partnership with representative steve sullivan and which as the members of this committee know passed the house in modified form without the shared risk funding mechanism we had advanced was enacted into law the first new federal work program since 1996. in two other proposals our members have made for ui and for disability we proposed federal state share risk financial models on an opt-in basis. with the states designing and owning the overall system to be -- to better run the program. in fact, the federal state shared risk model could be adapted to any program with entitlement based expenditures going to individual citizens. our member secretaries constitute a pool of proven risk managers who, through example of our own proposed reforms are willing and able to consider shared risk models as proposed by congress in exchange for program management and operating control.

the adoption of the adoption unleashed energy that adults teaching jobs, caseworkers oriented to work first, time limits into seniors he come a new program purposes such as promotion of two parent families is an axiom love how it is possible for the state under a proper federal state partnership to make major improvement to poverty, dependent seeing employment. why did it work so well? per se eliminated the individual entitlement to forever benefits. second they combined doing a perp federal program object such as working marriage. there did set constructed federal measurements such as working ovation and participation of nine states credit for positive outcomes such as dependency reductions resulting from employment. it permitted operational freedom

to experiment with multiple approaches. it permitted states which reduce caseloads to reuse in a fit money for more constructive purchases and cash payments. only 29% of the current budget is allocated for cash benefits. the rest of supportive services and other marxists are due purposes. finally it is fixed allocation cap the growth in the program to the former entitlement program formula and induce greater budget discipline. i saw that in my own homes date in the screensaver the program began to grow again under the subsequent governor destructions came down for the agent see to redouble its efforts to get people employed to manage the caseload better that occurred. my written testimony contains specific new posts of what to do

sleep authority to do. in my written testimony. here i would like to -- share our proposal to the committee in which we would propose that states implement demonstrations and adaptations of tanf to other programs. the simplest -- >> i'll have you to do in my q&a because i want to make sure we have enough time for the other witnesses. so i'll give you time for that in q&a. >> very good. >> we're going to try to stick to five minute rules to get to everybody's questions. >> mr. doar. >> thank you chairman ryan and ranking member van hollen for inviting me to testify today. it is now 50 years since president johnson's ambitious call for a great society and 18 years since the signing of welfare reform that promised to change welfare as we know it. and while we made significant pro-gross, notably in support for the elderly, reducing material depravation, increasing labor force participation for never-married mothers and

promoting important work supports that make work pay there is still great frustration and disappointment with the current status of our nation's war on poverty. with 47 million americans classified as poor, too many americans are not earning their own way above the poverty line. but almost as sad as the stubborn persistence of this problem is that at least based on our experience in new york city, where i worked for the last 18 years in anti-poverty programs throughout the state and city, we know what worked to reduce poverty and increase community. work works. if you rigorously implement work strategies not only focusing on what government can do to help but also on what recipients can do by working, you will make real progress in reducing welfare caseloads, increasing labor force participation, and reducing child poverty. we don't need to get too creative. the keys to success are work requirements and expectations in return for assistance. work supports that shore up lower wages like the earned income tax credit, food stamp

benefits for working people, and medicaid. state flexibility to address the particular needs of individual states. not being afraid in addition to talk about family, especially importance of fathers and two parents and raising children, and we need to do everything we can to nurture a job producing economy that produces jobs. doing all of that, here's what we accomplished in new york. we reduced welfare case loads from 1.1 million to 346,000 in 2013. we increased labor force participation significantly for single mothers, and we reduced poverty. and during the most recent period of the last period between 2000, 2012 of the 20 largest states in america new york city was the only one that saw no increase in poverty during that period. while the nation, and with regard to labor force participation, while ours went up, the nation's went backwards. we also were not afraid to speak honestly about the implications of good decisions, and two-parent families with public

service awareness initiatives which told the truth about the consequences of teen pregnancy, and raising children in single-parent families. going forward we need to focus on where we are weakest now. and that concerns low income men who are left out of both of the rigor of welfare reform work requirements. there is no ability for state and local agencies to bring them in to the workforce in the way that welfare reform allowed us to work with single parents. and they're left out with the work of the work supports that allow us to shore up low wages. we need to reinvigorate tanf. my experience since joining ai and looking at what's happened across the country is that the focus on work and work participation rates has been lost and the messages that are coming from washington. we need to look at the extent to which the s.n.a.p. program has replaced work, not supplemented work for some portions of its caseload. and we need to consider strongly

work support -- work requirements for portions of that population. we need to look at the affordable care act impact on work incentives, because of the disincentive to adjourn additional dollars mainly because they would lose their affordable care act benefits, making people choose not to work more or not to work at all. that is a terribly problematic problem and we need to do everything we can to reduce disincentives to hiring in our economy. and finally, i think given the differences in the strengths of the economy across the country, we need to consider relocation assistance that allows for people in certain areas where there are opportunity -- where the opportunity is weak because of the economy to move to other areas where there are greater opportunities. my general impression after 18 years of working for both governor pataki and mayor bloomberg is that the lessons of welfare reform are good lessons and we don't need to turn away from them. work requirements, work supports

for low income working people, a strong nurturing a strong economy that doesn't disincentive employers to hire people, and not being afraid to be honest about the consequences of raising children without two involved parents in their lives. we put so much on what government can do to replace parents, replace the effects of parents in children's lives. it's more than what my colleagues in new york city or new york city could absorb. we need strong families, as well as better policies. thank you. >> thank you. ms. golden? >> good morning. chairman ryan, ranking member van hollen, and members of the committee. thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. i'm olivia golden, 9 executive director of clsp, an anti-poverty organization that works at both state and federal levels, and in addition i bring experience directly administering these programs in new york state, massachusetts, the district of columbia, and as

assistant secretary for children and families at hhs in the clinton administration. in my written testimony, i begin by highlighting several accomplishments on the war on poverty and describing today's federal state work support programs. just a few themes from this longer discussion. researchers find that the war on poverty programs cut the poverty rate almost in half in 2012, and that they have dramatically changed the lives of low income families, particularly by improving children's access to health and nutrition. and that matters a great deal because research shows life long positive impacts from children -- for children who get this help in their early years. at the same time that the war on poverty programs had made a crucial difference to low income families, so have dramatic increases in work effort by families themselves. in 1975, fewer than half of all mothers and a third of mothers with a child under age 3, were in the labor force. by 2012, 70% of all mothers, and

60% of mothers with a child under 3. however, trends in low-wage work and in the economy more broadly have created an enormous headwind for public policy. leaving one in five children poorer today, most in families with at least one worker. in addition, and i think robert highlighted this, low income workers without dependents, including many youth and noncustodial parents, receive far less support than families in achieving economic security. and finally, even among low income working families with children, too many do not receive a full package of programs they qualify for and need to succeed. the next section of my testimony highlights five lessons learned from the war on poverty programs. crucial to take into account as we design the next steps. first the core programs that have evolved in the war on poverty are now designed to support work, not discourage it. key reforms in the 1990s, the

expansion of the eitc, changes to child care medicaid and s.n.a.p., ensured that the today's package of federal safety net program supports work. research shows that when low income working families can get and keep this full package of programs, they are better able to keep a job, move up, and help their children thrive. at clsp we're working closely with six states, colorado, idaho, illinois, north carolina, rhode island, and south carolina, that are influenced by this research and their own experience to improve working families' active to s.n.a.p., health insurance, and child care subsidies. governor otto of idaho writes that his state has sought to quote reduce the impediments to receiving these services in order to achieve its goal of helping families enter and succeed in the workforce. second, effective programs help children thrive, and parents work. since the war on poverty began, we've seen not only dramatic

increases in mother's work, but also major breakthroughs in the underlying science about young children's development. yet while there has been progress, support for child care and early childhood programs has lagged far behind what's needed leaving large gaps in support. third, effective safety net programs like s.n.a.p. and medicaid are countercyclical, meaning that during an economic downturn, resources to the states and to families automatically go up. by contrast, bloc grants like tanf and child care subsidies do not respond well to recession and didn't respond well to the one just passed. fourth, states with both parties are seizing the opportunities today under current federal law to integrate the major safety net programs into a coherent package for children and families, and address gaps in coverage. and fifth, achieving strong outcomes for children, families, and the nation requires a blend of flexibility in day-to-day

implementation, national accountability to achieve consistent results, and sufficient funding to meet desired goals. flexibility does not compensate for inadequate funding, the child care bloc grant, one of the most flexible of safety net programs has hit more than a decade low in the pump beurre of children service because of capped funding. in conclusion i propose five next steps in the written testimony, strengthening economic security for low wage workers, enabling parents to work and care for children, improving access to work support benefits, strengthening the safety net for youth and childless adults, and strengthening our response to deeply poor families. i look forward to talking about all of these in the question and answer period. >> perfect. all done within five minutes. >> thank you. >> that was good. thanks. okay, so mr. turner -- mr. turner, let me pick up where you left off, because i cut you off to stick with the five minutes. what i'm interested in particularly is the example, i think you wanted to get into,

but i want to get your sense on how it would be more effective to ask states to help coordinate assistance programming. how they're so interrelated. and then let's start with the example you want to mention and then talk about how states can better help coordinate assistance. >> by all means. by all means. why don't i do the second one first -- i think if we're able to -- states are able to manage under a system which they own and control and can focus on the right things, instead of the ancillary things, then i think we'd see one, consolidation of overlapping programs, into units that make more sense. an example would be wia, s.n.a.p., and tanf. and you could add to that public housing, as well, where these programs are all operating separately, and with parallel

but overlapping objectives. secondly you could introduce competition among program providers in government. right now, sometimes the federal law says only this can be done by nonprofits, or by government employees, and what we found in new york city, for example, under commissioner doar and also mayor giuliani is that when we told the vendors to actually get paid for people going to work the first year after we did that, the total amount of the budget that we used for that purpose went down by a third, and employment -- jobs doubled. you can permit lower levels of government such as counties to innovate. like for instance, pennsylvania did that in 2012. they allowed inferior levels of government to petition the state to actually run their own program, including policies in tanf. you could do that. you could reorient programs to

place energy and focus on the true sources of social dissolution that mr. doar referred to. you could shift program emphasis from amelioration to prevention, and work n. you could require universal engage in work activities. you could have been eligible recipients, which is precluded by federal law, for instance, under s.n.a.p. in certain cases. you could read commit savings from other purposes, including support to working families. these are all things you could do if you have the proper shifting. soon i will be quick because i know there is a time constraint. excuse me for coffee makes a good secretary's innovation group has proposed these days

po2 implement demonstrations of the attic tatian of tanf and the other programs. the reverse of the current law allows tanf funds to go to other funds. tanf in to the block grant, but this would be to reverse. the principle is that funds could be transferred from other programs like food stamps and housing into a tanf special account with individuals who had been eligible for the former benefits now eligible for similar benefits that were some of the component of tanf and other permissions integrated into the program and finally, mr. chairman, i do commend h.r. 4206, which has been proposed since introduced by representative reid of new york state and that proposal would do many of the things that a member secretary simply see with

experimentation. >> mr. doar, a couple quick questions. i will start with my last first. e. itc childless adults is a particular area with lethal force participation rate -- i'm not sure what that is. nevermind i guess. childless adults is an area where we are particularly concerned about low participation. it is problematic for young men. what is your take on how or if we should modify eitc for childless adults and then i'll ask you another question. >> the difference in the benefit is very significant to be kept since 19 and less than hundred dollars for households with children can have a great dollars. it does not disinfect and

promoting work. this group for young man between the ages of 18 and 25 are out of the work force i believe could be in for me to help in getting to and stay in the workforce. mayor limburg propose something about this when i first joined bloomberg administration ipod has something to do. the only issue at the eitc is the air array. i read l'affaire consent programs from the cash assistance medicaid. the error rate is too high. >> was the best way to deal with? >> the irs has taken more seriously and gather more information and to my data matches against samples of returns they receive. but there has to be a solution because you can't expand a program that has an error rate of 20%. >> the reputation itself suffers as a result. >> does you want to add to that? >> two things.

on the eitc for childless adults have never been in the president's burden in the age down i think we share prolific 90s import and a has the potential for addressing the issues of marriage and family formation because there's certainly some evidence they are. on the air raids come in my experience probably an operating arrangement are grim and reading inspector general and gao reports his errors often rides complexity and one of the insight that the earned income tax credit is one area of complexities to have custody and is entitled to claim them so the single occultist less likely. more broadly blessedness clarity and explaining and training the key aspects of reducing errors. >> somebody needs to take a key area we want to get into. that is a five fun morning.

mr. doar, i want you to expand on reducing disincentives to hiring and relocation. >> under mayor bloomberg in new york city, the mayor never made apologies for all the things he did to create jobs of all kind and to have an environment in which employers were comfortable about hiring. that includes hospitality jobs from the retail jobs, tourism jobs, health care jobs from some of which which is made out of may not of up in is high but the encouragement was always on hiring and i think there is some aspects of the affordable carrier are particularly higher at the end of latter and on businesses that they are reluctant to hire to the extent they might have given the uncertainty requirements of the program. that is very difficult for people who read welfare programs

straight to help low-income people get into jobs. sometimes those jobs are discretionary hires. they may not need them or may not want to do it, but they need to have an environment for their comfortable and happy and positive about hiring people of all kinds of skills and i think we don't have enough of that in the country and that's part of the reason why people are not in. frankly, for young men who've struggled in the labor force a significant increase in the minimum wage, up to $10 an incident nationwide regardless of the economic circumstance in a particular area is not helpful to encourage employment. that is another disincentive to hiring. >> provider competition comes something i am very enamored with, which is a lot of time we have one vendor or one unit of government providing a benefit measured based on input, not on outcomes. can you give me an example of how provider competition can help her file comes?

>> absolutely. yes, mr. chairman. i am pleased to note that the proposed compromise on w. i. i includes a provision that would require the wards to issue rfps. it is currently not the practice and states get waiver from that and it's not helpful because it would at a cost plus contract in which people get paid whether they gave somebody a job or not. and and a pay for performance contract from the you only get paid for putting somebody in a job that last 30 days and more if they remain in the job for six months. those are the two indicators and we've seen that in new york. in particular it mobilizes the agency's abandonment of the placement for following up its employer, finding out if there's

problems on the job. many people who are not used to working to make it enough to go into and coming back day after day is a work habit they don't have, not necessarily a work skill. so the best way to move that forward this to continue to work with people that lease for six months. >> i think that's very, very important. mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for your testimony today. mr. turner, with respect to your idea of having a jumbo tanf we put other programs into the constructs, are you proposing to include medicaid as part of that? >> no. >> the reason i ask that is because medicaid is the largest event means tested program would look at her the budget committee and dialogue. thank you.

dr. golden mentioned one of the benefits of programs like medicaid and the s.n.a.p. is when you have an economic recession or depression you have a counter sit full impact. the concern many of us have with a strict locker program is you are providing a fixed amount of federal support to this date in both good times, but also very bad times. how would your proposal address that issue if you're going to bundle up all of these programs that try and help pull people out of poverty. the economy goes through cycles where collapses. it's not a legitimate concern and how would you address that? >> one way to address that is you can include as tanf does now, a provision in which the unemployment rate goes up, there's another manic adjustment to the block reappeared that is one way to handle it.

let me also point out that a program oftentimes remarked upon as being good for anti-cyclical reasons has created lots of problems and that is the stance. in 2001, there were 2.3 million total nonworking food stamp household and yet in 2006, a good economic year that i've gone up to 4.2 and now it is 8.5 million. seducer food stamp households with no working income. so why does the how cutting a swath deep into the middle class with food stamps and the growth of food stamps has been helpful for work. although it may appear to be anti-cyclical, it is anti-cyclical event dependency inducing way. >> let me if i could because i

will ask dr. doar to respond to that. if you look at the congressional budget office programs for s.n.a.p., over the program nears a project significant reductions to s.n.a.p. because they expect more people to get back into the workforce as the economy improves. their assessment for the nonpartisan analyst side is very different. and there's been a lot of misinformation about that. what the congressional budget office tells us about your gold if you could respond, currently four out of the five individuals who receive tanf re: their children and the elderly or disabled were not expected to work for people who are working that they are job where they don't earn enough income to be in the middle class and therefore are eligible for programs which we would hope we would like to provide to them and their families.

>> let me say a little bit about the accurate facts on snap in and talk about the consequence when you have a cat program in a recession. as you say, deceit he notes that this increase has been due to the recession and it is starting to go down. they stabilize them and us having to go down. when you look state-by-state at the increases, the largest increases were the largest recession and as you say a large share that aren't elderly, disabled or children are working so i tsi at as i mentioned ruefully among four children fully a third up the somebody working full-time full-year and still can't bring the family out of poverty. 70% live with someone who's

working even if in 2012 they weren't able to work for year. there's a lot of people who need supplement to thurber. tanf and the child care block grant on the other hand were capped and unable to respond to the recession and the child care block grant that has led to a paper by one of my colleagues showing we are down to the lowest number of children served in her than a decade. in tanf it aside to caseloads that barely responded to the recession and all, doping down overall, have gone down overall since the good times and put states in a bind with their family because of and state i just got added state make choices that constrain children. the spread among states also potlatch. >> from experienced in new york

city, became that of the recession much earlier than the rest of the country were large proponents of food stamps for low-income working people. our caseload was so muslim by 9 million. as we came out of the recession, it did not drop. the reason any question bothers a lot of people working in their elderly children, there are increasing number of people who are not working and still getting food stamps. it is a problem. it may not be a severe, but it's not something we ignored. >> on that point, mr. doar, first of all my understanding with able-bodied adults brd have time limits on how long they can be entry stands. -- foodstamp spirit >> except in new york city -- >> let me ask you a question.

>> sure. >> well would like to encourage work. as i said, a job is the best antipoverty program. >> we agree on that. >> if you're going to say in order to get food and nutrition desisted for a family working the low the minimum wage or another family that should work, okay. are you willing when you have 6% of the 7%, 8% on limit to ensure they have a job? i would point out during the recession and the recovery bill, there was a provision first -- four state to help provide for. governor barbour of eve is a big advocate of that. if you're going to require people to work as a condition of getting food and nutrition assistance when the economy is sinking, are you going to also make sure that those who want to work on the job?

>> the way the requirements work in tanf is unique to be engaged in activities that lead to work. there are alternatives do not have been job. job search, a web program or workfare program. so it doesn't necessarily depend on the exact existence of a job right away. secondly, there is a tremendous amount of change. i would say in my experience and readiness programs urich city with very good job placement agencies that if you leave people out that the requirement for the expert patient they get, you are harming them because you are not encouraging them and bringing them in to this fold that allows for case management person in an operation or organization helping them move into work. >> if i could just fast dr. golden. >> to comment -- two comments.

the first is my tears on what has happened in tanf is the assistant secretary of the clinton at the mr. should implement tenet is at the time but implemented it both within medicare, s.n.a.p. to invest in a good economy. today what you've heard from mr. doar is not typical of states as a whole. states are different from each other. what has happened with a block grant is not on this cash assistance at a low level, but investments in the work and training activities is at a low level. i had a chance to look at current state expenditures on what happened in the recession was essentially states shifted money to fill holes in other parts of the badges. they were under enormous stress. >> this is exactly the concern. we want to encourage them to work for us, but at the same time states are cutting back on

programs. the last point about to make as mr. doar mentioned, the eitc says we want to expand assistance for able-bodied adults, childless adults. as we know, that costs money. the president has proposed that in this budget. it's about $60 billion. our concern is we remain focused on trying to address the poverty issues. if you save money as a byproduct that's what they come at the starting with the assumption you save hundreds of billions of dollars and working backwards is not the way -- >> thank you great time of the gentleman has expired. >> i want to thank you for holding this hearing on an ardent topic of bunker were not allowed time. america is a generous country full of passionate people, but for many folks the big picture is frustrating. we spent nearly $20 trillion or so on the board poverty about the rates have come down, most

people look at the expenditure would say we should've gotten a greater bang for our buck. mr. clyburn in his testimony talked about finite resources. we all agree with that. we have finite resources for this and other things. it seems to question not to be had we improved the programs in place? are they working as well as we can and will commit you to make them work more efficiently? mr. doar, i was intrigued by many of your comments. one is you mentioned s.n.a.p. often times or places work and i wish you expand on that. >> the feeling after the recession in new york city was we have pushed those that enrollment efforts as a countercyclical effort to help people going through difficult times to such an extent as the economy recovered their households and families and individuals taking advantage and

not working to the extent they could. we try to use volunteer program that we had a work requirement to push people into work programs to help them get jobs. if you look at the database portion of the payload. not seniors, not children, not disabled, but doesn't appear to be working. i just thought that appeared to be a problem we have to address. you can't live on food stamps incomes alone. something was going on that was missing out of the work push of the program that we have to address. >> esop positive results for needed quick >> would we have people come in and take advantage of the employment programs tied to tanf, they got jobs. >> there's a remarkable grasp enervate testimony that has the joblessness goes down -- as jobs goes down, it goes out.

there's a significant correlation, is it not? >> the economy is the key ingredient. >> when we look at the federal government programs, thirst products that may or may not have been intended. one is a physician closely looking at the aca over the implementation. you mentioned some sick can't disincentives to work within obamacare, within the affordable parent. >> we've done some interesting work indicating this is not for the poverty population. it's more likely to be people of the income ladder who are receiving a subsidy that the subsidy is tied to their income and to the extent the income goes up finances the subsidy for health care and congressional budget office rhetoric were saying there was a job production aspect to the affordable care and that's a

concern. >> the cbo director before this committee member months ago was the aba has disincentives. you also mentioned he felt it was imperative that we reinvigorate moore. i wonder if you spend a few minutes on how you perceive on the science to reinvigorate a program that's worked in the past. >> is a look at statistics across the country and what i see coming for the federal government, i sense an ambulance from occurring in illustration about the welfare reform and work requirements of welfare reform. when you work at the level jason and i work that is significant. how often are they in their office? off a disaster where ask you why your statistics are getting their? in some programs, shot enforcement, cms and dedicated, food stamps, there was a

significant involvement in new york city and i have not seen that in the tanf good attitude of chart to the extent to which states that any penalty status as a result of failing to meet and i do think any state has been in penalty status in the united states in five years, which just shows there may be less evident to csm about the work requirement aspects of tanf. >> if i could comment as well. the federal government has encouraged states to go out and recruit food stamp recipients can they give bonuses for the increase in food stamp recipients the 10 states have measured a percentage of everybody that's potentially eligible. this is a counterproductive policy unit tribute to the increase in the nonworking flute stamp caseload, excluding aged and disabled.

from the able-bodied from 2.32 mike 85 million. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. moore. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses for. you i have half the time they had, so i would hope you would answer my questions very quickly. how are you, mr. turner? >> so good to see you, representative moore. >> it is, it is. we do have a history, mr. turner and i know a lot of your experience you've done fantastically your career was based on your work with tommy thompson at a time when i was a state senator. and so, i do have some questions related to that. i will just give writing you. are you concerned that some of the policies that you are

promoting really promote women becoming a permanent underclass in our economy? the reason i ask that is because you focused on work first and we all know sitting here, all of us are educated in this room, do some kind of postsecondary education gives you more opportunities in the job market is so while there's a lot of agreement that works are they helps your income earning potential, district denial and limited educational opportunity really cuts that off. the day we passed the so-called p2 in wisconsin 10,000 women in wisconsin lost their opportunity to credit technical college and higher education hears about is my first question. >> yes, and you'll also recall, senator moore --

>> i'm not senator moore now. i'm entitled to the titles. >> sorry about that. representatives moore, it went from 34% to 24% in the first four years of w. two. >> lets back up because the economy is doing well. >> s. because they were streaming into the labor force. just because they are not enrolled in a program doesn't mean people don't take jobs. >> we didn't keep data and statistics on whether they were going in to work or not. i was a deliberate activity. i was there. let me ask you another crushing. when you talk about the 29% of tanf dollars to go to benefits. you say more productive uses. what was your thought of the $18 million in profit that went with the first round of tanf dollars? but productive use the site of area?

i asked the question because i believe all it did was incentivize people not necessarily public workers as you proposed to keep people from getting benefits. remember we had diversion specialists. you could walk in there with a big belly, nine months pregnant, two kids hanging on you and it was their job to deny you as many as possible. i want you to respond to a productive uses you think $18 million gross. >> the 29% figure, representative moore is the current proportion of tanf federal funds that go to cash benefits. that means 71% of all tanf block grant program money is going to childcare for working families. some of it is related to the state eitc. >> okay. i'm a question because my time is waiting.

you give us an example of section eight housing a year review of the welfare state. $60 billion for section eight to provide people with stable housing opportunities, low income people and they've been receiving these benefits for too long. there is a sort of moral hazard dependent fee. what kind of dependency does the $70 billion a year we spend, which i certainly look forward to every year, what kind of moral hazard is that and what productive uses the mortgage interest deduction and 70 billion versus 16 billion to our economy? >> as you may know, when you get a certificate that can be with a quarter of a million dollars of net present value and there's no connection between what happened once you take a voucher like that in your obligations to go to work or to move on. >> you have to go to work to get the mortgage interest reduction?

how can we reform the mortgage interest reduction to make sure there's no moral hazard in that dependency? i'm an occupant on it. >> that is outside the area of expertise. >> it is. thank you my time has expired. >> ms. rice. okay. mr. williams? >> thank you for coming today. i appreciate it. i'm a small business owner in texas. i still employ people for 44 years. the family for 75 years that i appreciate you all being here today. my statement would be the best way to tackle poverty we talk about today is to create a job. we all agree to that. however, you create the job through opportunity, not three guaranteed. they guarantee is not a job. an opportunity to grow and

expand it. increase in hiring is i believe that the federal government. the private sector offers you a guarantee. now, we talked about distractions in hiring today. i can say a big distractions in hiring an outside some of my colleagues on the other side agrees the economy is not fixed. it is not good. distractions in hiring that the minimum wage increase. minimum wage increase is nothing but cost jobs in the prices go up. we should not be a country of minimums. we should be a country maximums. high-tech son businesses another job destroyer or small business owners are paid to hike taxes. and obama carries a real disaster when it comes to small business owners and who we can hire with not hiring this many people in the program. there is no work unless businesses can hire.

small businesses i can tell you is we are playing defense every day. we don't know regulations. we are the rules. we are not hiring people. the idea we talked about states has a good thing to reduce unemployment. my question would be, mr. doar. based on your experience with the welfare reform, do you think these programs they are talking about, as was intended as they may be, may have tb trapping people of poverty and creating incentives to become dependent on the government, in other words, focus on a guaranteed rather than opportunity in their life? >> they can if they are not run well and if they are not run with a focus on employment is not being the most big an unwillingness to do everything it can to push people in work. i think they can be, but i don't think they have to be. there isn't any question as the

welfare commissioner that jason and i lived off the opportunities available for people seeking assistance but really wanted to work. i think we should point this out. we were successful because the people we has to go to work went to work and they did it and they wanted to do it. we have to set up a circumstance that says to folks in need, we have high hopes and we believe that you and we believe in ability to go into employment and we won every opportunity available to do that. >> to do that, which tells small-business owners it's okay to make money, it's okay to take risk and hire people. i asked one person want to hire people, but i'm afraid i must direct commission and that's a real problem. thank you for your testimony. i yield back.

>> mr. paxrell. >> what strikes me as we always go back to the aca. i ask you to finish what you are trying to say when you are not allowed to use a actually. what is your take on that brief response? >> my take on the aca as it affects families in poverty is those states that have taken the medicaid expansion have removed one of the worst disincentives to employment for. because in those states that have not taken it, the eligibility limit for health insurance for a parent is typically 50% of the poverty level or less. so if you work at minimum wage, more than a few hours and you get the chance to extend the, part-time or full-time. you're placing your health insurance at risk. if the state takes the expansion, yet the ability to sleep secure at night knowing you have it. >> thank you.

dr. doar, you state the earned income tax credit, the child care assistance from a public health assistance, food stamps and child support enforcement collections cannot be important work supports and may go further for a family. love is not enough. sometimes work is not enough, correct? >> what do you mean? >> your job may not pay what you need to support your family. >> it is absolutely true that breaches can be lower than what is necessary to support a family insert places. but that's why we have work stamps. >> it's important to acknowledge how difficult it is for americans to have jobs and work for low wages and how a robust safety net is for those folks. what you are trying to do is

reposition the chairs on the sinking titanic. it seems to me that if we want to look at ways to reduce or spend being on the safety net programs, one of the most obvious ways is to raise wages to the point where families no longer need public assistance. >> well -- >> i didn't ask the question yet. and we can do that most effectively by raising the minimum wage, unlike your position. let's use an example. you like to use examples. i want to use an example. many americans would be surprised to learn that wal-mart , the nation's largest private, private your employer, private sector employer is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.

the corporation's employees receive a total of $6.2 billion in public assistance each year. and why do they need public assistance? there's nothing more than corporate welfare that allows wal-mart to continue to pay poverty wages and it's the taxpayers to pick up the tab of the $25,815 in assistance for each employee and 1.75 elliott dollars per store. so mr. doar, do you believe federal and on means tested safety programs for wal-mart employees would be reduced if these employees for earning a higher wage? there's the question. >> there's a trade-off. if the wages go up in the

people's ability is diminished, they will come to welfare and they will need assistance without the work. the question is do we have the safety net to help them? would go through many years of bipartisan effort is a work supports vista assures that the wages and that's what we do and it's more successful than having more people out of work depending on a safety system that will support them. >> mr. doar, they could be working at a job that does not afford them the income they need to raise a family and therefore they have to look to public assistance. public assistance is not for someone totally out of work for a child or older person who can't move. do you agree with? >> yes, that is what a work support system is. >> thank you very much. i watch you support the system that exists. [laughter] >> par for the course. mr. akita. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i also think that witnesses for their compelling testimony. if we have time we'll try to get back. do you have any final response to mr. pascrell? >> no, i'm fine. >> may i respond? >> mr. turner. >> sometimes with single interest of keeping the focus on wages are wal-mart is one of the greatest wealth creators of the country because the pressure they put on suppliers in producing low prices. when you take away their right to have a low-priced economy, you are also hurting the people that are consumers davis love and their low-income people. >> it's a great point. thank you for adding it to the record. speaking with the ceo of mcdonald's this year, most ashdod bus, but half the franchisees, it could portion started out at the cashier, a minimum wage paid job.

i'm a site that company is one of the country's best and most efficient, most successful upward mobility programs to raise folks out of the life of poverty. >> now so common in upward mobility for low-income workers? harry holzer, a professor at georgetown looked at a data set and took people earning less than $12,000 for three consecutive years and that it would have been to than six years later, these three consecutive years in the 1990s, only 29% of the people in that category was still low-wage six years later in the median increase in their income was 86%. the point here is getting on the latter is going to move you up wage wise. a manufacturer in wisconsin told us we hired $18 an hour employees from the ranks of

irvine 9-dollar an hour employees, not people who've been through the training program. >> you raise the minimum wage and you can't get on the latter. speaking to mr. doar, when mr. van hollin was questioning you, there was an agreement that the best antipoverty program is a job. i appreciate that was recognized and he said there were times when the put on welfare recipients. maybe this is food assistance program, snap program. most of the states with that. can you expand on that? >> and this is a program there's a long policy that able-bodied adults without dependents who should be working and have a work requirement, jerry difficult times, states are given the options of waiving the requirement. >> i'm a good law or administration?

>> under the law. the band in the first act of the obama administration they extended it for the whole period of the recession. most states took advantage of that. one place that did not was new york city. we kept the requirement because we felt the economy had enough activity in turn a minute and we believe to seeking assistance that the work is where we need you to be headed. >> i'm sorry. i have more questions. appreciate it very much. mr. turner, you were having an exchange with representative moore in a scene from trying to digest this day he made a point about s.n.a.p. recipients are coming back into the workforce in her comment was i was fair. i saw the data and send them is not correct. did you want to respond to that at all? >> i know what she said.

but i'm not exactly sure -- i think what she said is a private come to these made a profit and profits at private companies helping people to work or somehow illegitimate. i have the opposite point of view. >> please expand. >> when i was commissioner in new york city, we have 138 employment vendors which we reduced to third team -- 13 prime providers for sub contractors and they were only paid if they got people jobs and retains them. what we did that, in the first full year after he switched to performance contract team, which included for-profit vendors, our total budget for employment and training is done by a third and recorded placement double. some of the money that went for that purpose went for profits.

but it's not like nonprofit organizations don't have profits of zero. they have a different accounting systems for it. they call it indirect costs. but it's the same thing. you have to make a profit if you're going to run an operation. >> thank you. mr. kildee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a few questions, but i wonder if dr. golden would like to respond. you're trying to respond under workwear verse of s.n.a.p. >> yeah, the main point is the law requires state not to have a requirement for able-bodied individuals and unemployment is high enough and that problem will resolve itself under the next few years for state unemployment rate is stronger. so it's part of the statute and reflects a reasonable response to this to state economic circumstances. >> thank you. i wonder, dr. golden if you might comment, one of the questions that congress has been wrestling with it puts americans

in jeopardy of moving from the workforce into long-term poverty is extended to federal employment benefits. she can, for example, the governor and legislature roll back from 26 weeks to back 20 weeks of unemployment takes a working person, people in the workforce who lost their jobs, about 37 weeks to find the next opportunity. ..17 weeks on average that it takes them to survive on nothing, and whether or not that potentially puts those families at risk of entering the cycle of poverty they otherwise would have been able to avoid. if you would quickly answer. >> sure. yes, losing unemployment benefits is damaging to families and to children. unemployment insurance is important as a way of keeping families out of poverty. i think one of the things i would highlight about our whole

conversation today is we are, to a large degree, talking about parents often with young children. we know a lot by now from research, far more than we did at the time of the war on poverty about the life-long effect not having economic security, good nutrition, stability in your life as a young child. i think you are right to worry both about the immiate and >> thank you very much. i wonder, mr. doerr, there's been some discussion about minimum wage. i wonder if you might comment on minimum wage in this regard. it was your position i believe, that raising the minimum wage would have a negative consequence on those young workers that are trying to enter the workforce. is it your position that the current federal minimum wage is precisely correct in order to commentate entry into the workforce? or would it be your position that we should reduce the minimum wage in order to increase, by theory, access to

the workforce? >> no. it would not be my position to reduce the minimum wage. i should also say i also support, and not having the federal government determine the minimum wage for the whole country. >> no minimum wage whatsoever? >> no. that there should not be a minimum wage that is established at a level that will discourage work at a high level for the whole country. and that's what a lot of people are raising concerns about a $10.10 then which. i don't think it's an anti-poverty program. it will hurt the most affordable not help them. the current proposal. but i don't object to the minimum wage where it is now, but just worry about an increased. >> this is what i struggle because we hear objection to the establishment of a higher minimum wage, but we won't own the notion, the implication behind that which is either should be no minimum wage whatsoever, which apparently would support this notion, this

theory that a lower wages are better because they allow wal-mart to offer lower prices, which allow people who are making poverty wages to afford foreign produced products at a very low price, that does not stimulate the american economy. to me, what we're describing here is, and i'm sorry, mr. williams is not here, is a race to the bottom. he describes this notion that we ought to aspire to do well. the aspiration to do well should not be one that is just limited to people who own the so-called businesses or who are the so-called job creators. the aspiration to do well should apply to everybody. i'm really curious about this notion that lower wages somehow supports lower pricing for retail outlets, and that somehow has a positive net impact on our

economy. i was always thought that the notion was to have a cycle that takes us all a, not one that takes us all down. >> well, i think we want a cycle that takes us all up, but what mr. turner's point, in order to get a cycle to go if you need to get a job first. the concern is that disincentive to hire will lead to fewer opportunities for people to get on the ladder going up and that's all it is. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to the ban was for being here today. i'm curious, i think the state federal unemployment rate is six with 3%. you think that is active? >> i don't know what it is right now exactly, i'm sorry. >> that's the state and federal right. do you think that's an accurate reflection speak with no. because it doesn't include individuals who are not included in the unemployment rate.

for instance, the disability caseload has gone through the roof. the food stamp caseload has gone up, but people are not actively looking for work or not counted. to our unemployment rate has been going down. >> thank you. mr. doar, do you think it's an accurate reflection of our national unemployment? >> no. it's not a complete picture of the labor market. the better picture is the -- >> i think it helps us see trends. i think in every recession we have ever had, the recovery for those on the bottom takes longer than those who are better off. so for low-income others raising kids come it takes longer to come back and does for the average across all 6.3%. >> ms. golden, you said that the aca medicaid expansion was, took away a disincentive, but it doesn't take away, doesn't? it just doesn't further up the income level?

if you're at 130% of the federal poverty rate and your considering a job is to lose that subsidy? >> not until 400% which is a pretty decent level. in other words, you have support to medicaid and give support to the subsidy on the exchange. and the law is designed so that by the time that helped phases out you're probably in a better position to take care of your families needs. >> but there still is some disincentive, once you approach that wanted 38%? >> i'm not a health economist at the look at these issues from the poverty perspectives i think it would depend a lot about the specifics of how your state has organized that exchange. in the states i'm working with, they are trying hard to have a smooth transition but i don't know the answer to exactly -- i suspect it would be different light person exactly how it would play out. but the key design of the law when a state takes the expansion is that there's the inability to get help phasing out all the way

until your secure enough to be able to keep me for it. >> what is a living wage in san francisco? >> i don't know the answer to that numerically. i guess i would say that -- >> what is it in south carolina? >> i'm doing some work in south carolina. i would say what people sure around the country, and that's one of the reasons why i think increasing the minimal age is important, is the need to be able to feed their families, have secure work, have good, quality care for their children which -- >> housing, although skoucher things. >> it is as we've been hearing it's not only from the minimum wage. it's the intersection of a better minimum wage which will help low income people reduce poverty. >> san francisco, is the living wage the same in san francisco as in south carolina? >> we've always had a federal level that would achieve a decent standard of living everywhere and higher levels in some places. >> is a living wage at the same -- >> it's not.

>> mr. turner, is the living wage the same in san francisco as it isn't -- >> of course not spent the one size fits all federal mandate of a living wage, does not solve our problems? will that create actual hiring disincentives in areas around the country? >> yes, it will. >> okay. all of y'all mentioned that work is the best alleviation for poverty, right? you mentioned that we need to do away with federal disincentives to hiring and federal disincentives to work. can you name the primary federal disincentives to hiring, mr. turner, in your opinion? >> i mean, i don't even know where to start, but certainly the excesses of the great society taken as a whole have weekend families, driven in out of the labor force, and are responsible for some of the social problems, much of the social dissolution we see today.

>> we've got disincentives to work and disincentives to hiring. mr. doar, can you name your primary distance and? >> in hiring, i'm out of business because. i want to be as few as possible so they are hiring people who are in trouble economically. i think on the federal policy, i look at the casey mulligan's work, and under the insurance extensions are a principal culprit, followed by some concerned what's happened with disability insurance. and, frankly, the welfare programs are not a significant players in this disincentive to going to work as they might be. >> thank you. mr. cardenas. >> okay, it's on. dr. golden, did you want to add an extra that last question speak was sure. i was going to highlight that a key issue for employers is the quality of workers and their skills. so i do think that when the

federal government doesn't invest enough in early childhood education, in k-12, and that's -- access to long-term educational opportunities, particularly forget to start out behind that that in turn ends up as a disincentive to hiring. so i think that failing to invest sufficiently is one of the things we should have on the list. >> so early investment seems to pay very well when it comes to the economy on the macro level all the way down to the individual work level and in household level, correct? >> yes. >> on that note, wal-mart was given an example. would you say that they're more of a short-term investor in our economy when it comes to what you just described, or are they a long-term positive or a short form -- short-term positive? >> i'm not an economist expert in individual for some a bubble comment on low-wage work more broadly and how it plays out. >> excuse me. what i'm referring to was talked about earlier by one of my

colleagues, is a disproportionate percentage of wal-mart workers are actually on public assistance. in that context is that a good short-term or is that more of a long-term effort, so it seems? >> it's clearly -- i guess i was a two things. the first one is that i do think that having a safety net that's able to provide, for example, health care no matter whether your employer provided or not is an important place to be. so i wouldn't, so i think that's part of it is having a public safety net. in terms of employers like wal-mart, clearly win employment is unstable and low-wage, i think one of the other issues that we've been working on in class but is it contribute to big problems for families is schedules that make it impossible to raise a child and work. when employers carry out those practices, low wages and a whole set of other, lack of benefits and bad practices, they are not

successfully investing in the workforce they need in the long run. cyberazzi from the perspective it's not long run either for them or for the country. >> well, one of the things that really bothers me is i think most americans have an idea of what the face of poverty is, what an individual in poverty action looks like. and i think these recent times people realize it affects everybody, rural, big cities, small committees, et cetera, of every color, of every persuasion. today as a stance do any of you know whether or not when it comes to the percent of people on public assistance is the majority of people on public assistance nonwhite minorities or non-minority white? does anybody know that figure? >> i don't know the figure, if you -- >> i can say about child poverty for the world -- brought program like medicaid.

i would almost surely would be non-minority white because that covers a broad swath including the elderly disabled. for child poverty, that's divided roughly one-third, one-third, one-third, white, african-american and hispanic. slightly more hispanic children are poor, but it's pretty close across the three of them. >> the reason why i asked the question is because what frustrates me is every time we see people getting a welfare check or something like that they always go to the poorest inner-city places and then they show a line of people and it tends to be of one color. but when you step back a look at the nation as a whole, it's my understand it's well over 50% white people on public assistance, ma closer to 60% actually. but that's not the picture that unfortunately america sees. i think it adds to the statement and the idea that people are just laying on the couch. >> when you see the picture, you don't see the person who is working long hours. i'm very struck in the work i'm doing with these six states that the people they see on snapper

on medicaid don't have time to stand in the welfare office for four hours to get their benefits because they are working a couple of low-wage jobs. and undertaken of the kids as well. i think it's another aspect of the accurate picture that doesn't get shown. >> dr. golden, what's your anti-to this question, should poor families be able to save money while they are still retaining benefits? >> yes. i think there's evidence that that contribute to stability in the long run and that's one of the reasons why some may say to chosen where they have the possibility not to enforce test that would get rid of all of their savings speed is just a few minutes left industry but you can see it in its entirety at c-span.org. like this one to his senate where coming up in about 45 minutes at 10 eastern this with the general vote on whether to begin work on a bill that would allow borrowers to refinance their old student loans. the cost would be offset by a tax increase on millionaires.

harry reid announcing yesterday that the senate this week would take up a bill aimed at improving veterans access to health care. and legal live now to the senate floor here on this wednesday morning on c-span2. -- we go live now. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. immortal, invisible god, only wise. we cannot escape you, nor do we desire to do so.

this morning, we thank you for sending the rain down from heaven, watering the earth and making it bud and flourish. thank you for providing seeds for the sower and a harvest for the laborer. lord, thank you as well for our lawmakers. as they serve you today on capitol hill, give them courage, power, and wisdom. may you bless and keep them from stumbling or slipping so that one day, they will stand in your presence with great joy. today, lift the light of your countenance upon them and give them your peace.

we pray in your powerful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 11, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massaschusetts , to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader if any, the senate will

resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2432. the time until 10:00 a.m. this morning will be divided as follows. there is an order that dictates this. senator alexander will control 15 minutes and the remaining time will be equally divided two the two leaders or their designees. at 10:00 a.m. there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to college affordability. mr. president, all over america today there are newspaper articles of hope. for example, in "the washington post" today, there are headlines like this all over the country, "veterans affairs bills progressing quickly in congress." it quotes me as saying it's something that needs to be done. it's urgent that we get this done to resolve some outstanding issues within the v.a. my friend, the republican leader, the senior senator from

kentucky, indicate -- here's what he said -- "pretkeubgtd that g.o.p. senators -- predict that had g.o.p. senators would overwhelmingly support the bill." there is the house chairman, of course, mr. miller. mr. miller, from florida, is in the newspaper -- and i quote -- "he signaled support for the sanders-mccain bill, noting that it largely mirrors a series of similar stand-alone proposals in the house approved in recent months." each side has run what we call hotlines, meaning permission from the senators to move forward on this legislation, and we've been able to do that. move forward on it. it's my understanding last evening that the junior senator from oklahoma has an amendment that he feels should be offered. fine. let's have -- let's bring that up and vote on it and move on. this is a bill that needs to get done. not only are the veterans elated

to hear language like i've just read, but people all over america because we support the veterans community. mr. president, we have issues that are so deep and complex that we need to get to them. will this solve all the issues? of course not. but we have two million new veterans because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan that have a multitude of problems. we've never had in other wars before. so i certainly hope that we can arrange quickly an opportunity to move forward on this legislation. i stand ready to work with my democratic allies here, those in the minority, to do everything that we can do to move forward on this legislation as quickly as possible. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2432, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed

to calendar number 409, s. 2432, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing of certain federal student loans, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senator from tennessee, mr. alexander, will control 15 minutes, and the remaining time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. who yields time?

if no one yields time, then the time will be charged equally to both sides.

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we are not. mr. alexander: we are? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. alexander: we are not. mr. president, could the chair please let me know when when i have three minutes remaining on my time? the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mr. alexander: mr. president,

i heard the majority leader's comments about the importance of moving on to the veterans bill, and so i have a suggestion. why don't we send this political stunt on student loans to the senate education committee, where the senator from iowa, senator harkin, and i are busy working in a bipartisan way to reauthorize higher education, and let's move on to the veterans bill immediately. why should we take a week on a political stunt that everybody here knows won't pass, when veterans are standing in line at clinics waiting for us to act on a bipartisan solution to their problem. it actually goes further in giving veterans more choices of health care than anything we've ever done here. it actually begins to give veterans more of the same choices of health care in the

same way we began to give them choices of higher education with the passage of the g.i. bill for veterans in 1944, when we said to the veterans, here's the money. go choose your college. and that's what we would be saying here to veterans. we would be saying, if you have to stand in line too long or if you live too far away from a veterans facility, here's the money. go choose your medical care. that's a very important step for millions of veterans. it deals directly with the problem that all of us on both sides of the aisle are chagrined about. veterans standing in line waiting for health care. so i have one question. why should we spend a week on a political stunt, why should we go all the way to next monday before we dispose of it? let's dispose of it today. let's send it to the committee that's already considering these issues and let's move on to the veterans bill before noon.

we could do that, and the veterans and the people of this country would respect us for it. i thought we'd stopped the political stunts on student loans last year, when the president, to his credit, worked with the republican house and a bipartisan group in the senate, and we came to a result, a big result. it affects $100 billion of loans every year. half the students in america have a grant or loan to help pay for college. and what we did was we got rid of the political stunt. we said instead of every election year, someone will come forward and make some preposterous proposal about what we can do in hopes that students might vote for them. we got rid of them by saying let's put a market-based pricing system on the new student loans. the effect of that was to get rid of this semi annual political stunt and it had the

effect of lowering the interest rate on loans for undergraduates by cutting it nearly in half. and undergraduate loans are, are 85% of the loans we make. so a 19-year-old student can get a loan to go to college at 3.86% without any credit rating, has a right to do that. in some cases can get a grant of up to $5,600 to help go to college. so we did that last year. and then this year what we're doing in the senate education committee -- as we've had ten hearings. now this is a committee that knows how to work. senator harkin, the senator from iowa, we have big ideological differences in our committee but that doesn't stop us from working, from doing our job. so we've passed 19 bills out of our committee, and 10 of them have gone through the senate and turned into law. no other committee in the senate can say that. and right now we're working on

this very subject of the political stunt. so why not put the political stunt where it belongs, back in the committee, back in the committee that's already working on it in a bipartisan way, and let's go to the veterans who are standing in line and do what the majority leader said, which is let's deal with that issue. now why do i say this is not a serious proposal? it's not out of lack of respect of the sponsor. of course i have great respect for her and for other senators who are making the proposal. but let me outline why i say this is not a serious proposal, and everybody in the senate knows that. they know it's not going to pass. so why would we be wasting our time on it? number one, it does nothing, not one thing, for current or future students. if you're in college today or if you're going tomorrow, this doesn't do anything for you. so don't let the rhetoric fool you. number two, what does it do for people who used to be in

college, who might have a loan they're paying off? here's what it does. according to data supplied by the congressional research service, they'll give you $1 a day. this is for about half the people, former students who have old loans. a taxpayer subsidy of $1 a day to help you pay off your student loan. now how big is that loan? for undergraduates, which is 85% of all the loans, it's $21,000. for graduates with a four-year degree, it's $27,000. $27,000, probably the best investment you'll ever make. the college board says if you have a four-year degree your lifetime earnings will be $1 million more. $27,000 when you have no credit rating and you have a right to get it, and it earns you $1 million; a pretty good deal, i think. a pretty good deal. it's about the exact amount of the average car loan.

so what are we going to do next week? instead of dealing with lines of veterans at clinics, somebody going to come on the floor and say, well, people have a $27,000 car loan, so let's raise taxes and raise the debt and give them $1 a day to pay off their car loan? or next week the mortgage loan. or next week the credit card. this is not a serious proposal. it's not going to help people. it's not going to help people. college graduates don't need a dollar a day tax subsidy to pay off their loan. they need a job. they need a job, and they're experiencing right now the worst situation for finding a job that they have seen in a long, long time. now, republicans have plans that would help create more jobs. we would like to do what the president said, which was let's give the president more trade authority so we can sell more things in europe and asia, but no, we can't bring that up here. we would like to approve the

keystone pipeline, but no, we can't bring that up here. we'd like to repeal obamacare and particularly the parts that make it harder to create jobs, but no, we don't want to talk about that. we would like to extend -- we would like to at least change the provision of part-time jobs from 30 to 40 hours which affects millions of american workers, but no, we can't get that up either. if we're going to talk about students paying back loans, they don't need a dollar a day. they need a job. but my point is why should we be wasting a week on this when we have veterans standing in line waiting for us to take up and deal with a bipartisan proposal that the majority leader just described. what else is wrong with this proposal? it could add up to $420 billion to the federal debt. now, it does bring the money with it to eventually pay it off, we hope, but it adds to the debt, and the congressional budget office says that the

national debt is rising at a rate that the interest payments will go from around $200 billion to $800 billion in ten years. we will be spending more on interest in ten years than we do on national defense. it increases individual income taxes, $72 billion with what i would call a class warfare tax. that tax has been rejected eight times by the united states senate. seven times on a motion to proceed. there already is a way to lower your payments if you're a student with a loan and your monthly payments are too high. it's in the law. the president talked about it this week. it's called the income repayment plan. and it would lower your monthly payments $60 more a month if you're a typical undergraduate and $330 more a month if you're a typical graduate student. you can do that today. that's a bigger savings on

monthly payments than in the proposal that we're debating today. and in addition to that, let's say this proposal were to pass the united states senate, it could not be sent to the house. it's unconstitutional. it's unconstitutional. you can't originate a tax in the united states senate, according to the constitution. so why would we pass it if we can't send it to the house? next it violates the budget control act. we passed a law that said we couldn't spend any more than x. this violates that act. so, mr. president, if it gives you a dollar a day to pay off a $27,000 loan at a time when your college degree will earn you more than a million dollars, if it equals -- if the car loans for undergraduates are about the same as -- if the loans for undergraduates are about the same as car loans, if it raises the debt by $420 billion, if it

raises taxes by $72 billion, if there is already in the law a way to lower your monthly payment more than this proposal without raising taxes, without raising the debt, without passing a law, if it's unconstitutional, even if we pass it, we can't send it to the house. if it violates the budget control act, why wouldn't we waste time on it when veterans are standing in line waiting for us to take up a bipartisan proposal to give them more choices for medical care? why wouldn't we do that? and right behind the veterans is the senator from maryland, senator mikulski and senator shelby from alabama with a series of appropriation bills. they have bipartisan support, too. they have been through the committee, too. we haven't passed appropriation bills in the last four years. two of those years, we passed zero. one of those years, we passed one. they are ready to do the job on both sides of the aisle. and then why wouldn't we spend time on this if it doesn't deal

with the real issues? students with loans don't need a dollar a day to pay off the loan. they need a job. we have proposals for jobs. the real problems with student loans are complexity and overborrowing. 90% of the loans we read about in the paper, over $100,000, are graduate loans. only 2% of the loans are over $100,000. the presiding officer: i will tell the senator from tennessee that he has three minutes remaining. mr. alexander: i will reserve one minute, and let me conclude in this way. what would be the right way to do with this? vote no. a no vote means no to a week-long political stunt, no to debt and taxes, yes to moving today to a bipartisan solution veterans -- to the problem of veterans standing in line at clinics. yes to appropriation bills after that that deal with cancer research and national defense

and the other urgent needs of our country, also in a bipartisan way. yes to the way the senate ought to run, and it would mean no to the practice of pulling a bill out of your pocket, putting it on the floor and wasting a week with a political stunt while veterans are standing in line at a clinic waiting for us to act. so, mr. president, i would suggest that the right thing to do today is to vote no, send the bill and the discussion about student loans to the education committee, we can work with the president and get a result just like we did last year, and let's move on to dealing with the bipartisan solution to veterans who were standing in line waiting for us to act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the senior senator from tennessee has summed it up quite accurately. i have been calling on the majority leader to press pause on his party's nonstop campaign

so we can take up bipartisan legislation for a change. because there is a real crisis in the country. it's a scandal that demands the senate's full attention. according to the obama administration's own internal audit, its veterans scandal has now spread to more than 3/4, 3/4 of the v.a. facilities that were surveyed. nearly 100,000 veterans continue to wait for care at v.a. centers, and many of our veterans have been forced to wait three months or longer. 18 veterans have already died in phoenix aloan, waiting for care that would never come. this is a national disgrace. the president needs to nominate a capable leader and manager who possesses the skills, leadership ability and determination to correct the failings of the v.a. support the thousands of v.a. workers who are committed to serving our veterans and provide all of those who have served

bravely with the timely care that they have earned. he also needs to use the tools he already has to address the systemic failures of management in his administration, and he needs to use the new tools we can provide him with the legislation as well. that's why we in this body have a responsibility to act and to do so with a sense of urgency. yesterday, the house passed bipartisan legislation unanimously, unanimously to help deal with this crisis. it's similar to the bipartisan sanders-mccain bill right here in the senate. it would increase patient choice. it would introduce some much-needed accountability into the v.a. system, and it's past time to take up that kind of legislation right here in the senate. veterans have been made to wait long enough. senate democrats shouldn't be keeping them in the waiting room even longer. now, i know the majority leader and his democratic colleagues would rather stick to their

campaign play book. we know they would rather talk about a bill they claim is about student loans, but the senate democrats' bill isn't really about students at all. it's really all about senate democrats. because senate democrats don't actually want a solution for their students. they want an issue to campaign on to save their own hides this november. recall that around this same time last year, republicans had to swoop in with a bipartisan piece of legislation to save students from a rate increase after senate democrats blew past the deadline, and senator alexander was right in the middle of that incredible and effective solution. and now senate democrats are pushing yet another, yet another student loan bill, one they actually hope will fail. well, i think senate democrats are in for a surprise. americans are not going to fall for this spin because students can understand that this bill won't make college more affordable, they understand it won't reduce the amount of money they have to borrow and students

know it won't do a thing, not a thing to fix the economy that's depriving so many young americans of the jobs that they seek. of course, senate democrats understand all of these things, too. here's what the majority leader's lieutenant, the senior senator from new york, said when he was asked a couple of years ago about student loans. he said if democrats wanted to -- quote -- be political about this issue, they would have paid for it with -- with the very same gimmick being used today to pay for the bill that's before us. so give the senior senator from new york points for honesty. his words show without equivocation that senate democrats are now playing politics with the futures of young americans instead of doing something about the v.a. crisis. so let's just accept the senator's admission that his party's bill is truly about helping democrats, not students, and let's move on to fixing the v.a. scandal instead.

the time is now to turn away from designed to fail politicking and toward actual bipartisan solutions. our constituents demand it and our veterans deserve it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator scekd. mr. franken: thank you, thank you very much. we can do both the

sanders-mccain bill, the veterans bill, and we can do this, and there is a need for this. i was proud to join senator warren of massachusetts in presenting the bank on students manage loan refinancing act. i come from a state -- we have the distinction of being fourth in the nation in terms of level of debt that our students have when they graduate from college. over $30,000. and then we see people who have gone to graduate school with a lot more. i do college roundtables all the time. kids working 20, 30, 40 hours a week while going to school. i have kids tell me that they're giving blood while they're in school. we need to address this. this is -- yes, this is only a part of what we need to do when talking about the cost of

college, but why, why should -- are you able to refinance your home loan in this country, you are able to refinance your car loan, you are able to refinance a business loan, but you can't refinance your student debt? that makes just no sense. and this has become a macroeconomic issue. economists agree that this -- because of the level of student debt, and if you're paying 10% interest on it, it makes a huge difference. and therefore you're not able to save up enough to put a down payment on a house or you're not able enough to buy a car, you're not able to move out of your parents' house.

this would help 550,000 minnesotans. 550,000 minnesotans. that's one out of every ten minnesotans. and the -- what pays for it is saying that people who make over a million dollars a year would pay -- would pay in income taxes what people making $60,000 a year make. this is about fairness. we all know that in the last number of decades and especially in the last number of years that all -- virtually all new income has gone -- flowed, flowed to those at the top. why not say look, a hedge fund

manager -- you know, the top 40 hedge fund managers make as much as 300,000 teachers. why shouldn't they pay 30% on their income? and why not benefit the millions and millions and millions of americans who have student debt and let them refinance their debt like you can with homes, home loans, car loans, business loans. it just seems that this is a matter of fairness. it's also a matter of -- it's smart economics. it's smart economics, because economists agree that the $1.2

trillion in student debt has hurt this economy. so it seems to make common sense. and it isn't, this isn't political. it's not political if the other side votes for it. if the other side votes for it, then we can help millions and millions of americans refinance debt they have, just like other americans can refinance their debt on credit card debt or home debt. this just makes too much sense. and it shouldn't be political. it should be bipartisan. and we should get to this and then move on to the sanders-mccain bill, which i've cosponsored. i want to get on that. i want to be able to get on a lot of legislation. and we've seen in this congress

and in the last several congresses sometimes the minority doing what it can to slow down the process, to gum up the works here. i would love to get to the veterans bill immediately after passing this. so, thank you, mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. the senator from massachusetts is recognized. ms. warren: thank you. i rise to ask my colleagues to support the bank on loan student emergency financing act. the legislation would reduce student loan debt for millions of americans and provide relief for those who are struggling to keep up with their payments. student loan debt is exploding and it threatens the stability of our young people and the future of our economy. the debt now totals $1.2 trillion, and it is growing bigger every single day. in eight years the average student loan balance increased by 70%, and now seven out of every ten college seniors are dealing with student loan debt. this debt is crushing our young people and dragging down our economy. by keeping borrowers from being able to buy homes, to buy cars,

to open small businesses. it's keeping them from making the purchases that get their economic lives started and that help our economy grow. we must act now to provide relief for existing borrowers. and the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act will do exactly that. the legislation is straightforward. it allows existing borrowers to reduce their debt by refinancing their high interest loans to much lower and much more manageable levels. now, depending on when they took out their student loans, millions of americans are stuck in loans at 6%, 8%, 10%, and even higher. now while interest rates are low, we propose to refinance those loans so that the old debt is at the same rate that is currently being offered to new student loan borrowers.

these rates are exactly the same rates that nearly every republican in the house and the senate voted for just last summer as the fair rate for new student loans issued in 2013-2014. that's 3.6% for undergraduate loans, a little higher for graduate and parent loans. these new rates are still higher than what it costs the government to run its student loan program. but if these lower rates are good enough for new borrowers, they should be good enough for older borrowers too. later today senators will have a choice. they can move forward and debate this bill or they can filibuster it and prevent any consideration of this refinancing plan. some republicans have pointed out that the legislation doesn't solve every problem that we have in higher education. well, that's true.

refinancing won't fix everything that's broken in our higher education system. we need to bring down the cost of college, and we need more accountability for how schools spend their federal dollars. senator reid, senator durbin and i have a bill to do just that, and we welcome our republican friends to join on that bill. but we have another problem right now. student loan debt and a straightforward way to ease that problem right now. refinancing that debt. we should do it right now. if senators twaopbt do more, they should offer amendments to that bill. but they should not block it from being considered. now some republicans have expressed concern about the effect of student loan refinancing on the deficit. in fact, the bill is fully paid

for. and according to official estimates from the congressional budget office, it actually reduces the deficit. that's because it's funded by stitching up a loophole in our tax code that allows some millionaires to pay lower tax rates than middle-class families. investing in students and asking billionaires to pay their taxes seems pretty fair to me. if senators want to pay for this in a different way, they should offer amendments to this bill. but they should not block it from being considered. finally, some have argued that the financial benefits for our young people here is small. if republicans would like to lower the interest rates even more, then count me in. that's what i'd like to do. but let's be clear, 40 million borrowers in this country have student loan debt. 40 million. and many of those individuals

could save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year under this proposal. that's real money back in the pockets of people who invested in their education. if senators want to change those rates, they should offer amendments to the bill, but they should not block it from being considered. they should not be -- this should not be a partisan issue. locking old borrowers into high interest rates just doesn't make any sense. the federal government should offer refinancing just like any other lender. this is about economics, but it is also about our values. these young people saddled with student loan debt didn't go to the mall and run up charges on a credit card. they worked hard and learned new skills that will benefit this country and help us build a stronger america. they deserve a fair shot at an

affordable education. unfortunately, people struggling with student loans don't have money to hire armies of lobbyists to argue their case on capitol hill. they don't have a super pac and they can't fund super secret political machines. but they have their voices, and they are making themselves heard. over 700,000 people have signed petitions urging congress to refinance student loans. dozens of organizations have endorsed the bill, including student groups, colleges, and mortgage bankers. senators have a choice to make today. they can move forward and debate this bill. they can acknowledge that debt is crushing our families and do what we were sent here to do. address an economic emergency that threatens the financial futures of americans and the stability of our economy.

or they can block this bill from being considered. they can refuse to even debate this idea in order to protect tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. that's it. billionaires or students. people who have already made it big or people who are working to build their futures. with this vote, we show the american people who we work for in the united states senate. billionaires or students? a vote on this legislation is a vote to give millions of young people a fair shot at building their future. 40 million students and their families are counting on us. thank you, mr. president. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has two minutes remaining.

mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the question before the senate is this. shall we spend the next week on a political stunt that gives some students $1 a day to pay off their student loan or shall we move to a bipartisan solution to veterans who are lined up at clinics and hospitals across the country in a way that shocks those of us on both sides of the aisle? that's the issue. that's the issue. the proposal before us is a serious -- isn't a serious proposal. it's $1 to pay off a $27,000 loan. what are we going to do next week? raise taxes and pay the debt to pay off a $27,000 car loan which is the average student loan in this country? in addition, this couldn't even be sent to the house if it passed because it's unconstitutional. you can't start a tax in the senate, and this has a big tax in it.

mr. president, the way we deal with these issues is the way we did it last year. we worked with the president in a bipartisan way and reduced rates for students. what we need to do today is vote "no." no to the political stunt and that will lead us immediately to deal with veterans standing in line at clinics and hospitals across the country. i urge the senate to send this to the committee that's already working on it in a bipartisan way, and let's move to help the veterans in a bipartisan way. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion -- we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 409, s. 2432, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing of certain federal student loans, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mda