were traitors, and that's what the birchers said. >> written by harmless nuts. [laughter] >> i think that really offended bill, and we went back and reread -- i don't know how it came up, but we posted it on the website, the 1953 denunciation of the birchers, and it's quite detailed. it's not just, u you know, the people are terrible, but quotes it at great length showing this is an unattainable argument, but sort of -- it transforms the difference of opinion, difference of strategy and tactics, even a difference in values into a kind of denunciation of people of evil when that was not the case, and i think that really -- so that part of, i think bill always had a distaste for and it was a wise decision to those aspects. ..

using that kind of rhetoric in the name of the conservative movement. >> we published that editorial to kick the letter down. we really meant it. [laughter] >> yes. >> this may be a logical following on, but i would really like your thoughts since this panel is about energizing and reenergize in the conservative movement, the role of

conservatives, if you set aside your bias and the fact that you're all primarily print journalists, your themes of, it values that buckley represented, certainly conservative talk radio does not suffer humility, but it also does not seem to be much of a big tent. it seems to be very doctrinaire and attacking deviation from a fairly narrow line, and i am throwing that out more for you to react to, but more generally in the concept, is this or are there things that you would do differently for the conservative movement or do you see this as a mostly violin constructive role? >> actually, we have a pretty full file of his views on these things. he reached out and became friendly with half a dozen of

them. he thought they were a critical element, but thought that it but an even greater burden on the gyroscopic fortune. and if there is an imbalance in the public conversation and the totality of conservative expression is blaring from that particular megaphone, i don't think it serves as well. bills view was that they were tactical allies, but not great strategic asset. of course he was a great taxonomist. i remember one of the last times i saw him. he was going through, you know, from hana the to limbaugh to the rest of them, and he had a really crisp and focused you of each one. i don't know how he did that. for most of his life he worked 18 hours a day. that was one day he would have

-- one way he would have done it, but i'm not sure how he got so informed about talk radio. he knew it well. >> yes. >> i wanted to point out that not only did bill buckley start his career here at yale, but he also had his last public speech here, about a year, year-and-a-half or to a 40 passed away also just down the street from here. i was in attendance that day. second, a question for mr. freeman, if he were still around what he had met with ron paul for lunch, and if he did or didn't, what would he say about him after words? [laughter] >> well, he knew ron paul. if you are youtube savvy, you can see it.

i really interesting exchange between the two of them. the reason i think he never settled up to ron paul is for the reason that bill mentioned, absolutism of any kind was of putting to him. he was always lain down the predicate. he saw it as his duty to it sort of define the conservative paradigm. he was always flexible, and people who were inflexible on whenever the issue -- i mean, i had to be a tip of the spear in a campaign, and i confess i went into battle for bell and displayed -- slay the dragon, but i did not read ellis shrugged until last winter. [laughter] i hereby apologize. the book has some merit. [laughter] but bill, i always thought his

principal grape was her atheism. end it triggered a response that had been bred in build from that time he was baptized. but also he was an absolutist, and that was off-putting. >> yes. >> i am a history professor. i teach american politics and what you to know i find an awful lot of bull -- bill buckley in my class is. we have been reading mccarthy and his enemies. i frequently send students to the manuscript archive divisions to look for the but the papers. this semester the campaign and writing about the john birch society controversy. one student who is here is

writing about buckley and catholicism and his relationship with whitaker chambers. the legacy is here. [laughter] >> i guess one thing -- i have two things, one of which comes up in class often. one is sort of self interested question. the first is, often quite interested in the idea that he had this outsider identity and alienation from what buckley articulated as the establishment and a question of where exactly that comes from. is it partly being a catholic in a place like yale, temperamental because yale was liberally in the 1950's. yellow 1940's, franklin roosevelt. i think we can overstate the liberal socialistic nature of yale during the '40's and

50's. i am curious if you have thoughts about where in those early years that sense of alienation and outsider and is comes from which becomes so important to his project later on. and the second more self interested question is i happen to be writing a biography of j. edgar hoover. trying to think about the role of a figure like hoover in politics and the conservative movement. i have been spending time reading buckley's fbi file. i am wondering if any of you have any good anecdotes or anything interesting to say. [laughter] exactly. i want to know what he really thought of hoover, now what he wrote in national review and these very polite letters. thank you, director hoover. he did have something of a relationship there, but i am curious if you could tell me what he really thought of j. edgar hoover, if you know.

>> i will say one thing. bill was never so energized as when going after large authority. one of his great battles, he being a loyal son of rome, was to attack popes. i mean, he just loves to get into a scrape with the vatican. [laughter] when he went into the john birch society in history it looks like, well, he was cleansing the movement of this. at the time the john birch society was a major player. they had strings on advertising contracts, strings on distributor deals for the magazine. they contributed, their members actually wrote checks beyond the

subscription fee, and -- but bill, while he was fearless, he was also a lover of danger. story time? >> what is the story about when he flew the plane in the dark? >> as far as i am aware. >> the movement. >> he did. >> he was still here. >> he was still here, and he did not intend to fly it in the dark >> was surprised at nightfall came. there he was. >> however, instead of trying to put down in newport or someplace he had flown a buddy up to boston. instead of putting down at providence or some place when i started to fall he decided that

he could safely follow the new york, new haven, and hartford railroad track back, which he did successfully do and did put the plane down. but, yes. there it was. he had a job to do, so he did it. >> this is classic bill. remember the 60's. a pretty sad time. people were on the edge of political consensus. not getting criticized but shot. politicians were getting shot. we have our first briefing with our security detail, then the nypd. every cop in new york. everyone. they trot out this terrific file of threats.

bill, i could tell he was losing patience. he begins doing this. he says through it for a while. all of a sudden he has something very important to attend to and he leaves. he gives me to directives. first, he is never attending a meeting of that kind again. i can attend them. [laughter] you know, the reports that he might be shot in the morning did not concentrate his mind. the aborted. and the other was, you have to take steps to be sure patsy never hears about any of this. this was early in the campaign. bill was still hoping that patsy would support him in the campaign. [laughter] >> go ahead. >> our time has come. we thank you all for being here.

[laughter] [applause] >> this afternoon greenville county in spartanburg county republicans opposed to the presidential candidate forum in duncan, south carolina. right now newt gingrich and rick santorum have signed up to participate, but we could also see other candidates. did they hold the primary next saturday, january 21st. see the debate later today at 6:20 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in this place you will stand for all time on monuments to those who fathered this nation and those who defended it, a black preacher, no official rank or title who somehow gave voice

to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideal. >> a saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern president obama is joined by civil rights leaders and the king family for the dedication of the martin luther king jr. memorial on the national mall. also, saturday at 6:00 civil war scholars look at the direction of the war as well as northern and southern strengths and weaknesses at the end of 1851 and sunday at 3:00 world history after serving from 1960-70 in the navy, now senator john kerry became a vocal opponent of the vietnam war. his story on american history tv this weekend on c-span three. >> last november the senate finance committee held a hearing to look at how best to use unemployment assistance programs to help people find jobs. officials from texas and rhode island of vote -- offered local perspectives. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> first, i apologize to our witnesses and everyone here for the late beginning. something came up. we are going to make up for theodore roosevelt once said, the best price that life has to offer is a chance to work hard at work worth doing the great recession hit americans with soaring unemployment rates that has kept the chance to work for millions of americans. the economy created 80,000 jobs in october, and that was the 13th uninterrupted month of job growth. that is the good news.

however, we need faster job growth to keep this economy moving in the right direction. nearly 14 million americans are still unemployed. more than 42 percent of these folks have been searching for a job for at least six months. that means nearly 6 million americans have been without a job for half a year more. you must remember that the folks to collect unemployment benefits have worked, want to work, and will work again. i recently spoke with one such young man from montana. roy worked at a paper plan vital

to the community. in 2009 they closed their doors. losing that job for he and his co-workers was dramatic. unemployment benefits were unnecessary lifeline. the income he received from unemployment insurance was less than half of what he previously made. the mortgage on his home was 30 percent of his income while working. when he was collecting unemployment the same mortgage ate up 60%. after his company closed it was certified, fortunately, with eight trade adjustment assistance program. he was able to meet with his case manager and a back-to-school. through this training program he found a new career. roy told me he thinks that the best reemployment programs give someone the opportunity to find a job.

his first principle, the job pays people more than the job that left. second is that it provides an opportunity for growth. the last measure, the job must be sustainable in the 21st century economy, and i could not agree more. so today i encourage us to focus on how our unemployment can use a reemployment strategies to save existing jobs and create new ones. let's find a way to improve the program. there are several reemployment proposals that this community is considering. some programs partially replace their earnings of workers who suffered job loss. others help unemployed workers find permanent work, either through direct job placement or through retraining. other models are designed to develop our entrepreneurs. we need to tap into these ideas. there are already a number of states doing great work.

twenty-two states have implemented a work sharing program. under these programs to avoid layoffs states allow employers to trim the hours they pay their employees and use unemployment insurance funds to maintain pay for the full-time job. my state of montana has its own version of this. i look forward to hearing testimony today about rhode island's work sharing experience some states create new jobs through programs which help employers to cover a portion of the new employee's wages. we will hear more today about the opportunities and challenges . many components of the unemployment insurance program will expire at the end of this year. but to extend this program, critical not only for millions americans, but also our economy and is an opportunity for this committee to examine the unemployment system and make improvements. let us assure that workers have the skills employers need, jobs

kit filled and our economy recovers. more than an unemployment check, people want to be back at work. that is really what this is about. so i focus on getting these folks back to work. let us heed the words of teddy roosevelt. make sure all americans have the chance of the price of working hard at work worth doing. senator hatch. >> thank you for holding this hearing. this is an important topic and one worthy of the committee's attention. the factory are holding this hearing today is yet another reminder that despite some recovery in our economy, too many americans are unable to find jobs. our unemployment rate is simply too high. while there are differences of opinions on how to solve this problem, we are all in agreement that congress must do more to restore job creation and to help get the unemployment rate down.

today we will have another discussion about our nation's unemployment insurance. my hope is we can get answers about how our unemployment system can be reformed. currently the system is designed simply to process and distribute benefits to the unemployed. individuals and families that face job loss deserve better than this. ideally the goal of the system would be to help unemployed workers find new jobs. indeed, the success of the various programs should not be measured by the number of people receiving benefits, but by the number of people who have moved from receiving benefits in the long term employment. today i hope we will hear ideas for making these types of changes. it is gratifying to see we have representatives from state work force agencies on our panel today. i am convinced if we are going to see reforms to the system, to get people back to work, those reforms will come from innovations from the state.

over the years unemployment insurance has especially been a state run program area of the federal government has provided guidelines states have been given the responsibility of collecting and distributing. however, with the recent economic downturn we have seen an expansion in the federal government's role in unemployment insurance and with expanded federally financed benefits and less flexibility to innovate and reform there of it -- individual programs. this is unfortunate because as we have seen over the years, many states have generated ideas and reforms that have drastically improve their systems, and win individual states take action they have been able to effectively communicate their successes and even their failures with other states. this has led to the best -- the expansion of the best practices across multiple states. when i speak with utah officials about their programs which

are by most accounts the most efficient, they continually expressed their concern to take on more responsibility in designing and implementing reforms and helping people to get back to work. more than anything state officials in utah want to see fewer restrictions stemming from the federal level and greater flexibility to innovate. the evidence of state innovation is strongest in the area we are discussing today, and that is reemployment. i am hoping today's panel will give us some insight into what states had been able to do in this area, which programs have worked, and which ones have not. most of all, i am hoping to get some clarity about what congress can do to help states find success as they work to solve their own unemployment problems. there are a number of ui-related issues that will have to be addressed between now and the end of the year. i am convinced that if we want to see improvements in the preemployment efforts and other areas of the ui system, the federal government's role will need to be reduced. states need to be given more

flexibility to develop their own approaches and adopt an adapt programs from other states. to the extent that congress can play a role, i believe it should be getting out of the way. in the coming days we will hear very few state officials clamoring for more strings to be attached to their ui programs. i hope to gain greater insight into these issues and look forward to hearing from our panel. mr. chairman, i will have to slip out for a little while to get to the judiciary committee, but i will be right back. i welcome you and am grateful for your time and testimony and look forward to not only hearing but reading everything you have to say. >> thank you very much. i look forward to your return. i would now like to just introduce our witnesses. dr. paul what mayor. second is lori temple, executive

director of the texas workforce commission. third we will hear from charlie fogarty. also the former lieutenant governor of the great state of rhode island. and finally, don peitersen who is the director of unemployment insurance and workforce projects at the american institute for employment in aurora, colorado. false statements for the record. i urge you to summarize them, pull no punches, tell it like it is. life is short. can't take it with you. let's have added.

>> distinguished members of the committee, i am stephen wandner, a visiting fellow and a scholar at the the upjohn institute for employment research. thank you for inviting me to testify about reemployment services. the views expressed are solely mine and should not be attributed to the upjohn institute or to the urban institute. returning american workers to work is essential to the economic health of the nation. reemployment services are important tools to accomplish that goal. many rigorous and impartial studies have shown that several reemployment services have helped to cost-effective lead return unemployment insurance recipients to productive work. over the past 25 years a great deal has been learned about how reemployment services help the jobless get back to work. researchers have used to rigorous evaluation methods to

assess what works and what does not. during my career at the u.s. department of labor i participated in much of this research. i was fortunate to have initiated and overseen a series of social science experiments under the lead of secretaries from bill brock to robert reischauer. evaluations of these labor department evaluations concluded that three methods are cost-effective. these approaches are job search assistance, self employment assistance, and reemployment bonuses. in addition, work sharing evaluations have shown that program to be effective in the u.s. and over a dozen other industrial nations. recommend that these be used nationally to help unemployed workers return to work during high unemployment.

these real employment approaches can be implemented and expanded at little cost to the federal government. let me explain. job search assistance consists of assessment, counseling, job development, and providing labor marketing and job search workshops. together they speed the return to work, reducing unemployment insurance payments and increasing tax payments. there were supported by the recovery act, but these funds have now expired. federal funding is needed to provide substantial amounts of job search assistance to those who needed. self employment assistance allows workers to set up their own businesses, creating their own jobs. program participants have been shown to rapidly return to work and earn substantially more money than nonparticipants. federal law allows states to spend their own -- set up their own self employment programs,

which few states have done, and the program is little used. temporary federal funding would greatly increase program adoption. work sharing is permissible under federal law in 22 states and the district of columbia they have such programs allowing a reduction in hours instead of laying off workers. participants receive a pro-rated share of their weekly unemployment insurance benefits for the days they do not work. it's much more widely used in other industrial nations than the united states. work sharing would be much more widely adopted and used by the state if state unemployment trust fund were temporarily relieved of paying benefits. finally, reemployment bonuses of about $1,200 for workers to retain a job for four months have been shown to be a cost-effective incentive to

speeding the return to work. this finding is based on analyses of four reemployment bonus experiments that have been conducted in the united states. i recommend that we try out this approach nationally. each reemployment strategy to be rigorously evaluated so that we can determine how effectively they work in this time of high unemployment and public policy can be shaped accordingly. thank you for this option the to testify and i welcome your question. >> thank you very much. mr. temple. >> good morning. for the record, my name is larry temple. i appreciate this opportunity to share with you the exciting things we're doing in texas to assist those on unemployment insurance and those who have exhausted their benefits find work. our unemployment rate is higher than we wish it were, but texas

has felt the impact of the national downturn of the economy. at the same time we have also, from september 10-11 created nearly 250,000 jobs and caterpillar and toyota to name a few have selected texas for new plants and four planned expansion. we were rated as the top state to locate a business in 2011, and i am proud to say our workforce commission and its network of local work force boards have all been a part of this economic development team. through our system job-seekers and employers are connected, and by being a part of this team at the economic development level we are able to assist the unemployed and take advantage of these hiring opportunities. our local work force boards have held over 500 job fairs to help connect employers and job-seekers.

through our integrated delivery model and commitment we have been able in the past year to reconnect over 800,000 unemployed texas to the work force. we have a demand driven system, and a model built around private employers as they are the key to job creation. a little background on how our model is structured. in 1995 the legislature created the commission by merging 28 work-force development programs in ten different agencies. we have 28 local work force boards, 241 stops serving 254 counties. building strong bonds between business, education, job strengthen the economy to benefit everyone and partner with community colleges, community-based organizations, education partners, as well as local chambers of commerce. the the local flexibility with the state oversight is our

model, and it continues to serve texas. the second only to veterans, unemployment insurance claim is our number one priority in our system. formally dedicate -- designated in 2003, and to reinforce this commitment and priority we self-imposed the measure the gold standard to reemployed claimants within ten weeks. not a federal measure or legislative measure, but something we put on ourselves. when we put this in place of employment was around 5%, and our performance was about 207 percent of people going to work within ten weeks. although it is a great goal, we can get someone back in 11, 12, or 13 weeks, it is still better for everyone involved. today we believe that in the first five years alone this initiative saved our trust fund about $1 billion also has put a little over a billion dollars

into the households of our claman's and the local economic impact with the conservative multiplier of one-and-a-half which puts about a billion a half in local communities. prior to -- in addition to this when we work with our clemens, we have such things that we use as the taxes back to work program, which is a hiring incentive program which provides employers with a $2,000 hiring incentive to over four months. today we have placed in less than two years over 20,000 claimants with about 4,000 employers participating. the targeting claimants who were coming out of the $15 an hour or less jobs and for those that complete the program they are receiving about 99% replacement wages.

with that tremendous success. in addition to these programs we also have a workfare program. it peaked at nearly 700 companies. today we have about 477 companies and 25,000 people that are participating. but all of this goes to flexibility at the local level to do these things. and the work force funding, we really hope that you would consider giving states more flexibility because we certainly are a lack of innovation and can get much more accomplished in light of budget cuts which we deal with ourselves because we are dealing with less money as well, but serving people. thank you for the of which entity to share with you, and that would be glad to answer any questions. >> you bet. thank you.

don peitersen. did i pronounce that correctly? >> chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this up originally to testify. the american institute for full employment is a nonprofit think tank that provides counsel with an emphasis on a brief employment and subsidize wage policy design and implementation the focus is timely. in the past year the united states has spent 115 billion. over half of the claman's exhaust benefits, and those to go on on average stay unemployed for over one year claiming 16,000 in benefits. my testimony addresses strategies that offer an opportunity to realize a greater return on the significant commitment of taxpayer resources while returning unemployed americans to work more rapidly. according to a study of job-seekers, more than half have visited their community work centers over the entire year

only once. brick and mortar centers are not the only place to search for jobs. much of that activity occurs on line in the form of social networks and employer websites. unfortunately states have not kept pace with these trends creating a mismatch of available services. some states require those applying to simultaneously register with their employment services program, thus ensuring immediate connection i also promoting a more engaged job search. for many states that have not adopted this practice funding is an issue. congress should allow states to use a portion of their unemployment insurance dollars to fund better efforts to provide a level of fiscal mess to meet a stipulated return and a program limit. each day job-seekers confront headlines. the five job-seekers for every

job. these are easy to report, but can leave a confusing impression on the job market. they can send job-seekers of optimism and motivation by highlighting the 5% we overlook the significance of the 95 percent of jobs that remain, driven by natural turn in the labour market, those jobs will provide 50 million hiring opportunities this year alone. labor market data has a far more helpful story to tell, one that suggests finding a job tomorrow difficult, is not impossible. to be successful in job-seekers must focus on networking and cold calling. most states simply ask the claimant to contact one or two employers per week, a task that could take less than two hours. that level of activity is hardly a recipe for success. we found effective job seekers have two main characteristics. they treat their job searches a job and maintain detailed records of their activity.

congress' most significant untapped opporunity is the subsidy. the best programs we have studied, over 80 percent of job seekers were employed within three months. participants said greater job retention and wage gains. more than 80% of employers helped cost or expansion. the president's has proposed a subsidy which blends the attributes of several programs. it should be modified to eliminate the employer mandate to increase the maximum training and simplify a cumbersome 2-payer system by paying the subsidy directly to the employer . because the net cost and make it a legacy or loser, we recommend using existing strategy for early interventions for those claman's were most likely to exhaust claims.

state agencies are full of good ideas and promising solutions have restrictive funding silos. little has been done to harmonize the findings were unable strategic connections. their waivers for program requirements in the work force investment act, temporary assistance, but not for unemployment insurance. accompanying by cost effective safeguards we could make serious inroads into getting people reemployed. congress has an opportunity to clear a path toward meaningful gains of employment by enhancing job search engagement, enabling innovative ways it subsidy programs, and giving states freedom and flexibility to devise and employ creative new solutions. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you.

it is an honor to be with you today. brodeur island's 20-year experience with the short-term compensation program. mr. chairman, simply put, work share is a successful layoff of version program that has prevented an estimated 14,600 layoffs in rhode island since 2007, the beginning of the economic recession. that is especially important for a state like ours because we have been experiencing double-digit unemployment since march of two dozen nine. we believe our work share program has kept its rate from escalating and causing further damage to our state economy. a company that uniformly reduced the work hours, the reduction can run from as little as 10% to as much as 50%. income that would otherwise have been lost due to layoffs is partially reimbursed through

unemployment insurance. in rhode island our average unemployment insurance benefit covers approximately six -- 60% of lost wages. a person works full time earning $500 each week or $100 per day. this same person has his or her workweek reduced from five days to four. the participating company would pay that employee $400 in wages. unemployment insurance would pay him or her $60, 60 percent of that wage for the remainder of the week, meaning the total of wages is $460. had that person been laid off his or her weekly benefit would have totaled approximately $300 or $160 less. conversely the weekly drain on the unemployment insurance fund would have been 240 more than if he or she had been participating in work share. available to any employer with two or more employees, provided the business meets certain

criteria. it is designed as a lay of the diversion program during an unanticipated downturn, and cannot be applied to eight time frame associated with seasonal slowdowns. only those employees who normally work 30 hours or more per week and would normally qualify for unemployment insurance benefits are eligible to participate. employers are also asked to continue to provide existing fringe benefits. in a case where collective bargaining units are involved, that unit must sign off on the plan. for rhode island were chair has proven to be a win-win-win situation, employees, employers, and the state of rhode island. the biggest benefit for employees is obvious, they get to keep the jobs at which they already excel. that is important in rhode island where there are now seven job-seekers for every two job

openings. those are tough odds. that is why programs like word share are so important. they will provide stability to families that otherwise may be facing an average of 30 or more weeks of unemployment. a win for employers because they're able to protect their greatest investment, a trained and productive work force. employers will tell you that when a laid-off worker walks out the door, all the knowledge and skills that he or she accumulated walkout with them. however, employers who have benefited will tell you that because they're able to remain on the job part-time, those same employees will be prepared and better able to boost production when the economy turns around. i would like to provide a couple of comments from some of the folks who have used a program. the ceo of pilgrims brew is now actively involved in work share. he says by giving small businesses an option to a full layoff they help to maintain

skills that might otherwise be lost. people in small companies often wear many hats. the layoff may mean a skill is lost, unlike in large companies were skills are redundant. the ceo calls his company the poster child. the single most instrumental action was work share. we were preparing a cut in our staff and instead were able to have work share subsidize wages. we survived the recession and today we're adding a huge facility and will be hiring more people. for the state of rhode island it is simple, jobs. keeping taxpayer -- taxpayers employed and poised for growth tomorrow. thank you for this opportunity to testify about this important economic issue. >> thank you. and listening to you, i am

curious as to your reaction of how these various alternatives work and which ones might work better with respect to our changing economy. some of your efforts may be relevant to the changes, and some may not. the changes, obviously, that with increased productivity many companies are finding ways to prove their bottom line with automation, increases in productivity, fewer employees. it is also a recession caused by a financial crisis, which is causing a prolonged effort to

get out of the recession because of the de leveraging that is necessary, both public and private. international competition, globalization, it is even more an issue today than it was 15 years ago and will continue to be more of an issue. so given all of that, many companies, you hear the story about how major corporations have cash on hand and urges of spending it because of uncertainty. tax policy, maybe europe. who knows. but just how do these programs you are talking about address these changes and the nature of

the american economy as it affects jobs and the people working? >> well, as far as productivity, i have discussed work sharing. it has been shown to help employers retain skilled workers and prevent them from having to hire new workers entering them over again when demand comes back. so, clearly if skilled workers can be retained and be there. >> the rhode island program. >> i like the rhode island program. >> it does make some sense. >> it does, indeed. rhode island has done more and has had more work sharing

relative to its size than any state in the country. it has done a particularly good job. but the job search assistance as well prevents people from losing their skills and being unemployed for longer amounts of time than they otherwise would. but a lot of reemployment services will help us. >> the new jobs. different skill sets? you know, you have to think ahead a little bit here. >> what we are seeing, of course manufacturing, we're seeing some growth in manufacturing, not nearly what we would like, but the logistics' peace is an area that we are finding is really needed in the economy. working with people and being able to assess and identify what skills they have that are

transferable. >> logistics'. >> transportation, giving the product moved around, inventory control and those types of things, it baby and -- may be manufactured at of the country but it is coming back and for distribution. our initiative in san antonio, one of the primary pieces of our economic development in the southern part of the state, the suppliers and getting those products to toyota just-in-time. that is something that is different for people who have been on the production floor, but they have transferable skills. a strong workforce program that provides services can identify through assessment with the skills gaps are, what skills are transferable, and have been able to connect them to trainers. and flexibility. i hate to get on that soapboxes,

but what works in dallas does not necessarily work in el paso. what works in texas -- >> what is the greatest restriction? >> between all these funding sources, it is so silent. you have the ui dollars that you cannot use for much other than getting the check. if you have dollars that you can use toward reemployment services the program that was being talked about earlier has differ restrictions for putting people back to work. all of those have different reporting. there is some flexibility at the federal level. part and parcel of these. the various programs, but it really needs a combined effort. >> put that together. >> absolutely.

>> you? >> we are trying our best it is a one-stop shop. >> yes. well, what is the best way to figure out how to put that together? >> i will be glad to provide you with some ideas. >> okay. >> in rhode island the governor's workforce board has identified growth areas that we see jobs now and likely in the future, areas such as defense, high-tech, green jobs, hospitality, and health care. we form partnerships and consortiums to identify training opportunities to make sure those workers are there when the jobs are available. ironically, even in a state like ours we still hear from employers who are having trouble getting skilled -- >> i apologize.

my time is up. a cute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i mentioned in my opening statement and believe we need to change the culture of the system from one that simply measures the distribution of benefits to one that focuses more on giving the unemployed back to work. the changes like this are already being made in a number of states, and i am glad to see this, but i believe we need to do more to facilitate this shift you have both discussed your efforts to improve reemployment at the state level. what evidence can you point to that the ideas you have mentioned, job search, we implement services, or training programs reduce the length of time individuals spend receiving unemployment benefits and also, what metrics which you use to evaluate these programs?

will start with you. >> in texas we have self-imposed 18-week reemployment measure on ourselves to rapidly reemployed. we use that as a metric and hold our local offices accountable to that. by making them a priority and an outcome-based initiative, i think it is the key. to my knowledge texas is the only state that is implemented a statewide self-imposed measure that is not a federal measure for reemployment. and so i think our model and one other thing, just simply duration and exhaustion as a method. a priority in making this population a priority to get reemployed and holding ourselves accountable to do that. in government if you don't

measure it it does not exist, and we measure it now, and it does exist. >> i would just add. there is another factor that you need to look at. it is not just looking at those measures of reemployment. i could not agree with you more. getting organizations to look for -- first at the c-span2 program should be the main focus of where we are going and how we can do these things, but the of the metric you need to look, you should measure anything being done. what is that doing to create savings for the trust funds sitting out there? by taking any methodology, whether work share more jobs assistance or whenever it is, it needs to be proven that what you are doing is actually making a difference with those funds that you are spending to get people back to work producing the amount of time they're on unemployment, thus saving money. one of the metric ton would like to see out there, something that

talks about how this program impacts the trust fund. you have benefits being paid, people getting back to work quicker and reducing employers' taxes. >> okay. in your written testimony and in your statement as understand that you describe a number of services. i am hoping that we can get a better idea. let's say i am an unemployed worker in taxes, and i filed for unemployment benefit. your goal is to help me find a job within ten weeks. how do i become aware of your states to reemployment services, whether jobs services, wage subsidy, or something else, and house specifically to buy tickets vantage, and what will you require of me to be able to participate? >> tonight every workforce board will generate a letter that will

be mailed in the morning to everyone who applied for unemployment insurance in texas today introducing them to the system, giving them a number, location of the office closest to them, and inviting them to come in and get services. that is not the usual. this is the welcome wagon letting them know what we have. we start immediately. the sec it -- the second thing we do is through our priority, extensive outreach. we communicate through of reach. for instance, our hiring incentive program, we let them know that they can take this and go out and sell themselves. it is strictly as a hiring incentive to hire unemployment insurance claimants.

if they can take that and say, if you hire me i don't exactly have the skills, but here is $2,000 that will offset the training cost. we are trying to find them jobs that is kind of how we start. we let them know above services. we also have an expectation and job searches. we implemented in 2003 in minimum of three jobs search is a week. our local boards said what it will be. it is generally around five. some of the rural areas are at three, and so there is an expectation that there are having to look for work in meaningful jobs searches, and we check. i, myself, call one employer a weak relative to a claimant to see if he or she did what they were supposed to do. we do above 1500 of those a week within the agency. so trying to set the culture

inside the agency that we are about putting people to work in sending that message to employers that we care and job seekers that we care. >> they cute. what percent of people receive that letter initially? >> 100 percent. >> 100 percent. >> we send that letter out. >> the welcome wagon letter. 100 percent response rate. >> zero, i'm sorry, response rate. i thought you meant the letter. i am not sure what the response rate is. i do know that our of reach, al rapid reemployment program that we use our reaches about 60%. we have about a 90% rate. >> i am encouraging. >> thank you. i commend you for a very important hearing. this is exactly what we need to

be focused on. i had a great thrill. almost 20 years ago i had a chance to team up with a late senator kennedy ..

program in delaware to considerable success and the reason the number of us are focused on trying to extend it and the president to his credit wants to do this as well as we are seeing some extraordinary success and i just want to describe one to you. to even get a sense what of what we would need to do in the future. we have seen an enormously successful start of in our home state really in my home, called her urban air should and what you have is a couple of guys that work in the technology field. they saw that there were a lot of opportunities that consumers for example want to make online purchases for smart phone applications. these are the savvy tech software and developers and they said what us get our benefits and instead of having the traditional maintenance to get their checks and search for work they could use the unemployment

system as a trampoline, as a trampoline to be able to come up with new jobs and new industries and the like. i've got a picture of them, you can't see, but soccer for young guys in their sneakers who know a lot about technology, and this obviously isn't for everybody, and i'm not going to pretend that it is. but isn't this the kind of model that all to be expanded significantly having seen some of these successes and a model programs going back to the early 1990's? >> the answer is yes. the program reduce the duration of unemployment. i think the trust fund money and it ends substantially increasing the way the earnings of people to participate and the reason it is in seven states is because

there isn't a dedicated funding source in counseling for entrepreneurial programming and so it's difficult to put the program together and make it work we have the work force investment act that has many kinds of training that can be provided to individuals and one of them as an entrepreneurial training. i think we need more change in the way we measure the success of entrepreneurial training to get a greater participation, and it's also very important to engage the small business administration and the state small-business development centers who are the experts in tulsa when and training. >> would it be fair to say that the cost associated were both administration and training since we do have some programs

that can help in this area are pretty modest compared to the potential benefits. i would like to make part of the record, mr. chairman, an article that describes essentially how silicon valley is tripping over themselves to invest in urban air shipping and doctor has done some very good work. i've got your book right here that mentioned senator snowe for example, and my time is almost a and i think that for purposes of just wrapping this up while there are training costs, administrative costs and the like for senator carper and i want to address isn't it fair to say that those costs are pretty modest compared to the potential benefits and of self employment? >> yes. we've both done in an experiment a benefit cost analysis and the benefits are substantially greater than the cost of the program. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator stabenow. >> thanks very much mr. chairman and thank you to all of our witnesses. i want to talk a bit more about the growing skills gap that i'm hearing about and you said people who are out of work but not matching up with the jobs that are available, and i know you've been talking about that. but i wonder if you might talk a little bit more about that. in michigan we try to address that with something we call no worker left behind, which is workers gain skills and credentials they need to gain the employment of jobs available or start their own business, but i'm wondering from your perspective how would you better coordinate the changing employer needs with training and placement and support for those that need jobs?

>> there are many very fine training programs out there and i think what we need is more training, more training that's targeted to our areas of economic growth >> i guess what i'm asking is i know that in general, but we have very specific and players that are doing jobs and so on in michigan indicating that they are not able to find the people that they need. and so, specifically matching of employers with employees what have you found to be the most effective way at this point to do that? >> well, certainly the kind of job search assistance programs that try to match employers and workers that do the job development which is done in

many states i think has to be emphasized and better funded. >> would anyone else like to say anything? would you like to add to that? >> thank you ms. stabenow. you hit the head on the middle skills gap and that is what we're looking at in rhode island and new england. we are finding that oncology is important, not all students are going to go to college but everyone needs to get a continuing education level of high school, so we have what's called a career path we program under the governor's work force. we are working on setting up a mechanism where people can identify stackable certificates where they can look to see what are the jobs that are out there, kind of the wage the looking for and what have you i need to to to get there at a certain level so i can move up to the process not the latter as much as the loudest, and we've got that organization, which is going to be coming out with this report shortly but what we can do in rhode island to make that a

reality so we get the skill levels of and work force is one that matches the needs of employers because it does have to be as you know pointed out has to the employer driven. >> absolutely. anyone else want to respond? >> some of the work force investment to have restrictions in the provision to being able to use dollars and if you are able to upgrade the skills of incumbent workers where they can be promoted at the entry level for individuals who are employed so build it and they will come type of bill when you are looking at the incumbent worker so that's something when we are talking about the flexibility that has a practical approach. >> thank you. >> if i could add one more thing. one thing we are finding very helpful is on the job training grants for the businesses may be on the cusp of deciding whether to add some one or not they may need skills that are not out there that need to train them in

place and they have to come up with some dollars. we come up with some dollars but in the end is a win-win situation for everybody to get a skilled work the need, the persons employed. we are finding that a useful tool and we don't have the resources to do as much of it as we would like. >> yes. >> i would like to add to build that is the duty of a lot of wage subsidy programs is what they're doing that is giving the employer incentive to bring somebody on to help to get the marginal skills they now need to get. >> in my final seconds, director, i don't know if you want to respond to the fact as we look at the need to expand unemployment benefits that we are looking at the urban institute has indicated that there is a multiplier about to so every dollar we spend generates about $2, and wondering how important you think extending unemployment

benefits is. >> in my state, critical. we are already planning the consequence if it doesn't happen because once the phase-out occurs sometime in march for us we are looking at a net impact of the about 24 or $25 million a month. that is significant dollars. that impacts other businesses as well and folks don't have the reserves any more. the jobs aren't out there. the jobs aren't out there and what is going to happen to them if they have absolutely no source of income? we are very concerned about that. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank the center. senator cardin. >> thank you. i want to thank all of our witnesses. the system is a vital link for individuals during tough economic times as their lifeline and as the last exchange pointed out is countercyclical, very important for the economy to make sure that we have a healthy unemployment insurance system. if we all agree that this result to get people jobs that will

help families and will help our economy. so, our objective is to make sure you have the tools necessary to get people back to work. and i've heard you talk about the different tools that you use from job fares to the texas ten week guide line issues to the one-stop shops that we employee in our state of maryland programs. senator wyden's proposals that we've been moving forward with a business opportunity. but the challenges that we just don't have enough jobs out there, number one. for the people who are unemployed on the system. and yes, we do deal with the skill levels which may increase the availability of jobs for some. we still don't have enough jobs. the incentive issues i care about frequently and yes from the employer point of view it's good to have some additional incentives from the employee's point of view people want to work and we run across the problem that if you are unemployed in a tough economic

time and you are looking for a job commodore chance of getting that job is less likely than someone who is already employed looking for a job with the exact same skill levels as everything else. there's discrimination against people who don't have employment today. i guess my question to you, tell me specifically how we can address the guidelines or policies and our federal unemployment insurance law that would give you the best tools to deal with the challenges that we are confronting in this very stubborn economic period. >> would you like to see us do here? i heard from the last exchange, i understand that. if you could get some additional specific guidelines i also understand you want flexibility but tell me specifically how that's going to deal with the challenges i just said. don't be shy.

>> well course i'm on a flexible the soap box but i will give you a good example. we took the encouragement of the health and human services and the department of labor the summer before last to do hiring incentive programs and augment what we had in the general revenue and try to do that one stop anyone would come in. we prohibit it because all of the technicalities wasn't able to serve anyone that didn't have a child. if a single adult can and i didn't have children we had to find another pot of money which can't use any money for that. and we were trying to also heard children who were aging out of foster care who were about to be unemployed and we were not able to serve those individuals either. as much as we want to have a one-stop those were dollars

right there. the challenge is as we do that the next step congress does is cut the funds because there isn't the same reason for having the fund, so that is one of our challenges here as we go toward the block granting. i understand that, but how do you deal with the discrimination of someone that doesn't have a job? senator wyden college students who can't find work they don't have the work experience but they are trained to treat someone who has a job is getting that job. how do you deal with that in the unemployment system to give you a better crack at opening up doors? >> we are promoting these individuals on unemployment insurance or just exactly what on to become employers tell us. they tell us when things are tough as far as finding skilled labor just send me someone that will show up and all able to get from their. the unemployment insurance folks by definition are unemployed by

no fault of their own and so we are saying these are people who have the work ethic to our trainable and hopefully with our hiring incentives and flexibility to do other things that we are able to bridge the gap at the cost of treating someone. but we sell the individuals as being just exactly what the employers --. >> we will be glad to provide a list of things because i know my stuff -- >> my time is running out. anybody else want to jump in here. >> one problem is the business isn't hiring as much as we would like them to. so there are programs like work sharing that will prevent unemployment for happening for the first time, and for the unemployed workers who are looking for a job and texas can't place, they can create their own jobs the you have a self employment assistance

program in your own state. select people as you can in maryland create their own jobs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. this isn't directly on point, but i was struck by a column i read in one of the morning papers, confucianism and asia. this is a column about a young lady in vietnam who works so hard her mom is no longer with her she takes care of the kids and likes an hour and have to work. she gets up early in the morning. the point is she is driven. absolutely driven to succeed undertaking huge obstacles because she is so driven she is going to succeed and she is

training to become a cpa in vietnam. part of it is the sort of confucian ethic in asia of education, striving to succeed that partly explains to some degree asians in this country tend to work harder in schools to get better grades and work so hard, etc.. so, i'm wondering in all these programs we are talking about this is hard, this is as much cultural as it is anything else. if there is an education component here that makes sense it's not just -- maybe it is an escape for the skill set but also its education to instill incentives to see if there is

hope in america. you don't have to be ground down. the fought just occurs to me and if any of that makes any sense i do think if it isn't directly related to the unemployment berkshire program etc. maybe it is. but i do think that for this country to get jobs and have jobs in the future we are going to have, more of us are going to have to have that drive and do well and to provide for family and so on and so forth. >> senator come earlier than the nation we were -- >> high unemployment rate. >> high unemployment rate and we are in a position now where i think that in mind set has said

even though there's a recovery ongoing statistically most people haven't felt it and i think that is starting to bring about a mind-set change in how you approach the work force in terms of what is expected. the fact that you can't take it for granted a certain level of education will get you something and i believe that you are talking about education. i believe by experience education is letting folks know that if they want to be successful, they are going to have to look at different routes to get there. they have to be much more focused in terms of career and skills. they can't take the opportunity to waste time when they are on unemployment they have to get in touch of the training programs that are out there that are available. and i feel that they also understand because of the flexibility in the workplace today that unless they are nimble and unless they continually upgrade their skills, they are going to have trouble in the long term. i think that message is starting to get out there and we are starting to see that in some of the work force people coming and i know in our universities we

are also teaching part time and i see that in some of my students in terms of the approach to take particularly as they get ready to graduate. >> role models often help, too. and some of the offices and one stop whatever came if not from ashes from a very difficult background or difficult condition. they are laid off and so forth and just so that those with whom you are in contact with say he was down and out, but he's got enthusiasm, he's got hope, and that's infectious, it's contagious, and just curious whether -- i don't know if that is more psychological as it is programmatic. >> but this is the time to encourage education and

training. the unfortunate part of high unemployment is people can't find jobs but while they don't have jobs waiting we should be pushing education and training as much as we can so when the jobs come back people have the skills to take them. >> thanks very much. this is a very vexing challenge we have. i do appreciate your jumping in and helping. >> let me ask one other question. >> let me ask you this mr. peterson. i would like to chat and that the employer based program since they've developed the so-called georgia work model. as a understand these programs wouldn't allow you were the beneficiaries to work part time with an employer and receive job training of the possible placement at the work site at some point online. this has garnered a lot of attention recently. it's the obama administration has expressed interest in this

idea. these programs have received a fair amount of criticism from those who claim that they are essentially working for free and that these types of programs would encourage them on the part of employers. is that a valid concern? have you seen this in these particular programs? >> i haven't seen anything. we haven't studied all of them. i studied the georgia works a great deal but once they've been replicated in other states i have not yet. >> they are usually not present in these programs to be i mean employers, it takes a lot for them to take somebody into the shop for the company to train them and spent resources to get them involved in something and it is a training program that is teaching you new skills and new work habits, primed to go to work in today's environment. the nice thing about the georgia

board program as it is only three days a week. the other time that you might claim it is while they are still receiving while they are in the program but they are also still out there looking for work. the statistics show that a lot of the people that went into the georgia work ended up getting employment before the training ended, the eight weeks they had for the training and that employers were giving them skills and ability to go to work for somebody else and they were doing so. >> i know the most talked-about version and the one implemented in georgia is currently undergoing an overhaul and other states are trying out similar programs and similar variations. and your observation which elements of this particular model have worked and which elements have not worked and is this an idea that can work on a large scale in places around the country? >> i think it can work in large

scale but we also need to look at it. it's another tool in the talks which the work force agencies can work with claimants and getting them jobs. it's another tool for employers to work with providing employees and seeing if the workout in the job site and seeing if they can adapt to the new skills they need in the job. so it's like everything else there are a lot of parts that go in to getting people out of work and the more options we have for the people to get out of work the more they will be able to. the georgia works is going through an evaluation in georgia right now but it is also because it was expanded a great deal and they paid a lot of the cost for that program out of the state funds and those are obviously dried up. they were paying for the workers' comp for those people there were unemployed and they were paying them a stipend to help them with transportation when they were still receiving. there's aspects of that program and new hampshire is running the

program without paying those kinds of costs. so we are still looking to see with the other states are coming up with as they modified the georgia works model and see which one works the best. what once again has set a while ago what works really well in georgia may or may not work well in north dakota or alabama or wherever it is so what we need to do is make sure we have states that have enough flexibility so they can look at things that are out there that other states have tried and are successful with and say that makes a lot of sense for me. let me try to do it this way and let me put it in here. and so it's not -- it's not saying that this is a big national program you need to have out there. it needs to be an option for states to say how does it fit? the best thing of course is to have a subsidy thing where you actually go in to work full-time with that employer but the work's connaughton times lead to a stepped stone that says i put somebody in the georgia works program and i've gotten in there

for eight weeks. and now that employer really likes that person so now maybe we can do something on a subsidy program for a few additional weeks to get them further strain on the skills and the gaps that they've been having and move them into the full employment. so it's just like everything. there are a lot of years going on and the need to work together. >> i want to thank all four of you and i really appreciate your testimony today. thank you mr. chairman pete >> thank you, senator. does the georgia works -- >> i have heard somewhere its discontinued. spinet it's not been discontinued as i know. it's been ratcheted down. a couple years ago if they moved it well because of the cost, the huge cost. the move that program and started out as just a claimant program in georgia but then as the recession got worse and everything they expanded that out there to everybody. so either they were using georgia works even though the

people were not on the claims. and so the volume went way up, the cost for maintaining that with those individuals became too big a burden because they were using state funds for that and so they had to cut back the program to go back to the original intent of just using it for the claimants. >> senator, i think we need an evaluation of the programs. there isn't a rigorous evaluation of them yet and there's a lot that we don't know about this time we are a huge complex country. wonderful laboratory of ideas, nothing simple. we have to keep at it with all of the people that are unemployed. it's a tragedy. new jobs, that's number one.

number two is to get those people matched to those jobs but this is very helpful to read we are going to encourage others who also want to send at and figure out how to make the best use of it so thank you very much. specs before mr. chairman. >> meeting is adjourned. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

they have another standoff there and they end up compromising on the temperature so they get back to where nixon -- the idea was they didn't want nixon to sway, so they had seen him sweat profusely in that debate and said we are not going to let this happen again and they all knew what was going on. but this was about who is going to rule america by the way. next a look at the u.s. economy and its impact on children. we will hear about the challenges and opportunities possible budget cuts could have on the nation's kids and what can be done to further their education. hosted by the urban institute, this is an hour and a half.

>> is the microphone on? it's working. hello everyone. i'm with the ps news hour and i am so pleased to be here at the urban institute where i am privileged to be a board member to participate in a discussion about a subject that is near and dear to my heart and a subject i think is far too little attention in the national discourse. i think it gets too little attention. in the city and around the country. whether it is because children don't vote and they don't have the voice in the halls of power, whatever the reason is, it is i think undeniable that americans of the other end of the spectrum have far more influence than do the youngest americans and so i think that this topic, the

nation's priorities and children, how well do they go together could not be more timely. we have a fabulous panel here to discuss experts from across the spectrum here to talk about it for the next hour and a half and i feel privileged to be part of this conversation. i just would say to kick it off, you know, there is no better evidence of how timely it is in the news in the last day or so that the administration has granted california a waiver for its metcalfe program. the california medicaid which essentially means it is going to be harder for millions of californians who count on that program, and many of those are children to get the sort of help and medical care that the need. we know that 74 million americans are under the age of 18. we know that children are poor

than all other age groups. but again and all of the sound and fury of the day budget battles, the word children doesn't get mentioned as often as conversations about social security and medicare. the deadline we know for the congress super committee less than on the way we know the elections for the white house for president in congress and governors mansions' of state houses just a year away. and in a new publication from the urban institute, which i think everyone in the room should have a copy of at your seat and those of you who are watching on television will be able to go on line to get it. it's on the urban institute web site, www.urban.org. the publication is titled "today's children, tomorrows america six experts face the facts," and in that document,

experts from diverse disciplines tackle a simple estate of hard to answer. how can solutions to the national and state budget crisis get the facts about children in the united states? and in their approaches each one of these writers wrestled with recent and approaching economic and demographic challenges in different ways and bring very different experiences to bear. we are going to be testing some of those observations over the next hour and a half, and we are so privileged as i mentioned to have such an extraordinary group of scholars with us today to talk about this. i'm going to introduce them starting on your right, on my left is charles kolb on the committee for economic development who served as a deputy assistant to president george h. w. bush for domestic policy working on economic education, legal and regulatory

matters. he is an assistant general counsel of the office of management and budget and he's been deputy under secretary for planning, budget and evaluation at the department of education. sitting next to charles is a live via goldman, who was an institute fellow here at the urban institute for research focus is on human services program, helping children and families to the issues and the director of the state operations from the new york state's governor, director of the district's family service agency an assistant secretary for children and families at the u.s. department of health and human services. seated next to olivia between bolivia and me is robert reischauer, a familiar face and to everyone. he is president of the urban institute. he was director of the congressional budget office from 1989 to 1985. of interest to all of us today is one of the two public

trustees in the social security and medicare trust fund. so he brings that experience to bear in his observations. moving on to my right is former congressman jim kolbe kolbe a senior transatlantic fellow at the marshall fund of the united states and a senior adviser to the associates which is a strategic consulting firm. he did serve in the u.s. house of representatives from 1985 to 2007 representing the tucson arizona area. he was on the appropriations committee for 20 years and chaired the subcommittee's our next is margaret simms and institute fellow at the urban institute and the director of the low-income working family project previously to the vice president for government and economic analysis of the joint center for political and economic studies. there's one more panelist who's coming. he is ray scheppach and i will

introduce him when he arrives but let's get started because we want to get the conversation under way. bye hearing for a few minutes from our panelists to put their ideas out there and then we will discuss what they've said it and hear from our other panelists afterwards. bald reischauer, i'm going to ask you to kick this off. >> thank you very much, judy. as some of you know i've spent most of my career analyzing federal budget policies and entitlements like social security so you might wonder what i'm doing sitting up here among the child policy experts than sitting down where i should be among you learning. well, the answer to that question is that about a month and half ago someone came into my office and said she felt the institute should sponsor a question of what's happened to children at the national

priority as we grapple with our current fiscal problems both short run, economic and fiscal on sustainability. i thought this was a great idea. and i told those that when people ask me the question of what is the biggest challenge facing this nation rather than saying something about taxes or budgets or health care i always say really i think it's making sure that children today will be a productive citizens and workers of tomorrow that jump at the chance to participate in this and of course being president i have a certain ability to propel myself. as of you know, there's a whole lot of the policy debate in this

country has focused on how to get the economy growing again and how to boost income is over the long run, and most of the debate has focused on what should we do about tax policy and about government regulation. should we invest more in infrastructure and do more innovative things to spur more technology. my view is these all unimportant. we should do them if we lack the skills and productive work force none of this will make a whole lot of difference. and so fundamentals to the economic future really is the composition and the skill level of our future work place. and on in this i think there is a whole lot to be concerned about. these children are going to be tomorrow's workers and any

objective analysis of what our children face right now come to the conclusion that without a really significant investment by the public sector by our society all those workers are going to lack the skills to compete successfully in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. and you can look at this by comparison of the situation facing is now versus in the past and you come to the conclusion that it doesn't look so hot. a larger portion of today's kids are spending at least part of their years in disadvantaged circumstances. medicaid pays for some of over 40% of the urban america indicating there's lots of these kids starting out disadvantaged.

one and five children last year were living below the poverty line, and that happens to be a higher fraction of kids than all but two years of the last 36. so, this is not an area where things are looking good and we know now which we didn't know 30 or 40 years ago that young people who grew up under these circumstances have much less chance of getting a job that is stable and adequate to support a family. in addition you look at the situation and fewer kids are growing of in circumstances where they have to parents who can share the burden of child-rearing which are increasingly complex. in 1970, 80% of all of the kids were in a hostile situation

where there were two parents. there were less than 70% today. and on top of that, the changes in our values are much higher fraction from our parents were the work force particularly women who might have spent more time devoting to getting their kids to do their homework rather than watch television or whatever. for this generation of children growing up also the educational system really isn't quite what it used to be. migration patterns and differential growth rates among the states means that a larger fraction of kids now are growing up in states that haven't placed a very high priority on elementary and secondary education. they are the ones that have

lower spending per kid and have the test scores and achievement levels that aren't as good. when you add to that sort of cyclical problem that is happening now which is the state's high and localities or under a lot of pressure and other burdensome and you see how they are responding cut back the lines of school years the length of the school day the number of subjects taught me and things like that you despaired when you realize what is happening in korea and taiwan and china and the places they would want to compete with. about 46% of all kids now for an ethnic or racial minority. it is about double the fraction in the mid-1970s.

they are going to face more, to some discrimination. we also know the dropout rates for some of these minorities are relatively high and lead to less training. so you put all these things together and say what should we do and the answer is simple we have to put our trailer to the wheel and get together comprehensive and integrated investment strategy for children one that will direct resources towards the nutritional assistance augmented early childhood education, more of an emphasis on the case were 12 programs and support for those kids were going to go on to the post secondary education or technical school or academic settings. but there's a big obstacle to this and that is historically we

have placed the managerial program and a lot of the fiscal responsibility for things that affect kids that the public sector does at the state and local level. and these governments have neither the will or the wall with at this point to engage in a massive kind of intervention of the sort that i think is needed. what that means i think is that the federal government is going to have to step in and take the lead. but we all know that the federal budget is also under extreme strain and there is a whole lot of folks that want to scale back the nm fault of the federal government especially in areas like this. i think that would be a huge mistake, a huge mistake because the consequences of the failure in this area does end up largely of the state level. the end of the national level.

we as taxpayers and citizens bear this burden if it comes to pass before we educate an individual who can't get a job migrates to other states when they fall through the cracks and can earn enough in the federal programs and up picking up the income support and the nation as a whole suffers. so we think there is the super committee, congress considered how we get on a fiscally sustainable path. at the same time, they should spend as much time thinking about what will take with respect to an investment strategy for children to ensure that once we are all on that fiscally sustainable path we have such low levels but the standard is not we have come to

expect. >> thank you very much. a lot to provide our thinking this afternoon. margaret simms? >> thank you. i would just like to build up on some of the things that bob said that despite in particular to people that are persistently poor. we get figures every year about the number of children in poverty but that only points to one place and time. but about 10% of children are persistently poor, that is they spend at least one half of their year between zero to 18 living below the poverty line. that is a study that two of my colleagues have looked at this issue and are continuing to look at how it changes over time. but in their study found that of

the 10% of children who are consistently poor, about 40% is african-american children persistently poor and that means as i mentioned at least one-half of the childhood in poverty and for many three-quarters or more of their years in poverty. the consequences in the early adulthood and most likely if we can look at that group beyond early adulthood are detrimental to the succeeding generations they have the entertainment, lower employment in the early or late twenties than their colleagues who are not persistently poor and among the young women they are more likely to have had a team which means it will be harder for them to provide for their children. now, if we think about this card and say we want to do something

positive for children, then we would ideally think of the dual strategy which is we want to make the parents more economically self-sufficient so that they could provide for their children and provide for a better environment. but that doesn't always work out on their own and is certainly would be more expensive strategy if we are thinking about it in terms of public policy. so at a minimum we do need to help children so that we can make them economically self-sufficient as adults and also try to ensure that there won't be a third and fourth generation growing and poverty thereby extending the detrimental impact in terms of productivity as well as the wellbeing of these children and their families. there are several strategies that we can talk about and i

assure bolivia will talk about all of them in addition, and to look at the problems that some of the young children face one has to do with stability in terms of child care. we expect most parents now to come out and work. that is in the current projection that the mothers of young children who will not stay at home able to walk in the work force and go into child care but in the work that we've done also in the family project is to look at child care choices that are available to low-income families and they try to combine work and take care of their children's needs and these options that the fees are pretty limited. often the work in jobs that have dramatic work hours. that means the standard nine to five is not necessarily

available to them. if they have language issues they may be looking for child care centers where the language that they speak in the home is available. even if they prefer that their children learn english and they would like to make sure that there is a way that they can communicate well. they may look for ones that are convenient for their place of employment or their home and it may be difficult to find things that meet the needs they have and still are convenient in terms of being able to get their children to day care and get to work. if they are able to find all of those things are the affordable? most likely not without some kind of subsidy. so that is one area that we look at in terms of government support. also residential stability is very important. low income families, families

living in poverty frequently have moved. that is when they lose their lease beauvis may be effected and that means often their children have to change schools. these are not usually circumstances for children in addition to the stability of who they may frequently wind up with and schools that are not as good as the schools they were previously and i was in a meeting earlier this week where somebody said they go from crappy schools to more crabby schools. so that's kind of a view of the circumstances that in the public policy will be the life of young children born in poverty. so there are different ways of handling it, and some of these fall to the federal government, perhaps with some residential

stability issues. both the state and local governments are important players in the education system and we need to think about ways in which those schools circumstances could be improved. my colleague has herpes in this volume talks about the importance of federal incentives to ensure that states that may not have these things at the top of their priority could be incentivized and moved up through federal financial support as well as the program or regulatory issue. >> okay, margaret. thank you. and olivia, you are our third kickoff speaker. >> thank you. good afternoon i am very excited that this paper and panel are happening because to me what we've tried to do with this distinguished panel of guests is

get three different groups that have to be on the same page if we are going to solve this problem to share some information that right now nobody has come and that is to be people who are experts in children's policies, children experts advocates, people in decision making rules frequently know a lot of the needs and circumstances of children but very little but the in and out of the federal budget ordered least they feel they have no access to that. federal budget access, legislative and executive, and to know a great deal about the federal budget, but the way that children are funded in many federal programs and intergovernmental lee it really hard for them to have a picture of how the pieces fit together. and state leaders in the parts of my life that have been at the state level sometimes were not always you have children funding within the states but of course you don't have a national picture and the complexity is the way federal money troubles to the states to make it hard to

make good decisions either. so my hope is that we are meeting those together today. i want to make four points from my collection. i will try to push out a solution building on the diagnosis for bald and margaret. the first point is that children's lives have changed in the last couple of decades in ways that for substantial numbers of children and get harder for them to succeed and that is the issue of poverty of low-income, low wages, parental unemployment coming and the fact that almost half of children are now minority groups that have suffered an array of disadvantages. the second point that i want to highlight is the process of figuring out what public investments we should make to help meet the needs of children is a lot harder than it needs to be because some of the information about how the budgets and spending relate to

children isn't widely known. the process isn't transparent. so to give you just a few examples of things that i think are important to solving the problem, the largest single federal children's programs as medicaid. others in the top ten are snap, that's the new name for food assistance and other nutrition programs, several programs in the tax system, social security, and then several of the education programs that we traditionally think about and then some of the early childhood and social services program. a second or another example of the fact that is really important in solving the problem but isn't very familiar is public spending. when you take federal, state and local, in some ways it is the reverse of what would make sense based on what we know the research. when you think about the ages of children. we spend far less on the youngest children, babies and toddlers, and we do as children

get older even though a lot of what we know from the research is that the crucial role of investments that start early and then continue. and yet another fact, which bob highlight is about two-thirds of the spending on children, public spending on children is the state and local. i will be interested in the pay the least of the federal budget officials tend to think of the state as an alloying interest group, not as a crucial partner whose fiscal well-being is central to being able to invest in children. so those are kind of the key budget facts that are really important to solving a problem for a pointer to meet in the paper is as bob mentioned briefly is the problem of getting that two-thirds that stay successfully and effectively for children is hard right now because of the aggregate circumstances of the state budget.

the paper gets more detail, but overall the states aren't back to where they were in 2008. but it's even harder because as mentioned, the fact that some states are losing children and those states and - doesn't mean the children are leaving the have fewer children than they used to. those states are mostly in the middle east. degette increasing numbers of children that are in the south and southwest, like texas, florida, georgia, north carolina, arizona, nevada. many of those states have both lower spending and taxes that make it hard for them to expand to meet the needs of their increases in a number of kids and shift in the kind of needs those children have for the english language learners so that as a challenge to meeting our future needs. the final point i want to make from my essay is that i think that there are steps that can help us do better although they

face an enormous number of obstacles. i make four suggestions in the peace, and i sure that we will talk about those and many others. the first is that we increase the share of education the federal not thinking about 7%, there's lots of practical difficulties in the way that which we can talk about more, but it's also a point that bob made. second, that we add investments in the youngest children because there are some crucial opportunities there as the specific ideas about what we should do. third, if there is reform or change to the entitlement program that is a part of our overall budget strategy is important that we keep in mind the crucial contributions particularly of medicaid but also reluctantly in social security to children and we think about how to not just protect but potentially build on those contributions.