tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 16, 2015 5:00am-7:01am EDT
whether you are someone who has a son or a daughter who is actually in the system, because one of the things we don't talk about much is that 80% of all young black males who are incarcerated are also crime survivors. they don't think of themselves that way but the very institute has done research and we discovered that when you interview young men who have been incarcerated they say have you ever been a victim of crime? they say never. then you say have you ever been jumped by somebody with no cause? and they all put their hands up. have you ever had something taken by force? how many have had your house burglarized? they put their hands up. they've been victimized. they have survived trauma. and unless we are engaged in helping them deal with the trauma they're bound to repeat the trama. the problem is we see them as someone out there. we don't see them as our
children. we don't see them as our grand tchirn. but i guarantee you if you were to do an altar call as i will this sunday and ask for every parent and ever grandparent who has a child that's been impacted by the system, whether it's by a wrongful incarceration, wrongful arrest or whether an incarceration or an arrest, i guarantee you that between one third and one half of the congregation will come forward. this is our issue. i used to try to disance mibe up until i was incarcerated. i don't have one of those rags to riches things. no. i met jesus before i went. unlike those of you who have not sinned since you became religious. and i zranchinge the shame cool aid. i didn't know to know that i was in trouble.
so i gave them a phony nick name, they -- call me doc. that was the only inmate attorneys that had a mono grammed jumpsuit. that took a while. and so it was ok for two weeks until a young man came up to me and he said, pastor. i said i don't know you. he said i used to play drums in your choir. i said i don't know you. he told me his mother's name. she was on my staff. before i got out of that facility i met seven young men whose mothers sisters, wives, and cousins i had pastrd. every single one of those kids
on our streets are connected to us. and the way that we turned this from a moment to a movement -- i could tell you about my time working with the churches in cleveland but i'll save that for another time because we did some of this work with them because we had to get the church to understand that those are not somebody else's kids,. the way you turn a moment into a movement is by turning it from an issue to a face. attorney martin called me a theelogen. i'm a sociologist. they just let me teach here. one of the things we know from socialize research is that congregations, the faith community is not motivated by issues. you can tell the faith community to do this because it's right until you're blue in the face and they won't budge.
but if you can link the issue to a face, if you can shift from narratives to names if you can move from numbers to names, if you can move from statistics to stories, then you can move the faith community to get involved and invested. put a face on it. and now we've got faces. we've got eric garner, we've got trayvon martin we have tamir rice we have walter scott. we have faces. the civil rights moment a one-day boycott in montgomery became a longstanding movement because it had a face. read martin luther king's speech launching the boycott in montgomery, and you will find that one third of it is
look what they did to miss parks. segregation had been wrong for a long time, but look what they did to miss parks. and you're right, attorney martin, this isn't new. we've had lynchings we've had police brutality, we've had bad cops doing bad things to good people. that's not new. but today's the day we say look what they did to tamir. [applause] >> we told you we would have some interesting thoughts for you and some comments and we have saved our best for last. and the reason i say we have saved our best for last is the
concept of community policing is a concept that once was believed to have been one of the best techniques for controlling conduct in a community. not crime, conduct. if somebody is selling dope down the street, everybody between the houses knows who is selling that stuff. if somebody has committed a crime in your neighborhood, everybody knows who is committing those crimes. the best way to figure out what is going on in the community is to ask the community. so with that, i'm going to bring in an assistant attorney general from new jersey up who has put a lot of her efforts into understanding these crimes and not just accepting that they have occurred, but trying to see what happens tomorrow with either re-entry, community aspects, or second chances. so with that, assistant attorney general moore, will you share some thoughts with us? >> absolutely. >> thank you.
>> so i just want to start with thanking the howard family for having us here and to all our distinguished guests. i particularly wanted to thank you, dr. harris, for allowing us to be a part of this process. i also want to thank jennifer nash who is joining me now who will help me. we have a quick power point we're going to share with you because i think it tells the story better than i ever could. but the first thing i want to share with you is that we have been engaged in doing some wonderful things around community police partnerships. we have been figuring out what needs to be done by having conversations with community talking to noble, talking to law enforcement, having the conversations with neighbors talking to youth, understanding what the issues are, and then we take a look at the data and put all of those pieces together and we think about some strategies that we think make sense. so there are a couple of strategies. one i'm going to get to, i'm not sure i'll get to all. i want to
share first one and particularly these are being raised here today because these involve our faith partners. we do a lot of work with clergy all around the state. but we have one in particular called fugitive safe surrender. it was a program started by the united states marshals service when an officer was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop. as a result, the united states marshals came to the faith community and said we need you to help us. what we would like for you do is we would like for you to bring in folks who are wanted on misdemeanor, low level matters, let's see if we can clear up those matters. so if you would, jennifer, we're going to walk you through some of that. so as we did fugitive safe surrender, we'll show you, we did it around the state. we began to do first a look at what we knew where the numbers, how many warrants are we talking about, how many people were involved. we then began to
look at communities that would help us and we started by going to the faith community and working with them to say, hey, listen, would you help us? and that brings me back to a comment that was just said moments ago, and one of the things that was said was that faith communities are not motivated by the issues as what you said. what we found is that when we knocked on the door, we said we need your help, we would like for you to help us and really get this ready, they actually opened up the door and began to work with us. so much so that we were able to help almost 18,000 people over a four-day period come into the church, meet and greet us and go through a process where their warrants were cleared up and resolved on the spot. we did it over a four-day period, thank you. it was 18 to date. we have 17,800 individuals. we know that approximately two-thirds of those individuals
were male. most of them had two to three outstanding warrants and we were able to resolve them. i'll stop them and see if i can have â >> so while jennifer keeps moving, i'll tell you about some of our other programs. and i'll stick to some of those in our faith partnerships because i really think that they really bring home how you can work together and then we'll get back to you when we can -- when the screen comes back up for us. the other programs that we have been able to establish, one is called the chaplinsy program. what we have been able to do is working with our local police departments, our established chaplincy programs
where the chaplains work with community partners particularly help young people who are encountering the juvenile justice system and figuring out ways to wrap themselves around that young person as well as their families to make sure that they get the support they need, that they get the encouragement they need, so the chaplaincy program has been pushed by one of our legal departments in the vineland police department in particular and the chaplaincy group and we'll share that with you actually has the opportunity to travel around the state and working with departments to really look at how we can support families in the neighborhoods and on the grounds. so i think we're ready? okay. you can go to the next slide, please. i just want to share with you this slide here, fugitive safe surrender. the arrow is where we start, right above the church. this particular slide is showing what we did in atlantic city at grace assembly of god. so next
please. we advertise. one of the things we found when we did this work is that people didn't trust us as law enforcement, so they wouldn't necessarily come out and turn themselves in and surrender. for the first half of the day, people would stand across the street from the church, before they came in and they would wait for people to come back out. when they saw people came back out, they started to come back in. so that was one of the reasons why we began to do this. what was really important is that it is really through word of mouth. so we got it out there and the message, you'll see our new jersey transit telling the story for us. please, jennifer. of course, we also have worked in various communities, particularly our spanish speaking communities and making sure that everybody really understood that they could be a part of it based on the requirements of the program. >> over the past few years special law enforcement program called safe surrender has seen
18,000 mostly nonviolent fugitives turn themselves in peacefully in a dozen cities. and how safe surrender changed lives. wanted for gun possession, after skipping with his probation officer. >> pretty dangerous situation. >> potentially dangerous for him and his family. >> i was afraid that probation parole would come and kick my door in. >> please take it back to your vehicle right now. >> the richardsons were among hundreds who came to what was called fugitive safe surrender a u.s. marshals program run with state and local authorities to clear up standing arrest warrants.
>> this opportunity is a cost saver to the courts, to law enforcement, and quite a help to the communities. >> it took place over four days. with judges, attorneys and even -- all under one roof of a church. >> we didn't come to be hustled. we came to be helped right? >> the support of local clergy is a key part of the program. >> folks are coming because they trust the faith leaders. >> people also trust their outstanding arrest warrants will be treated favorably. mostly they're looking for peace of mind. dave had a warrant for theft. >> wake up in the morning, you think about it, think about it during the day, worry about people recognizing your face. >> he came with his wife to get a fresh start. >> how it can destroy your
marriage and your family when you have this heavyiness hanging over you. >> he was able to leave with probation. and after paying $589 in fines tramon will no longer be living under the radar. to the marshals and police, the program eliminates risk to them. >> anytime a person surrenders it is one less car chase, and we see this too often where somebody gets injured or killed as a result of a car chase. >> a handful of traffic violations. by the end of the day, with a smaller than expected fine, his tickets were cleared. >> that's what i got. >> over the past four days more than a thousand people
surrendered, clearing over 4,000 cases and only six of those people were arrested. >> so a little bit about fugitive safe surrender. less than one half of 1% of the people that we encounter are taken into custody and that's usually because they are wanted on a felony or an indictable matter which is outstanding. what it looks like in camden the program was run in philadelphia a week or two before we began the program in camden, new jersey. we thought since they had a few hundred people that ours would be a little smaller. we actually had that many people waiting on line when the doors opened at the church. next. and that is bethany baptist church in newark, new jersey. we had people in line, four or five across, and for blocks. next. reverend sores at first baptist
in somerset was able to host this for us. and, again, that line actually wraps around the entire building. there were torrential rains one day. people were still there. people were also very enterprising. they began to sell umbrellas the next day, but they did wrap around. next please. grace assembly of god church. one of the things we needed to do in atlantic city is that although people initially surrendered here, one of the things we had to do in our program was to make sure that our court personnel actually in a different location and so when you see us in the church you know there is court personnel, we resolve cases there is law enforcement, we're doing the lookups, looking at the state and the federal databases, and so we then move folks. so the next slide please, from this church, which you see, which is b, to a, the convention center that agreed to host us and we brought in in
thousands of people and resolved their warrants over a four-day period. next. the last one we did year before last was in jersey city. that's the jersey city armory. again, 4,700 people showed up in that four-day window, allowing us to resolve tens of thousands of matters. then we were able to get featured on due process a little bit about the work and how we were talking about our community engagement and what communities thought were important. so i wanted to share that with you because that was a part of what we were asked to do is to talk about the role of law enforcement, how communities can be engaged. so there are a lot of different efforts we're working on. i thought this one might bring with you particularly since our faith partners really have been a tremendous asset to us and partners, and we simply brought the issue. and i think that's part of the dialogue and conversation that we have to have when you sit down and talk the issues and you're breaking bread together and understand
what the issues are, i think together as a community, we really can make a difference in the lives of all of our communities. thank you.applause ] >> thank you. the way we tie in the video and the discussions you had from the attorney general's office is there are crimes that are committed. there are people who commit those crimes and people we want to be locked up. there are programs that address that. and i think the purpose of our lecture today and discussions that we have this is that we want to find a way for law enforcement to separate those two groups as opposed to putting the sheer physical presence and the look of a
person as a predominant factor. and they're reacting to what is going on. i would like to take a very brief minute and tell you that when we fought, we in america, we as african-americans fought for civil rights in the 1960s and the civil rights act which was one of the key pieces of legislation, along with the civil rights act came a section of law in title 42 of the united states code, section 14-1414. that section allows investigations of police departments by the department of justice. and they have that investigation in cleveland. they have that investigation going on in philadelphia. they have one, i believe, in newark. they have had them in new orleans. i was the attorney of record representing the city of cincinnati in 2003. cincinnati had those investigations. the reason i raise that and i know that we all have seen attorney general -- former attorney
general eric holder when he would address these issues. what was fought for in the '60s was a showing that the laws applied and protected all of us, equal protection. and when you listen to charles hamilton houston and thurgood marshall and talked about, it was equal protection of the laws. now the laws are written in a way that we understand they provide equal protection. and we are now saying that those laws are being used in a different way. and with that i would say that there are findings of unnecessary use of force, excessive use of force discriminatory practices by the department of justice. and i know we're going to have some questions and answers. so before we talk about how it is that we depart and what our take aways are, i would open up the floor to see if based on
some of the thought provoking discussions we had had thus far, your own personal thoughts and educational experience and life experiences. are there any questions you would like to pose to the very talented panel that we have? please. we're asking that you step up to the microphone and if you would line up behind the microphone that would make it easier and would allow also the recording studios to pick that up. >> in light of the recent killing in south carolina, what is your position about forcing coercing, convincing our congress to require all police to wear body cams? do you think it will help if they wear them? >> so i don't get you in any trouble with the attorney general, we're not going to put you on the spot with that one. >> thank you.
i'll be brief and also i want to announce attorney walter madison, walter, stand up. he's my co-counsel on the tamir case. great lawyer out of cleveland. and walter, chime in here, the preacher and the attorney general can't say a word or two. we push for that and michael brown's tragic killing in ferguson, missouri. the mike brown law, which i pray and hope will happen because i think it does mack ake a difference and will be a fitting legacy for michael brown. let me quickly say this here. history happened this week in ferguson, missouri. we in the house of god. and they say the ark is long but it bends towards justice. ferguson,s my, s mymissouri, they had three times as many people in that community come out and vote than they ever had in history. that's a direct
response of our community saying we're going to do something about them killing our children. we have three african-american city commissioners out of ferguson, missouri. that's history. and c-span is watching. that makes you applaud the individuals and so forth. to answer your question directly, i think cameras really are good because they let us know what happens, makes it transparent. that's what our community wants. that's what we want more than anything. it helps the police officers if they didn't do anything wrong, they're exonerated right then. but when you have this cloud of suspicion because nobody saw him, it is questionable how you shoot our little brother or sister in the back can translate or correlate to your life being in danger, it just makes no sense to us. but i sayn this in light of walter scott that we saw on video, so
many things that we would never see on video. it is about a culture. it is about a culture. the video -- why do we need video cameras to make you do right? i keep hearing everybody say, you would agree, the majority of the police officers are good police officers. and i say i want to believe that. and i honestly say that. just like i want to believe the majority of young african-american men are good people. i want to believe that too. but i'm not just going to accept that all the police officers are good when all these good police officers see police misconduct and they don't come forward and say anything. that's when we have to say good policing. last thing, the guy -- the chief said we don't want you to throw a blanket over our police just for the acts of one police officer, ditto.
we don't want you to throw a blanket over our young black and brown boys for the action of one black or brown boy. so what you want is exactly what we want. >> thank you for a really wonderful discussion. my name is dr. marcia komen, the coordinator for the hands up coalition dc. we're the organization that launched major demonstrations in front of the department of justice to demand that the department of justice release the civil rights reports. and obviously we were very unhappy with the results of those reports. but we did think it was important for the families to have that information so that they could process the fact that their government is not being responsible and holding police accountable for
the deaths of our children. my son has been stopped by police over 30 times. and that is very common. if you ask most young black people how many times have you been stopped, it is -- it is 20, 30, 40 times. and he was a howard university student and his trauma was such that he had to drop out of howard for one year because of the anxiety and depression caused by being stopped by the police so many times. we are having a million moms march. we hope you can join us, on may 8th. we're also asking our brothers and our husbands to join the mothers as we take to the streets on march 9th to demand that the police stop â >> may 9th. >> may 9th. to.b%qqsp'd the police stop stopping our children, harassing our children sodomizing our children on the sides of the streets and stop killing our children.
and the last point i wanted to make was in terms of your video, i want to know when are?chut going to see police lined up in front of black churches and surrendering their badges. what i saw is the fact we have hypervigilance in the black community. people are being arrested for selling lucies or being arrested for walking in the middle of the streets. i want to know when will the police be arrested? thank you. >> will you please identify yoself and pose the question? >> sure. my name is mike evans, i serve as one of the social justice coordinators at metropolitan ame church in the district of columbia. what i heard today was very profound ando0s want to thank miss rice for putting a real face and real moments of truth and pain and sadly agony to what has happened to her and
her son and her family many times we hear all of us have heard about a 12-year-old boy, but we don't know. we didn't know his story, we didn't know he was a helper. we didn't know he loved to swim. we didn't know he loved to make his family happy and proud. and when these things happen, you know, we have to reflect on what that means to those families and to ourps own. a thing that struck me this morning before i left to come here is i had turned on the news, cnn, c-span, and i was amazed at how quickly the media in collusion with the police had jumped from outrage indignation to blaming the victim once again for all that he had brought upon himself. well, he ran. he ran because he had x number of dollars in child support he was afraid he was going to get pulled in on.
but, no, wait a minute, there weren't any warrants out. yes, but it was more than we thought it was and on and on and on. we see these stories to justify the actions that are, you know by the police and the occupied forces in our community through -- to justify and rationalize what they have done. but i'll be real quick. i'm very glad that we're here and we're talking about solutions, you know. we spend a lot of time with the recitation of the justices that have been placed upon us, but i think we need to be talking about solutions. years ago i ran a legal aid program for catholic charities in chicago. we had -- we provided sentence -- excuse me â >> i'm going to ask you one question. >> arrest expungements. >> we ask that you ask a question to our panel. >> arrest expungements, and
tried to provide information to communities about what the criminal justice system is about. what types of programs -- public service programs, information programs have you experienced and envisioned where the actors in the criminal justice system present to the community what they do, how they interact, how they work with each other, and how they're supposed to be working for us? do we have anything in place that can help faith-based communities house those types of information services? >> sure. you know. one of the things that i didn't get a chance to get to is some of the youth development that we do, right. i talked a little bit about the data and the research and how we look at what is happening in communities. and so in this process we have something called the municipal planning board process. it is youth
development boards. and so these boards actually meet with our local police departments we meet at the local school boards, we might meet at the high school, but what we do, we bring both our justice system partners, as well as our social services together to really look at one, what do we know about the community? not just what we hear, what do we know? so we start with the data and then we begin to pull together both strategies looking at the policy level, looking also at the programs that are available so that we can help families get access to the services because what we found is there are sometimes many services, but our families don't know about the services, there is not this connection. there is no link between some of the resources and the good things that are happening and the families and the partners who need to make those things come together. so it is through that process that we have actually began to do a lot of work as we engage our partners, could be through grants, through the process i'm talking about and this youth development process, but we actually bring together on a regular basis, i don't mean once in a while in a quarter
at least once a month, and in between we are meeting in small committees asking the same thing, how to connect partners to resources and how to link them and most importantly how to make sure we have better outcomes so that our families are successful. >> thank you. >> -- because it is not just -- we can't just wait. i've worked with miss moore for a number of years and she does great work. and she would do greater work if she weren't hamstrung by government red tape. that's just the reality of it. governments, their wheels turn slowly. she doesn't. she does yeoman's work. what i want to supplement is we have to create within the faith community itself the desire to get that information and we have to construct programs within the faith community itself so that we're not waiting for the heroes and the
champions to fight through the red tape to get stuff to us so that part of what we're trying to do, in the healing community's project, is go to congregations and teach them what questions to ask, what information do you need, how can you get involved in the system and how can you get involved in responding to these partnerships with information and with leverage and not just be assigned the part by a government agency in a grand scheme of programs that they have put together without you and then come to you and say here's your role. so there is a lot of work we have to do internally to develop that kind of program and not just simply wait for agencies to come to us and explain things to us. we have congregations all across this country, who have resourceful people in them, who know the answers, and if we can empower them to give us the internal kind of leverage that
we need, then we can have real partnerships. >> thank you. that's one of the issues that i thought we would discuss today. and that is what is the role in the black church. should the programs come from the government or should the programs come from the community and the community and the government work together? as i understand both what you've indicated and what miss moore is indicating that she tries, you -- i say you -- the church will try, but sometimes red tape gets in the way. but if the church had its own initiatives, we're not looking for approval from the government, there is a role the church can do without governmental assistance. is that what i hear you saying? >> that's exactly what i'm saying. we had a state wide program in michigan on faith-based re-entry. we had great stuff going on from the upper peninsula to detroit to grand rapids. and then they got a new governor. and the new governor said, we're not going to put any more
nun in the community-based re-entry programs. we're going to expand the department of corrections in michigan and run our own programs. and so all the money came off the table and all of a sudden the re-entry programs started to die off. why? because we were depending on the government to fund the community-based programs. what we have got to do in the faith community is to recognize that we have capacity. and that we have ideas. and we have people. we just haven't been able to generate the motivation. that's why i'm running around the country saying we got faces now. we have got samaria rice, tamir rice, i went to ferguson in december and talked with people. we got people like tracy blackman. we got faces now. she's a pastor who is pastor the young people. people say, the preachers aren't leading in ferguson. they aren't leading in ferguson. the young people are and pastor tracy blackman and pastor tim
are pastoring them. he pastored students from fiske and abts on the front lines. you don't have to be out front. you can help the young people gain a sustained voice and not just stand up there and make speeches and turn everything into your personal platform. no names. so there has to be -- there has to be capacity building and energy channeling within the faith community itself, and then we're in a position to partner with government, but not dependent on the administration and the administration change to make sure that this stuff keeps going. >> thank you. >> professor? >> alex gresham bullock, i'm a professor in the school of law here. i'm a tax professor and estate planning as i said to the panelists. when i spoke with them earlier i'm not -- i'm not dealing with
these issues as a lawyer on a daily basis. in other words, i'm not in the weeds on this issue. i'm not even in the tall grass as a lawyer dealing with this issue. i deal with this issue on my front lawn and in my back yafrmtdyard. i have a 30-year-old son, i said to the group i am astounded that my -- my husband and i raised our children, my son is 31 years old, tall, strapping black guy well built, good looking, and we started quizzing him early on. my husband used to be the u.s. marshal for the district of columbia. we used to quiz him early on about his interactions with the police. to this day i'm astounded that he has never had an uninnovatevited interaction with the police. it is amazing in the district of columbia. that i tell you because it
gives me reason for hope that we can have that in communities across this city and across the country. and my son grew up at a time where in -- up in northwest d.c., the second district apparently had a philosophy, i don't know if i would hold the police department, but the officers in the neighborhood knew the kids. they knew us. i think my husband made a difference, they knew the kids because he was active. so i also think we as parents have a role to play in how we deal with the police department as well. now â >> i ask you, they're telling me they're going to cut our time down. >> sure, my question â >> we have to pose a question. >> i got a question. >> to our panel because the cameras are going to shut off on us shortly. >> you answered a large part of it in this dialogue, but what you showed us is a snapshot of the difference your community
and faith program with u.s. marshals service made in your community. my question is, has that spread to other communities, related to that are there coalitions with other communities in other states where you all talk to each other, so the folks here in d.c., maryland and virginia could know the success you had up in new jersey so that this spreads? >> thank you. >> so it has spread for us and other communities. people would find what we were doing and they would come and visit with us. and so we would actually have other jurisdictions come and actually help us, you know in terms of our own thinking about it, but they also really wanted information because they wanted to do the same thing. they wanted to get those programs together and actually figure out how to do it. but i think to your question, is there a network, are we doing this across the board? is there somewhere in the country. i don't think so i think that's why we're delighted to be part
of this conversation, because there is a lot that we can do, i think if we were to connect the dots. there are other programs that are happening. there are faith programs. there are the communities who are doing it on their own, thinking through their own strategies but how do we connect together not just in new jersey, not just here in the district, but across the country. so we certainly would be open to continuing to dialogue to figure out how we can make those bridges and connect them. not just locally, but throughout the country. it is very needed. >> thank you. >> my name is audrey mcdowell. i'm an associate minister at east friendship baptist church. my question is, in light of the videotapes we have seen, you know, where they are shooting people and basically just leaving them on the ground to die, i would like to know what are the legal requirements for police regarding giving life saving means when they have shot somebody. in the walter scott case, they lied and said that they had provided, you
know, cpr and there is no evidence of that on the video. what are they legally required to do? or are they supposed to just leave them there to die so as not to mess with evidence or whatever? >> i was going to ask mr. crump, who stepped out for a minute, to handle that question. >> mr. crump, the question was posed, the question is -- repose your question. >> in light of seeing all the videos where the police are shooting people and basically just leaving them there to die what are the legal requirements for police regarding using life saving means, you know, when they have shot somebody? are they supposed to just leave them there so as not to disturb evidence or supposed to, you know, attempt to save their life? in the walter scott case
they lied and said they used cpr and there is no evidence of that on the video. >> in the same with tamir rice can i have my co-counsel walter madison address this really briefly? >> sure. >> we deal with the same issue in cleveland. >> i'll be very direct with that response. each state is governed by their own commanders for training and qualifications. one of the things that probably should be done and bring us some cohesiveness on that issue is there be a mandate, nationwide, because humanity is the real aim. and as part ofi] the earlier question, about the body cameras, wonderful idea but there should be no requirement for a person to have the simple humanity to say that child or person wants to get home safely, just as much as i do as the officer. so in the spirit of humanity, the standard should be the same. some states require and give -- make it mandatory that they do
that. california is one. san francisco they have the -- all the first aid equipment in the vehicle. ohio is just poor in that regard. very, very poor. and we see the lack of humanity in that video as attorney crump referenced earlier. >> thank you. >> the only other thing i would add to that is i would think we have two civil lawyers who are involved in these type of civil rights cases, as prosecution civil matters, but if a video shows a live person on the ground injured with no aid administered by law enforcement, does that do anything for damages? >> absolutely. i think one of the things we're vetting in tamir rice's case as the new york times wrote, very vividly, this whole notion this kid is laying on the ground, dying in the snow, and the officers are kind of moping
around, they're looking for change on the ground. and it is just hard to watch when you think -- you know you just shot him, but you don't do anything to help him. >> i would think as an issue that if a jury were to receive this case, one of the issues that lawyers would argue is that the pain and suffering was enhanced by the fact that there was no aid injured. one of the questions we talked about earlier is that -- how is it that you caused society to recognize these issues if passing of laws doesn't do it? and the answer was â >> and i don't know exactly what -- where we -- and because, you know, johnnie cochran said something deep to me, he said that, you know, he lost a case where he had 50 witnesses. you know. and it is
true because perception becomes reality. and he also said, you know, you go up there with your client, and the only thing -- the judge is -- he dismiss you and nobody know about it, you better tell the media and the world what is going on so when they go and dismiss your case, he got some repercussions from the community and so forth. so that's what we try to do and thank god that i want to believe the media is finally starting to listen to all these black lives being taken with no consequence. i mean, i can go state by state and give you ten in every state and i know because we representing most of them. >> yes, sir. >> good afternoon. my name is aaron king. i'm a member of the macedonia baptist church. organizational or cultural change within the police department.
and i think we all know that organizational culture is not established at the bottom. it is established at the top. in / effort to change the culture of an organization, we have seen historically one method that has been effective, especially for african-americans in the civil rights movement was economic withdrawal. my question to you today is centered around the idea of what i'm going to call economic corrective action. this would be established via a mandate that would compromise four things. when a county executive, legislator or mayor and police chief take office it is mandated that within three years they reduce the number of deaths via law enforcement by 50%. if they don't reach that goal within three years, they're terminated. in addition to that, they do not receive any pension. that's the first thing. the second thing would be the mayor and the police and, you know, legislators who are at the top of an organization, once they have
looked at the previous year, and they have not -- they see, okay, we had 100 deaths, we have three years to cut that by 50%. if they don't reach that goal within the first year, their salaries get reduced by 20%. once we get to g member of the law enforcement community, their reduced by 2% and then after each death it keeps going up, 2%, 4%, 6%, et cetera, et cetera. the next thing -- that's, one, two -- the third thing would be â >> let me ask you a question because we're trying to get the expertise up ear. >> sure. i understand the theory that you're giving us. can you pose a question â >> economic corrective action with mandates that are backed up â >> 6 without the details, as at( concept. what i want to doa get past the numbers â >> the concept â
>> -- to the concept, which is critical. he'll talking about reincent advising the way in which we reward law enforcement in the criminal justice system. okay? so that i serve on the executive session on community corrections at harvard university, it's a think tank where we work on how do we redo probation, parole. community corrections. so do we incentivize parole officers by how many people they trail nail and jail or do we incentivize parole officers based on how many people don't resit straight? do we incentivize police departments based on the number of arrests they make or do we incentivize police departments based on approximate public safety becoming better in the community? okay? through the practice of deescalation practices that attorney crump was making.
so the concept is brilliant because what it attacks at its core is the current incentivizing of overarrests, overincarceration overincarceration, escalation of dangerous situations. all of those things right now we reward. and what we need to to is we need to reward the exact opposite. >> the reason i thought it was a concept -- >> the reason i thought it was a concept that it would be an issue to raise is that many budgets of police departments are based upon those raw number of arrests. so that's why i thought in terms of discussing the concept, i thought you had some -- i think people may disagree with you on the numbers but the concept is an issue. >> yes, ma'am. >> my name is cynthia ward, i'm an howard engineering alum.
i didn't have a request, i had a request and i'm going to defer my question to a howard student who got up at the cutoff point and let her ask the question. my question was going to be as we close out i would like to have a fervent honest sincere prayer around these concepts and issues for resolution, particularly around ending the mortal victims in the moment, in the movement. i'm sick of seeing the victims. and healing and those types of things, again, i'm going to defer my question to a student. >> although she says she is an engineer that was a lawyer move. >> yeah. >> yes, ma'am. >> good afternoon. everyone. and this could be for any of the panel. i'm actually a wesley theological seminary student and i'm all for prayer, i believe prayer changes things, but i believe especially in this time and day and age that action is necessary. i just feel that there is -- i guess my question would be what would
be the danger of not doing anything when especially as young black people you see that when you do something it produces either little to no results or negative results. so what would be the motivation for taking action? >> ms. moore. >> well, you know, i think two things. one is, you know, there are obviously a lot of things that you want to accomplish and things that you've done and it happens to be a national issue that many young people are looking at. and one of the things that we struggle with quite frankly, is making sure that we have youth voice in what we do. a lot of things happen at the decision level, you know. how can we get those voices which i believe are the authentic voices and really a part of the equation and if you exclude those voices you're never going to get to it. so i would ask that you make sure
that both you and others, and particularly other young people are at the table and that your voices are heard bus if your voices are not heard we don't get the full story. how do we get this right without the full story, without understanding what are the needs, what are the issues and houks we help? right. so it's absolutely critical. but i also this i that there is hope and that you do see -- you can see change. you know, we experienced that change a lot because we're working in the community, we're working with young people, i get to hear the stories of transformation and i mean real transformation and that's what drives us. that's what keeps us motivated. we see young people tell the story. there is one this particular, i will share with you, it's a group called youth build that we've worked with and put a lot of effort and energy as well as funding behind, but the transformation of those young people who tell their own story is really where it is. really where those changes are. so if you wait i will make sure that i share that with you could you can see it. but we've got to have your
voice otherwise we're they ever going to get this right. >> thank you. >> same spirit as sister moore. we are seeing things change. attorney crump just mentioned the fact that in ferguson, missouri, where 8% of all blacks voted in municipal elections up until this year 8%, we got three city council people. that was young people stepping up and doing that. the fcc last august, we had three victories in the four-day period in august of 2013 when the fcc capped the interstate phone call rate for federal institutions, in new york stop and frisk wags judged to be illegal and when attorney general holder announced the sentence reduction. we've got the smartest sentencing act that's right before congress right now, we've got the second chance act that's coming up. we have a momentum going right now that you can either -- the only people fighting this are the
folks making money off it and basically that's the criminal justice system where it's incentivized improperly like brother king said, especially prosecutors, okay? and then the companies that are making money off of the slave labor in the prisons and the private prison companies. they are the only people that are fighting this. i was at a summit two weeks ago the two keynote speakers on changing this stuff were cory booker and flute begin grip. okay? there is bipartisan support for this stuff. the only people who are fighting it are the ones who are making money off of the current system and then the only reason that's not moving faster is that more of us haven't owned this as an issue. >> thank you. we have one final question. please introduce yourself and let us know what your question is, please. >> all right. thank you. hello. my name is isisatu young. thank you so much for your time.
on behalf of my classmates at howard university i would like to thank you very much. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you. my question is pertaining to the community policing. this is a conversation that i've had in one of my classes. do you think, yes or no, this is the question in class, that community policing, like the -- the relationship between black communities and police departments can be mended? do we think that and that's what our professor asked us. and the request he that i want to ask you all is do you think that it's a good idea for us to move forward with -- with implementing community policing -- increasing community police structures in especially black communities? do you think that it's a good idea despite the tact that we haven't received any kind of repayment for police brutality against our people?
how can we really open up and trust just willingly without receiving some kind of repayment? and i know it may seem unrealistic to have our hand out, i really like the idea that i heard about having police turn in their badges just from where i stand a question that boils inside of me is would i want to engage in community policing, having police officers in my community because right now where i'm from this bedsty we see police officers in our community all the time but i don't believe it's part of the community policing structure and if it is we haven't been informed. i'm just wondering is it really a good idea where the psychological issues passed down from generation to generation, can we trust the police as black people? you know, we haven't received something that says, hey, we surrender, like cops surrendering to us. no one was done that but we're getting down on our knees and surrendering to allow them willingly into our
neighborhood. it's better to have a relationship than none at all, i guess, but what do you guys think? >> sorry about the microphone. i know we're supposed to touch it here but he touched it already. >> hold this. >> so i just want to share with you a story and i showed you a little bit about fugitive safe surrender we didn't have time to walk you through it. we bring people who are all wanted, right, with hundreds of those of us who are in law enforcement and the courts and the judicial system and coming together and what happens at that moment when people are there to really help is this very miraculous and even transformative need to help one fore and we talked earlier about humanity, and in that scenario what you saw is you8-vjko# running for hot
chocolate because people were waiting outside in the cold, you saw people waiting outside in the cold throwing all their change on the ground because they wanted to get in and you had people coming together in a way that you have to witness you really have to witness this process that we talked about. when that young man told you he had a new destiny, he meant that. it really was because the church was there and you have to understand that the clergy is also there, they're not just opening the door, what's happening you have a guidance there, spiritual guidance, social services there, you're so the church then becomes this hub of great things that can happen. once you witness those kinds of things you understand that it is possible and that all things are possible. on the second part of your question i just want to flip it just a little bit because one of the things, you know, i've ton some work in the past with drug courts they would say the operative word this drug court is court and the operative word this community policing is policing, but there's another piece so that that i would challenge you to help us think about and that is what is the
role of community in community policing? that is our question to decide. what is our role in that andthat is our question to decide what is our role? that is what you are saying, i think, what is the role? that is something we have to sit down and work out together what that looks like. and how we can determine what happens in the neighborhood and have control and a place where the same mutual respect that we see in our initiative happens. one of the things we say all the time, we are expecting nothing less and all the times that we do this. where we have thousands of people, moving a lot of people and volunteers. not one time did we have any incident of vandalism, of any trouble. because we all walked through the doors of the house of worship knowingly were there to
-- knowing that we were there to help one another. that is where it turns, and that is where you see humanity. don't give up. help us figure out where this can happen so you can see it. [applause] >> i know you have put some thought into it. and i want to save the last issue for you, you get the closing remarks. professor, our last comment from the panel. did you understand it? >> i did. and i have a lot of respect for mrs. moore's comment. one of the issues we are working on at at harvard, sondra smith who is on the faculty of berkeley, we are working on defining the community's role. right now, community policing doesn't have a role for the community.
it is an initiative that they said this is what we want you to do. as opposed to negotiating with us, because there are not a lot of people like mrs. moore. we do not want to hear from you, not on the government side. we have seen examples of effective partnerships, and i would just point to 1. in the city of boston, there was a 29 month. without a single juvenile homicide. -- a 29 month period without a single juvenile homicide. it was a partnership between the law community, the clergy -- a -- this goes back to changing the quarter of law enforcement. what changed in boston was the catholic church. because a lot of the white cops in boston were roman catholic.
and the roman catholic cardinal of boston bought into the strategy. and so it was not just about mobilizing the black church, it was mobilizing faith communities in which law enforcement officers served. to help them get a better understanding what their role might be. you have policeman in boston climbing the steps of the hancock building -- i don't know boston that well. boston is hancock, isn't it? i was thinking boston or chicago. getting job applications for young people to get summer jobs. cops are doing that. they came because the faith community of law enforcement themselves are parts of the strategy. this isn't a black problem, ok. this is a communitywide problem. our community needs to be strengthened, they need to be transformed, we know what works.
it is a matter of having the will to get what is done. [applause] >> i will turn it back over to kwame. i would like to end with a quote from charles hamilton houston that addresses these issues and the role of the lawyer on civil rights. he says, "a lawyer is either a social engineer or he is a parasite on society. a social engineer was a highly skilled, perceptive, sensitive lawyer who understood the constitution of the united states and knew how to explore its uses in solving a problem with local communities and in bettering conditions of the underprivileged citizens." that quote was around 1929, we are still looking at those issues. as i turned back over to you
kwame, we had a panel discussion on issues that are relevant. even if you're not have children, if you watch the news, you see what is going on in our world. i think that the fact we are able to put a face and a mother's pain before this audience has been helpful. people understanding that this is not a theoretical or perceptive issue, it is a real issue and it affects people. so kwame, before he turned back over, would you like to -- [applause] thank you. [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] >>, marco rubio and lee from utah discuss their plans.
later, look at u.s. foreign-policy challenges. washington journal is live at 7:00 eastern. >> education secretary arne duncan will testify about his department 2016 budget request. he is expected to get questions about common core. that is live this morning from the senate subcommittee on education appropriations at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. later in the day the german finance minister will talk about european economic policy. live coverage from the brookings institution starts at 1:00 eastern, also on c-span3. >> next, republican senators marco rubio and mike lee talk about their tax plan, which would reduce the number of individual income tax rate down to two. the heritage foundation sponsor this event. senator marco rubio declared his presidential candidacy on monday
in miami. >> welcome everyone, thank you for joining us here at the heritage foundation. i have the opportunity to introduce two of my favorite people in the senate, and the reason for that is they both took on their campaigns to run for the united states senate almost no one in washington one of them here. which means there are kind of folks. -- our kind of folks. [applause] they have not disappointed, they have stood for principle. mike and marco, thank you for being here. a little bit about mike lee.
mike is a byu law school graduate. he clerked for a number of people, including justice alito. he is a leader in the senate and serves on the judiciary committee and a number of subcommittees but perhaps the most important role is chairman of the senate steering committee. when i was there, you get blamed for almost everything that goes on that folks don't like or like when you're chairman. you have to stand up against everything that goes through that needs to be stopped and mike, we really appreciate you doing that. a new book, not his first but it's about our lost constitution . an excellent read for those who want to really understand what it is we're losing and what we need to restore here in america. mike, thank you for being here today. senator marco rubio, really has the american dream, been quiet recently, haven't heard much from him. [laughter]
that's why he's here today with us. he has been a public servant for many years in florida, set an example as a state rep and became majority leader and very early age he was speaker of the house in florida. and again, when he set about to run for the senate, just as mike, it was a david and goliath quest where no one saw it was possible. but what we saw is the american people in florida and utah and everywhere recognized people willing to stand up for principle. marco recently authored a book "american dreams, restoring economic opportunity for everyone," which we like at heritage. our theme for the next couple of years is opportunity for everyone. favoritism for none. we'll continue to talk about that. they are here to talk about a tax plan today. and i found when i was in the house and senate, that a lot of candidates and politicians talked about the need for tax
reform and tax simplification but very few sign on to someone else's plan. that's because once you put the specifics out there, people can misuse them and can twist them and they can use them against you in the next election. it takes a particular kind of vision and courage for folks in elected office particularly in the senate, to actually get the conversation started with a tax plan with a lot of good components to it that can help america begin to see what this can do to our economy and jobs create in america if we fix our tax system to make us competitive with the rest of the world. two great friends, thank you so much for being here. i'll let senator lee start us off today. [applause] [applause]
senator lee: thank you very much for that kind introduction, we still miss you in the senate but it's good to have you right across the street. we developed a tax reform plan that is pro growth and pro family. it is designed to facilitate economic growth, the kind that will help american families, poor and middle class in particular. also help get rid of distortions within our tax code. and some of the complexity that is itself a massive subsidy and massive industrial complex that you can find in and around washington, d.c. as arthur brooks recently said complexity is itself a subsidy. it's a subsidy for some of the wrong kinds of things. our current tax code is very complex and tends to punish investment, hard work, savings and marriage, and having a family. yes, our tax code, actively punishes people for getting
married or having children and doing all kinds of other things that we generally regard as good and should not be punishing through our tax code and otherwise. so on the individual side, we've come up with a two-rate system going from seven rates down to two rates is not easy but we think it's essential for tax code simplification and achieving the kind of new system we want. under this new framework, the overwhelming majority of all americans, about 80%, would pay under one -- essentially flat rate of 15%. subject to two deductions. one for mortgage interest, the other for charitable contributions. and all others will pay at a marginal rate of 35%. these rates begin the higher rate begins at $75,000 for a single filer or $150 for a married couple filing jointly. -- or $150,000 for a married
couple filing jointly. on the individual side we've added a child tax credit, a new tax credit of $2500 per child per year. this is there to get rid of the parent tax penalty. we're all familiar with the marriage tax penalty, that is a somewhat obvious feature within our code and very well known one. a much more subtle and less well known feature of our tax code is the parent tax penalty. the dynamic through which the federal tax system operating in tandem with our senior entitlement programs, social security and medicare, effectively tax american parents twice. once as people paid their taxes both on the individual side and on the payroll side and again as they incur the substantial costs of raising children. according to one -- i believe low ball u.s. department of agriculture study, it takes $300,000 to raise a child to maturity. it doesn't take into account certain things it should but let's assume $300,000 is an average cost that we can live with.
when you look at two hypothetical couples, you can see how this parent tax penalty hits america's moms and dads. imagine couple a and b. they have the same income patterns and have the same charitable contributions and mortgage interest payment patterns. imagine everything about them economically is about the same with one exception. couple a has four children and couple b chooses to remain childless. well raising their children couple a will incur on average $1.2 million in child rearing expenses. and couple b will not incur that. couple a in incurring that $1.2 million expense in raising their children is shoring up social security and medicare, which are funded on a pay as you go basis. today's workers from today's retirees and it's today's children that will fund today's workers when they become retirees down the road.
we believe this $2500 per child tax credit is an important step towards eliminating the tax inequity, the unfairness. on the corporate side, we reduced the rate down to 25% when we create a single layer of taxation. and we do this in a way that we believe will promote economic growth and we end the double taxation of corporate earnings by getting rid of taxation on dividends and also on capital gains. these are the basic highlights and i'll turn the time over to my friend and colleague, senator rubio to give some additional explanation and answer some questions. [applause] senator rubio: thank you, i'll be brief. we want to thank you forgiving us this forum. jim, as he was driving in, we drove by the spot where four years ago -- five years ago i held a press conference about my
senate campaign. the reason we had to have it there, no one in washington would let us use their facility at the time because i was not supposed to be running or winning. but jim demint found us a small sidewalk space and together we held a press conference and we're always grateful and good to see you. thank you to heritage for inviting us here and giving us opportunity and all of the scholarships they do here that serve as a guidepost to the public policy we choose to make. two points i would make and trying to make, the 21st century is a dramatically different time from the era i grew up and mike grew up and almost everyone in the room grew up in. we no longer simply operate in a national economy. we're now engaged in international global competition with dozens of developed economies who are competing with us for innovation and investment and talent, ideas. and we want to make america in the 21st century the single best place in the world to innovate.
part of that is the debt, a significant driver of what's made america less competitive and has to do with regulatory systems in the country, but our tax code does too. we've talked about that repeatedly in the past years. we have a tax code, for example that has the highest combined corporate tax rate on the planet. we can no longer afford to do that at a time when other nations are going out of their way to become a friendlier environment for investment. it shouldn't surprise us to open up the newspaper and see another iconic american company making decisions they need to make in order to be in a friendlier environment. we've taken steps in this proposal to be pro growth. we want our economy to be dynamic and vibrant. the sing the best place in the world to create job and the more you innovation and invest into the american economy, the lower your tax burden will be. that was the purpose of our pro-growth approach to this matter.
we honestly believe, if we can create an environment where america can compete globally with anyone, with how the standpoint of america treats activity. we believe the american people would do what they always have done, create millions of jobs and not just jobs, but millions of better paying jobs. which is critical because of the second point we want to emphasize. the cost of living. there are millions who have the same job he this ten years ago. but ten years ago, 15 years ago, they still had money left over to save for retirement and save for their children's college expense. you name it. now the same people with the same job are often living paycheck to paycheck. literally one unforeseen expense from disaster. if the refrigerator breaks or engine blows out, they have no idea where to get the money to pay for it. that is a real problem for our country. everything costs more. we have new expenses we didn't used to have and paychecks haven't kept pace.
part of solving that is having a vibrant and robust economy that creates better paying jobs. so that people aren't making $16 an hour but making 30 or $32 an hour. we need better paying jobs. we learned about the disruptions of the new century, it's changed a lot of the way things used to operate but also created extraordinary opportunities. we have a chance to replace the jobs we've lost and jobs that paychecks are stagnant in with better paying jobs that provide a higher quality of life and more opportunity for advancement and better pay. the second aspect of is louing people to keep more of what they earn. this is problematic for working families trying to raise children. senator lee has done a good job of explaining the cost associated of raising a family and the contribution that makes to america's future. these are america's future taxpayers and it is important for families in the 21st century to keep more of their money to apply that not just to the cost of today but to the
opportunities they want to give their children tomorrow. here's another dynamic that's often lost in the mix. there are hundreds and thousands if not millions of companies in america that pay their taxes on their personal rate. if you're someone who started a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, not only are you probably doing so in violation of the zoning code but you are also probably paying a tax rate significantly higher than your larger competitors. you are an s corporation. you're watch they call a pass through and pay business taxes on your personal rate. one of the things we do is create equity between an s corporation -- not always small business but invariably most small businesses are s corporations. we create real parity between them and the 25% tax code and that means a lot to millions out there operating a business out of their home or out of a one desk office or maybe have two or three employees. i would venture to guess that today if not all of you in the
room today have had some experience at some point with the past entities as to the way you do business and employ people and employ yourself. creating that parity is important. we can create -- we can get more into the details but here's the bottom line. it's good to go back in history and learn a little bit. it's interesting in the beginning of the 19th century, america was still largely an undeveloped economy. britain was the single largest in the world and united states was still largely an agrarian society. we want to fully capitalize from the opportunities of the new age. less than 100 years later america was the most powerful economic force in the world. that generation of americans not just confronted the challenges of industrialization, but capitalized on its opportunities. i would argue to you that we're now living through a period of transition as rapid as dynamic
and as impactful and perhaps more disruptive than the industrial revolution was. you see that every single day, every time you go to the checkout counter of a grocery store, you're swiping your own bar code on an automated machine, it reminds you that a job has been replaced by a machine. but it should also remind you that someone had to install that machine. someone had to design it and build it and someone has to maintain it and someone needs to work to replace that machine. we need to be the economy that does those things and creates opportunities for the cashiers to become the engineers. we need to be the economy that allows the receptionist at a law office making $12 hour to become the para legal making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year. a lot is creating the dynamic economy where the jobs are created. we want to be the place where they build these machines and where they design that software. we want to be the place where we employ the technicians that repair and be the place with the innovators live working on the
new 21st century machine that will replace the one in place. we have to have a tax code along with a regulatory code and other things as well. we have to have a tax code that makes us globally competitive and that's what we endeavor to do. this is a working product, tgs -- it is the starting point of what i hope will be an important engagement. to do something as big as tax reform cannot be a take it or leave it proposition. there are a lot of good suggestions and we're listening to a lot of them and always look for ways to improve our plan. but our hope is from it we can arrive at a consensus in america what a 21st century tax code looks like. thank you. [ applause ] >> my name is david burke with the heritage foundation. we have time for questions and answers but first i'd like to say the heritage foundation is a
501 c3 public policy organization, don't endorse candidates or get involved in political campaigns. i would ask you limit your questions to public poll -- public policy, preferably to subject matter of this event tax policy. with that, who would like to ask a question? this gentleman. if you would, please wait for the mike and state your name and institutional affiliation. >> joel mannedleman, an attorney here in washington. in the introduction to your proposal, you listed only two things that you would allow to be deducted from personal income taxes, charitable institutions and mortgages. was leaving out deductions for state and local property taxes just -- do you actually intend to abolish that deduction that would hurt families enormously especially in places like new york and new jersey, california,
where state and local property taxes and income taxes are catastrophically high now? senator rubio: property taxes and we've tried to reform in a state with sales tax as well. if you look at the tax code in its totality, nine out of ten americans, overwhelming majority in its total will save more money under this plan than saving today on the tax code. again, any sort of effort to simplify our tax code and to limit it will require us to look at different exemptions and remove them in exchange for lowering rates on people. that's just on the tax code side. it would lower the ultimate -- in essence, what you're concerned about is that people now are able to write off the expenses of their property sales tax on the tax code off the tax liability they have. under this plan they would save as much if not more than they are saving under that existing system and that's without taking into account the economic growth
aspect which would create increases in take home pay for a large number of americans, millions of americans. senator lee: there is a problem with excessive taxation at the state and local level and in addition to the federal level. we think this is a way of putting attention where it ought to be with the decision maker at the state and local level. >> next question. >> i'm kelsi snell from politico. do you have reaction to the score that the tax plan received? they said the plan would lose $414 billion a year. and on a dynamic basis over the first ten years it would lose, $1.7 trillion. do you have any concern what that would do to the economy? senator lee: well, first of all,
i think when you look at the economic growth this would prompt and the fact this is leveling the playing field and removing disincentives that we have for business formation and family formation, this will help the economy. and i don't think the american people are likely to complain overwhelmingly about having their tax burden reduced. and we did design it with the understanding that it would amount to a cut, that it would be somewhat revenue negative and we think this is good, this is good for the economy. this will stimulate economic growth over time. i think it will more than pay for itself. anything that enhances freedom and that is pro family and pro growth is going to be good for our country and good for our economy. senator rubio: that's a great question, glad you asked that. looking for the opportunity to answer it. a couple of points, it's not fair to score a pro-growth tax plan on a static model. because you're taking away from it its most important element, it will grow the economy. here's my second point, we have a serious debt problem in america. it's one we can either solely
-- we can neither solely tax our way out of -- we cannot tax our way out. if you confiscated 100% of the money made by millionaires, you barely make a dent in the long term debt. you can't cut your way out of it either. you have to do the combination of two things, only way to bring the debt under control, you have to do two things and do them simultaneously. you have to grow your economy so it is larger than the share of debt that represents it and second you have to hold the line on spending. that's why this plan is the growth side of the equation. this plan is designed to create the dynamic growth that we need, not just to empower and fuel the american economy, but to create the revenue for american government. revenue by creating more taxpayers, not more taxes. we still have to deal with the debt problem. if this was a tax increase plan, you would still have a problem with the debt because you can't realistically raise rates to any level to deal with the debt. we still have to do -- still have to deal with long term drivers of long-term debt, medicare and social security and currently medicare that are currently structured
unsustainable. that is a whole separate conversation but important one to have because people in my generation and mike lee's generation will have to accept that our medicare and social security is going to look different than our parents. my mother is on medicare and social security. i don't want to see her harm. but here's the truth, if we stay doing what we're doing now, the math is very simple, these programs bankrupt themselves. we're going to have to have in this country an effort to reform those programs so that they exist without changes for our parents and grandparents and when i retire and mike lee retires and many people in this room retire, we still have the best medicare and social security system in the world but it will look different than our parents but actually be sustainable for our children and grandchildren as well. you have to do both. [applause] >> thanks. >> my name is jamie witt, i thank senator rubio and thank senator lee.
i have trouble with the flat rate of tax that senator lee talk about for 15% for everyone with income up to $75,000 and couple up to $150,000 and after that it would be 35% you said? so that is exactly where my trouble is because i believe 90% of our middle class income falls right there in $150,000 to $200,000. would you be taxing 99% from middle class and 35% when the 1% was still pay 10% tax? how does that make the difference? i also have trouble with senator rubio's talk about the health care system. i believe the affordable care act is the answer to the health care spending right now.
and i believe plus with many other programs, especially on the research and development what innovations in job competition but global america especially with china and other rising powers. why would we cut -- and attack the affordable care act? why if we promote that current growth trend we would cut the deficit, cut the deficit more than 50% in ten years? thank you. senator lee: ok, first of all, thank you for your question. this was one of the things that we took into account when we started developing this plan. we started first and foremost from the standpoint we did not want a tax plan that would produce a tax increase for the middle class. we wanted something that would help the middle class and help grow and expand it. we've got data that can show you this and charts but look, almost no one in the middle class would see their tax bill increase. those that -- those very few that did would see only a slight adjustment there but very
slight. this is not a middle class tax hike. this is a middle class tax cut. and would be very pro growth and we're attempting to level the playing field here. senator rubio: first of all, as i said, a plan we believe and seeing the evidence it would cut taxes over 90% of americans, some quite significantly. it's impossible to do that and raise taxes on middle class since 90% of americans are not in the top bracket. the second thing you have to understand, the rates alone are not the basis of your tax liability. it also includes the deduction and personal deduction and deductions that we allow that are quite generous. you have to take into account we're removing the marriage penalty and increasing the per child tax credit. all sorts of other things that for example, the people at the 15% bracket would pay less than they are paying now at the 10% tax bracket because of things built in. then you talked about the health
care law. it's not the topic of this conversation per se, but i think we have to understand it's impact on the tax code and individual americans. it is true there are people in this country that have signed up and receiving obama care through some form or system. depending on where they live and how they apply for it. and it's also true many are saddled with extraordinary high deductables and high co-payments and can't see specialists anywhere near where they live. they lost a doctor they once had access to. there are less people willing to enter the health care space. over time the only way to make this cost effective is to reduce spending on innovation in health care because reimbursement rates will be crunched in order to be able to parcel out health care in a way that they find sustainable. that will lead to cuts in both innovation and medical -- provider networks now available to patients and to top it all off, we're on the verge of having to bail out companies that went into these changes and losing money.
i imagine other than that it's working quite well but these are major impediments to the future of the availability of health care for millions of americans. >> one over here. this gentleman. >> thank you, john zan with taiwan. senator rubio, you have a lot of fans in taiwan, even for your tax work. senator rubio: that means i don't have very much in beijing but that's ok. [laughter] >> could you tell the people in taiwan why tax reform in america is so important? if you can touch on the taiwan policy -- [laughter] senator rubio: i don't know how i can link the two other than to tell you i think economic growth -- we want to be a globally dynamic economy again. we understand we're engaged in the global competition, by the way not always a zero sum game. americans benefit from there being millions around the world that can afford to buy the productsmake, services we offer. the things that we innovate.
we want there to be a growing and vibrant growing middle class. but we also want to be competitive in the global marketplace in terms of the -- there will be high are payer -- higher-paying jobs created in the 21st century. the question is how many will be created here versus somewhere else. and increasingly there are now dozens of economies around the world that are creating a friendlier environment for investment. they have a better tax system on companies, on innovation. even on the personal side simpler to comply. and then you add to that regulations, fear of long term debt crisis, et cetera. i think it's true for cupping all countries all over the world particularly in the asian pacific region. that's where much of economic activity will grow rapidly in the eccentric. >> this gentleman.
>> thank you. mike warren from the weekly standard. a lot of conservatives consider tax credits to be tax spending and say they prefer tax deductions. your plan obviously takes the view that tax credits are the better way to go. what is the defense to conservatives who might disagree with that? senator lee: it's just wrong. look, this is not -- so those who look at it as a bad thing, try to describe the child tax credit as a subsidy, as a special interest giveaway or something like that. it's not. this is an offset to an existing penalty to an inequality that exists under the current system. our tax code coupled with the senior entitlement programs produced a parent tax penalty that we're trying to offset.
i'm not certain that the child tax credit that we provide completely offsets the penalty. but it's a step in that direction and i wholeheartedly defend it. senator rubio: i'm not saying anything bad about our conservative credits. -- critics. and i believe critics believe in a flatter tax code. that's an attractive argument to make. and there are elements of that embedded in this plan. but i think it's important to understand what the tax system is. one way to you view it -- i'm not saying this is what conservative critics believe but important to point that out. one view is the government's entitled to 100% of your money but we'll let you know how much of it you can keep. and the other view is we're entitled to 100% of our money, but we understand we have to have a government and we'll let you know how much we're willing to send you. that's the view i adopt, the latter. in this case, what we are saying is that families raising future american tax payers should not be penalized for having those additional costs. so they will send less money to washington than they otherwise would because they're making an extraordinary contribution to america's future by raising the people that will grow up one
day, innovate, invest, and fund the entitlement programs. >> next. yes, ma'am. >> "liberty times" in taiwan. i think the two senators proposed the tax reform here today is because you want to get american house in order and many of your alliance in asia actually pretty worried that a declining u.s. and raising china in that area. i just wonder do you have a view about -- do you have a confidence about u.s. presence in asia and especially friends in taiwan are worried that u.s. may not able to maintain stability in cross rate with rising china and growing military muscle. do you have any comments about that?
senator rubio: my first comment is america is not in decline, we just happen to have a period of time when we have a bad president, but we'll overcome that. my second point that i would make is our alliances in the asia pacific region are critical. i'm hopeful china's rise will not just be peaceful, but fair to its people. china has a challenge on its hand. they will have to decide how to meet their people's expectations. with a political crackdown or economic opening? and right now it looks like they're leaning in the direction of a political crackdown. and that's apparent given all the other challenges that they now face internally as a nation. they have a very serious demographic problem. environmental degradation, serious political issues long term in meeting the expectations of their people to be able to participate in the global conversation the way free citizens do. and part of danger is that they would turn toward national civil -- nationalism.
as you see in the construction of basically building islands. so part of our response to asia is clearly about our defense alliances, but part of it is our economic links to the region, as well. and i think we have a strong interest and increasing trade, commerce and interaction with our allies in japan and south korea korea, philippine, taiwan. america has to have a strong robust economy. so my message to our allies is the american people are ready to enter new american century. they just need leadership in washington that gives them the chance do it. and then america will be stronger than its he ever been and our alliance will be firmer and more stable than it's ever been. >> this gentleman. >> fox news channel. you've already heard some of the criticism that conservatives are saying about tax cuts not going deep enough for the top bracket among other things.
i wanted to get your specific reaction to that and also the "wall street journal" editorial referring on monday as the leading gop proponent that the -- i want to get this quote right. leading gop proponent of the idea that the reagan tax cut agenda is a political dead end and that the party must now redistribute revenue directly to middle class families. your reaction. senator rubio: i'll put them down as an undecided. i don't think any conservatives have any quarrel on what we've done on the pro-growth side. it all comes down to the child tax credit and i would say two things about that. if we eliminated this additional child tax credit, the most you would get maybe, maybe, 2% reduction in the top rate if you wanted to pay for it in the way that we're asking for. i think our argument is the one that senator lee made, this is
not a redistribution. the money does not belong to the government in the first place. there a penalty for those who are raising children. senator lee described two identical families, one raising four children, one that has made a decision not to have any children. both legitimate choices. you about but the family raising four children have additional costs and the tax code doesn't recognize that. so you you can't redistribute what already belongs to you. and this is money these families are earning. and i'm looking forward to a vibrant debate. i'm glad the conservative movement has space for this debate. i'm a huge proponent of everything president reagan did. he was a historic figure and quite frankly my favorite president certainly of the 20th century. the 21st century has significant differences. tax rates are different, globalization is real.
and we need to stay globally competitive and we need to recognize that in the 21th century, families face challenges that weren't there. my family made it as a bartender and maid. it would be very difficult for them to do that in the 21th century. my father would've had to become an electrician or welder, my mother would've had to become a dental hygienist for them to live comparable lifestyles. a great time, the last time the miami dolphins were in the super bowl were in the 1980's, so i love the '80s. but we're in the 21st century. and it's about common sense and reform. and this is a common sense reform about the realities of a new era. and conservative at its core, it works better in the 21th century than it did in the 20th even. senator lee: this is not a turn away from ronald reagan. this is emulating ronald reagan. conservatism involves applying conservative solutions approaches to meet the
challenges of our time. and this is the next stage of the implementation of ronald reagan's vision with a fairer simple leverr tax code. -- simpler tax code. >> next question. yes. >> i think there is one point you're missing that would help you you promote the child tax credit. with the exception of immigration, our nation is losing population. we're under the replacement rate and we shouldn't be shy about helping families to have children because of the reasons you said. we need people paying taxes and supporting the programs that are going eventually bankrupt.
i haven't heard you talk about the positive way that we should be supporting child rearing not for religious reason, but because the country needs population to support itself. senator lee: i certainly would agree that family formation, marriage and having children is not an activity we ought to be discouraging. but the idea behind this is not to encourage it, not the to subsidize it. it is simply to get rid of a penalty, to level the playing field. the playing field is not level right now with regard to american moms and dads. and that's what this is doing. i'm personally not comfortable with describing that as an encouragement, as a promotion or subsidy because it's not that. we're just taking away a penalty. senator rubio: i'd like to personally add that i have done my part i have four kids. , but let me add this, if a
business entity were to invest in capital, or were to invest in machines, in expansion, they receive tax benefit for doing so. but if an individual family decides to make an investment in people, in our future and human beings, all we're asking is that the tax code recognize that as well as an investment in the future. in individuals that will be the corner stone of america's future. that doesn't mean that -- look, we're not approaching this with a thought process someone will sit down with their accountant and said what you really need to do is have two more kids. i don't think people will make decisions that way, and that's not our intention. but it's a reality that raising children is expensive. from daycare costs, to educational cost, to all the other costs involved in raising future taxpayers, we just want our tax code to recognize that and create herrity -- parity for families that decided to take on the important work of raising america's future. >> we have time for one more question. this gentleman and then the senators have to go.
>> you mentioned conservatives with flatter tax plans. why reform the existing system instead of a monumental flat tax that effectively abolishes the irs? senator lee: first of all, love the idea of abolishing the irs. whenever we talk about that, we're referring to the complexity of the tax code and the the the corresponding discretion we give the irs. a century ago, the tax code was about that high. today it stands about 12 feet high. and that's a big problem. i sit on the joint economic committee. we had a hearing not too long ago and a gentleman was a witness testifying, he had a
phd in the u.s. tax code. i feel really bad for that guy. [laughter] that's his dissertation. the whole focus of his doctoral study. i asked him do you do your own taxes? he said no. because there is absolutely no way i could know with certainty that i was getting it right. so complexity is a big problem. that's part of what we're trying to achieve here. i love the idea the sim police i -- the simplicity that would go along with a single rate taxation system. if we were starting from scratch, i think that would make an enormous amount of sense. we do, however, have to start with the system that we have rather than the system that might have been had we followed a different course in in decades past. and as i've looked at it, as i've examined it, i can't find an effective way to move to us a single rate system that protects america's middle class, that doesn't involve raising taxes on a whole bunch of middle class americans.
there is a way of coming that -- of doing that with two rates. we achieve an key leveling of -- simplification and leveling of the playing field without imposing a middle class tax hike. senator rubio: the power of the irs is directly related to the complexity of the tax code. more powerful all bureaucratic agencies become. earlier in in the conversation someone brought up obamacare. obamacare has forced the irs to add additional employees just to enforce that law. so we're trying to get a point that is flatter and simpler and thereby easier to administer and reducing the size and scope of the impt rsr scht and its power irs and its power. and also other regulartory agencies. >> please join me in thanking
to the white house coverage on friday. the new hampshire republican party kicks off their leadership summit. we expect to hear from new jersey governor chris christie and senator marco rubio, plus former governors rick perry and jeb bush. that starts at noon eastern here on c-span. conference continues saturday morning with speeches from senators rand paul and ted cruz. we will also hear from governor scott walker and john kasich and former arkansas governor mike huckabee. live coverage beginning saturday 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to prevent -- pleased to present the winning entries in the student can video documentary optician. it encourages midland has will students to think critically about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to create their documentary based on the theme the three branches of you. to demonstrate how a policy, law, or action by one of the three branches of government has affected them or their community.
madeleine bound it from cherry hill high school east in cherry hill, new jersey, is one of our second prize winners. her entry focused on the subject of student loans. >> in the words of benjamin franklin, the education is the serious -- surest indicator for happiness. federally subsidized student loans have made college more accessible for students and provided better options. by offsetting the expense of higher education, federal student loans allow students to invest in their futures. yet such lending created $800 billion in student debt. student loan debt, including private loans, is approximately $1.2 trillion. surpassing credit card and on a debt. in 2013, the higher education act expired and congress has yet
to act on this topic that affects so many of the nations and people. college tuition continues to increase three times faster than the rate of inflation. for many young people, colleges and investments. but to what extent does the investment become a burden? >> if someone was to go to college, they should be able to go to college without having staggering debt. >> students are forced to finance their education with more and more debt. >> my family and i have visited several colleges. as a junior in high school, they are considerations i had to when making a college decision. i'm here at the university of pennsylvania. one of my first choice is because of the digital media design engineering program. but if i get accepted, there is a question of tuition. >> the cost of college tuition is increasing three times faster than the rate of inflation. at the same time, the college premium has risen greatly over the last decade. increasing the demand for higher education. but to what extent should students burned themselves with debt?
>> i should love to say that students should ignore the money and go after their passion. but in the long run, it depends on where your money is coming from. you have to think about the money. >> have to make money to pay it off before i can make money to work. to just live a normal life. >> i can tell already that loans will affect pretty much everyone in here. >> as of 2013, 50 5% of full-time for your college student have a federal loan. on average, students borrow about $30,000. federal student loan debt has increased an average of $100 billion each year since 2007. it is theorized that similar to the housing crisis, higher education is valued higher than its actual worth, a bubble that will eventually pop. >> outstanding student loan debt quadrupled to $1.1 trillion in 2014. if that's not a bubble, i don't
know what is. >> even as the financial risk of attending college continues to rise, so does the demand. >> my dream is to graduate college. >> my dream is to get into a good college and go to medical school. >> the demand for higher education has increased significant way. -- significantly. the supply is inelastic, an increase in demand yield a high increase in price. congress a moment to the higher education act in 1965. it was the first to establish broad-based loan and grant programs. in 1972, federal student loans became available for students with financial need. in 1988, the federal guarantee student loan program was renamed the robert t stafford student loan program. along with federally subsidized student loans, the federal government also offers grants and financial aid under the title iv program. >> today, more than 9 million
students are pilgrim recipients. >> economists believe that these grants have caused colleges and universities to raise the tuition. his idea as known as the bennett hypothesis. the ideas that subsidies lead to easier consumption, which leads to increased demand and subsequently higher cost. yet many economists argue that there is not enough empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. curious to see what my peers would think of this hypothesis i opened it up to a classroom debate. >> they drive up the college prices, start with that. >> in dead of seeing a push on prices, you see the fact that colleges have made our society believe that we have to go to college. >> federal financial aid increases the ability people to go to college, so more people will take that ability, and that artificially drives of demand. it makes sense why the bennett
hypothesis to be true. >> to make a rule that applies everywhere, i think it's pointless to argue for it. >> that has been a lot of research as to what the effects are having on the college crisis. a lot of them are not conclusive. >> i don't think there's a lot of merit. we can point of the reasons why we see college tuition rising. >> government subsidies has impacted tuition costs. it's a conundrum. if we went with your view of the free market, what we would've done is we would not done that we would not have increased held grants, there would be 9 million student -- if you are students in college. >> in 2013, the higher education act expired. elledge conditions -- tuitions continue to rise.
>> we can't keep continuing on with politics as usual while more and more students and families are priced out of being able to own a home or start a business, or by a car to drive to work. >> interest rates have progressed worsening students burden. a bill that would around -- allow students to refinance was blocked. forgiveness programs have been enacted, potentially encouraging colleges to increase tuition. obama recently proposed two years of free college, but many speculate that's only a talking point. there is no science the student debt crisis will slow down anytime soon. >> we have to work on providing the best information in the best format for students and families. a lot of people do not know the full extent of their options before they sign up. >> as my peers and i make a decision about college, it's
important to remember what benjamin franklin said. an investment in education pays the best interest. the quote is true, so long as the investment is wise and carefully planned. >> to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. tell us what you think on facebook and twitter. >> washington journal is next. we look at today's musing take your calls. the houses in this morning and that :00 eastern. it will work on a couple of tax measures, including a review all the so-called death tax. watch live house coverage here on c-span. this evening, u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon will be at the national press club. that's live at 7:00 eastern. coming up this hour, rhode island congress and david cicilline will join us to talk about federal protections for
the lgbt community. then a conversation with new jersey congas and chris smith about some of the foreign-policy challenges facing the u.s., including the proposed nuclear deal with iran. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning. the house is back in session at 9:00 a.m. eastern time in about two hours. congressional republicans are expected to repeal -- a proverbial that repeals the estate tax, or some -- to approve a bill that repeals the is a gas or some call the death tax. and this morning, the senate overwhelmingly fixes a medicaid payment.