 I'm Justin King from New America. We're a think tank based in DC, primarily focused on these issues from a federal policy perspective. Thank you for the kind introduction. Three keys I really want to focus on here. We need to level the savings playing field is the first one. The second one is, I think we've demonstrated pretty well though Tim's question about debt is complicated and probably deserves a lot more nuanced discussion than we might have time for today. But we, emergency savings are necessary and we have to start acting like it. And then the third one is that there is some competition between the states and the feds here. The problem is that there's competition between the states and the feds at times to see who can do the best job for people and then at times to see who can do the worst job for people. So we want to be fostering more of that competition to see who can lead the way here. So I'm absolutely grateful to the gentleman who asked the last question to the previous panel about people choosing not to save for entirely rational reasons. The first piece of advice that a financial planner would give to someone is you should be putting money aside into an emergency fund. I mean that's just sort of like read any one of 10,000 articles that appears on any sort of financial advice website and that's the first thing. But we don't have one set of rules when it comes to savings in America. We have one set of rules for middle and upper income Americans and then we have an extraordinary mess for low and moderate income Americans. If you're participating in public assistance of any type, there is likely to be a limit on the amount of money that you are allowed to save in order to become eligible for that program or before they'll kick you off of that program. So all of these programs that are meant to help people are tied up in red tape that prevents people from saving. And the problem is not that there's a prohibition on savings, so that's obviously a problem, but the problem is that the rules are so convoluted that no one can figure out what they are. We're in New York City, we're in New York State. What are the rules here? And I feel a little embarrassed about doing this. There's probably 20 financial coaches in here that could do this much better than I could and I trust one of them will correct me if I'm wrong. But if you want nutrition assistance through the SNAP program, there's no asset limit. That's great and it's true in 33 other states. If you want financial assistance through the TANF program, what we used to call welfare, there's an asset limit of $2,000 unless somebody in the household is 60 years or older, then it goes to $3,000, but there's also a $1,400 exclusion for money dedicated to post-secondary savings, but that doesn't cover a 529. There's no asset limit on home heating assistance. It gets cold in New York State. People need help heating their house unless you're in the crisis assistance program. Then you have to spend down to $2,000. If there's someone in the house with a disability, there's an entirely different set of rules. There's now an account called an ABLE account that loosens up some of those rules, but not if your disability occurred after age 26. The rules are different in New Jersey. They're different in Connecticut. They're different in Pennsylvania. They're different by product. The good news about 2016 is that we have incredible data visualization techniques that we can apply to problems like this. So I had some of my colleagues whip up a decision-making flow chart for low-income people to decide whether under this rule scheme it makes sense for them to save. That's the wrong slide. That's a Jackson Pollock that made its way into my thing. Low-income folks put up with a level of surveillance and complexity that other Americans would reject out of hand. Somebody mentioned this earlier. I think Tim mentioned this earlier. We boosted the size of the earned income tax credit when the Recovery Act hit. We recently made that boost to the EITC permanent. That's a good thing, but when we boosted it the first time, folks realized, oh my gosh, we're going to have folks that are going to get their tax refund and they're not going to be eligible to put food on the table with SNAP anymore. Here's what we'll do. We'll tell everybody just don't pay any attention to that $2,000 or $3,000 that showed up in the bank account. That's the permanent law now. That's the way to disregard an EITC-based refund in terms of asset limit determinations. This is madness. It's no wonder that people choose not to save. We need to have one set of rules for people. It would be best if that rule was you should be saving. It's better for you, it's better for your family, it's better for your community, it's better for your country, but that's not the message that people hear right now. The first thing we need to do is level the savings playing field, reform these outdated rules that prevent people from saving. That's going to be something that's going to let all the other amazing things that people are working on really have an impact in low-income communities. My second point is that emergency savings are necessary. This is a chart that Clint Key probably recognizes charting the average number of days of emergency savings in households by income group. Folks at the bottom end of the income spectrum have six days of savings on hand. This is just a demonstration of the incredible amount of financial insecurity in America and it extends up the income scale. This is not a poor person's problem. This is a mainstream American problem. I'm going to steal another chart. This is from my dear friend Ezra Levin just sitting off to my side here. This shows the amount of benefit so the government does support savings. It only supports retirement savings. It does that to the tune of $150 billion a year. If you're a top income earner, you might get a $4,000 benefit or a $10,000 benefit from those retirement savings policies. If you're at the bottom of the income spectrum, you're going to get $40 from this. You're going to get $100 from this. Give me 10% of that $150 billion and let's see what we can do with some low income families and see where they go with it. Yes, that's fine. I will accept that. Representative Serrano talked about this idea of a financial security credit. For us, that's a first step towards a vision of a government that says clearly to people, we want your household to be financially stable, we want you to be saving, and we are going to make the investments to do that. It does it two ways. One, by delivering extra resources to striving families. And two, by breaking this kind of insane stranglehold that retirement savings has on federal policy. People's needs are not just locked up 30 years from now. They are happening day to day. We need to recognize that. I'm going to save my third point for later if we have time to get to it and turn it over to Ezra now. Thanks.