouse in southwest michigan lost their lives and the shooter lost his life as well. as well as a deputy sheriff who was shot and injured today.

there is more information coming but please keep those folks in your prayers. thank you mr. chairman. let us spend a moment of silence and reflect on the loss of this country. [no audio] >> thank you. we actually want to be reflective of what the committee needs. that reasonable to say 7:30 is early but you can see the needs of everyone who would like to have written copies of the amendment so we can set a time for tomorrow, we can make it at 8:00 or 8:30 or as far as 9:00 but we are going through what sections tomorrow and i think to make the deadline into the afternoon, when people have had these copies for almost 22

hours has not -- is not reasonable either or something the staff can handle. we can go to 8:30 if that would work better for the members of the committee to prospective , justne from 7:30 to 8:30 to make sure you have in your hands and the staff is able to have in front of us on the screens what the amendments are. that is the best way to give people who are going to have to vote on the amendments a knowledge of looking ahead a too.that's ahead of time i like to call of the delegate from rhode island. of the plankreview on the economy and jobs, that is closed. the amendments have been provided. i would like to see the delays on that piece. >> we were going to keep that.

>> always am asking is that we do the same thing tomorrow that we did today. ,nce you open his session whatever you have is the early submission, i am not talking about that. meet that or at least partially meet this. what i am talking about is the 45 minutes, once you open the session, will we have 45 minutes to open additional amendments. i have not seen an amendment except for this one in writing in front of me. what i have seen is them on the screen. that can be done by the staff. in the