from the federal government. of all of them. smaller than schools, smaller than health care, smaller than any other situation you can think of in the social landscape. the total amount of money that ice on your budget i signed your budget viewer and power to transfer to state libraries, 155 million. that isn't even noticeable in the department of education budget. your agency didn't exist until 1997? >> and we wanted out. >> exact date. i have all these teachers and my family. i'm not saying anything against schools. those needs have to be met to map but this group needs to say what are our needs and we have to stand up and do the math. we have got the reply briefs due next monday. the first week in may under the leadership of john chambers over here at the fcc who knows more about libraries than anyone who

ever was employed at the fcc. we have a working group where we have to actually get to the conclusions about the administrative process reforms. we have got to do that so he can start writing is ordered in may so the order can come out out in june that establishes the new administrative processes and that also talks about how the fcc is going to be spending its money in the next cycle. in terms of general big picture for many many years the entire community that has benefited from the e-rate has understandably because of the constant culture wars has said just hold on to what we have got. that is what we have had to do just because of the constant pressure but that is not what the fcc is telling us. this fcc is saying instead of looking at it as a x dollars every single year why did you, and tell us we will bunch a

whole bunch of money right up front. it will be a capital expenditure the way john has been talking about it. more money up front once and for all put fiber to all these ill things. we will provide caching technology. we will have one single model for every single building and then your maintenance costs in the years later will be less than the up for and costs. this by the way is the way every single member -- network in united states is built. it's only in this sector that we have an embrace that model and we are being told by the fcc bring us the plan we will pay for it. we have to get the plan out and it has to be technical. susan demonstrated to me that there is plenty of confidence not in every library but a bunch of libraries to deliver the the i.t. planning. susan heldreth could do it and you can talk about pots. this can all be done.

there are a lot of libraries where the i.t. competence doesn't exist and isn't funded by the local municipal governments and doesn't need to be funded. it doesn't have to be that you have the cisco trained ip professional in every system. it ought to be 50 or 100 can serve the entire country meaning everything needs to be transparent. that is why we want to be on line. all great library deals out to be public for all libraries. in fact every library ought to be goading themselves and others on every quarter by reporting to the fcc every single quarter now and forever how it's going. which is so incredibly easy. it wasn't easy back in the old days. though sold based on exist now. it's really easy to do these measurements. we just have to say you know the date is going to make us free.

now to what level are we going to upgrade? when we are talking about the surge spending if you forgive the phrase what level are we going to upgrade to? there is no doubt whatsoever because all the comments that were written on april 7 all support this. the fundamental idea has to be fiber in the building that is capable with today's electronics of delivering one gigabit a second but that is not the future. the future is the one gigabit will become 10 and become 100. the way fiber works and this ths a lawyer explaining its once you get the glass in the ground and the electronics later to upgrade the bits per wavelength that is a comparatively lower expenditure. we have to be focusing on first getting what john wayne hauser and his group called the capitol expenditure in place. second as to the wireless local area networks the comments and i was up late last night reading a lot of them and haven't quite

finished yet but they make it really clear there are several basic categories of funding that are necessary. the maintenance, the caching, the routers the internal networks which in some cases have to have wired components. it's not that complicated. we should be presenting to the fcc one or two basic models and saying these are the models with variations that all libraries should be utilizing. there are some comments that say you know the libraries really shouldn't do consortium bidding. all those comments were from the people currently supplying to libraries. god bless them. they have actually done a wonderful job but they are not looking out are the biggest bang for their buck. this is a buy sell transaction. you are talking about haggling, we have got to be doing some haggling. why should libraries be able to opt out of consortiums only if they get a better deal by opting

out? no one should be saying i want the federal government to give me money so i can opt out so i can pay for a worse deal. we ought to be willing to create an app and he willing to say to the fcc that we will hang together because we don't want to get bad deal separately. we need to allocate by priority. although comments make it clear there has to be some sense of equity in the prioritization of the fcc. there are variations on what equity consists of but for sure it is an adjustment by income. it's an adjustment by the number of users for sure. so that you will see presented a formula. they are printing other formulas that we all have to agree on a sensible allocation of formula. if we were on the titanic it would be women and children first. this is a post-gender discrimination air that we are in. we do have a formula that reflects some sense of needs

because the fcc isn't going to fund 100% on day one. number two is absolutely going to be necessary that we understand the fcc needs to come out with an order in june and that will not be the final order because it is also going to be the case that these pilot projects have to be done in data has to come back and then we need to revise and change our thinking. but by the end of the year we should have fulfilled tom wheeler stream. he wants to reimagine the e-rate. he told us that he wants us to be collectively the andrew carnegie's of the century and with a little help from bill gates. we will need a lot of help from bill gates. but this is an incredible opportunity. we have to take it. actually i know we can take it because when i look back at the conversation with olympia snowe and i look at the results the

reality of internet access in the united states from the year olympia took me to the library and maine internet access in the united states was led by access to schools and libraries. in its first 10 years it was led by access to schools. the united states led the world in having a generation come onto the internet. we have in fact in that generation the highest percentage of internet savvy people of any country in the world. ..

we will be continuing to discuss them over the summer. we know we are at an historic crossroads for libraries and access and next-generation broadband. we expect many issues discussed here will become more developed

in the public's fear as the fcc continues toward modernization of the e-rate program and eventually asks congress to weigh and. i have no doubt that the public record established today will help inform those conversations that we could not have done with tunnel of love participants in the audience. i wanted thank or virtual audience who have been joining us. these platforms demonstrate as right here in this library the possibilities that improve broadband. i want to make sure everyone is aware that written comments will be accepted and must be received before april 24th, next thursday, in order to be included in the hearing record. if you're compelled to submit comments or those of you out there virtually joining us, please feel free to share them with those by april 24.

finally, thank you to the staff and the library. thank you to our staff. it is fabulous to be here, and i keep looking out there. it looks like the, activity is good. we will have to do some speed testing. this is why we are here. we are making a difference in the nation's capital. ration in do that, we can do

a 15-minute interview.

>> commander steven swanson, welcome to c-span. >> thank you very much. >> host: if you would not mind, tell us a little bit about the current activities of the international space station, how many members of crew you have and generally what you were doing. >> guest: the great question. we have six crew members up here right now. three russians, to americans, and one german. mostly what we do is science up here. over 170 experiments going on right now, but also we have to maintain the station and keep it running smoothly and efficiently >> host: commander, with the science experiment you are currently conducting can you tell us a couple of things, generally what areas they fall into and why is it that these need to be conducted in an atmosphere such as yours.

>> guest: yes. so, they vary tremendously. we have outside the house of magnetic spectrometer, which is looking for dark energy and dark matter. something we are trying to figure out the basic physics of our universe came to be. from that we go all the way to a human research on our bodies. how do we change in a microgravity environment, specifically our eyes, muscles, bones, and we are looking in detail about that which can have applications on earth with people who have different diseases. we get to see it at a more rapid pace of pier. that is pretty much for all the science. the idea is that things change appear enough that people can analyze how different pieces or science objectives change in this microgravity environment. it is just different than on earth which gives us another

data set to look and compare to, and that gives them a lot more understanding of the problem. >> host: so commander, because you are up there in the microgravity talk a little bit about the extent of the science. are we talking basic research or advanced research? >> guest: well, it is both. i feel advanced research is looking for dark energy. also advanced research in combustion and cancer research, looking at t-cells, but there is also basic science research, trying to understand basic physics properties. it is both. there is just so much science going on. it is just amazing. >> host: experiments that you conduct, how many are nasa sanctioned, taxpayer funded, how many come from private sources, experiments you take on from other sources? >> guest: you know, i don't really know the numbers, but they definitely come from

different areas. we have some nasa ones, some from the european space -- space agency, the japanese space agency, the russians, and a whole group which takes science experiments from all over the u.s. and combines them into a group from that area. they did to the be on board. it is a difference -- the whole bunch of different places. i just not know the exact numbers. >> host: you spoke about life in microgravity. i suspect -- and you kind of address this -- the toll that it takes on your body. can you describe what it is like living there without gravity, and if you could move around a little bit to give folks a sense of what it is like. >> guest: yes. that is a good thing. first of all, anything you hold just floats when you little of it. that is good and bad. if i don't watch this, and about ten seconds it will float of.

that is a negative. moving around is very much fun. i will give you a quick example of something to you can do. it -- [silence] i am not a dynast on earth. this is the only place i get to do that. >> host: do you hit your head? how long does it take to get used to? >> guest: definitely at the beginning it is more difficult. we have competitions. you have to get their rotation without any side movement, and you can see how many rotation's you can do before you hit anything. >> host: give our viewers a sense of how long gestation is. what are we talking size was? >> guest: it is about the

volume of a 747. it is quite big, quite large, about 250 feet long. in certain spots it is maybe 130-140 feet wide. it is actually quite a big. only six people up here, so it is not crowded at all. >> host: you said there were six people, again, from different countries working together on this. what is the working relationship like between the countries? >> guest: it is a very good working relationship up here. we have trained together beforehand as a crew, and so we got to know each other very well. we worked together on a daily basis and really have no issues. there are always differences, but we have learned those. we are all good friends, and it seems to go quite smoothly. >> host: here on earth there are current issues concerning tension between the united states and russia.

you have three russian cosmonauts on board. to those issues it discussed, and do you get any discussions about what is going on on earth? >> guest: yes, they do get discussed, just like any news event. we all discuss it. it is not like there is any negative to it. we understand there are politics going on. we also understand it does not affect our work and relationships. it really does not affect us, but it is discussed. >> host: what are the nature of the discussions like? >> guest: that is a good question. it varies, of course, on the topic. on the u.s.-russia relations we could build into more politics of the country and more of the details about the culture and what that means in each country. if you break it down that way,

you can kind of see what is going on of little more clearly. >> host: on the science side, commander, for instance, if russia decided because of relations they wanted to pull back on work at the space station how is the united states affected by that, and how are the science experiments affected by that? >> guest: well, right now the science is pretty much separated between the u.s. side, which includes the european space agency, canada, all of those, and then the russian side. the science is somewhat separated. however, we do require the russians for us to get up here and get back down right now. hopefully in a few years we won't need that, but right now we need that to happen. that is probably the biggest deal right now. if we can't keep up here, we can do the science. >> host: commander, you can move around if you are tired of holding that position if you want to take the mike with you.

as far as manning and staffing of the station, much of that now depends upon commercial aircraft what has been the experience with these commercial spacecraft stopping and supplying the station? >> guest: right now they are just supplying the station, and we are very happy that we have american cargo vehicles coming up. it is a great advancement. these are good vehicles. it does offload our dependence upon russia and other countries for that. so we are happy about that and definitely looking forward to the next development when we do get to a crew and american vehicle which will change our dynamic quite a bit. right now it is just cargo coming up. it matter of fact, we will have one here in less than a month to give us new food and science to work on. >> host: as far as -- you said that next step, what is involved

in the next step and how did things change? >> guest: yes, that next step is actually proving that the vehicle is safe for humans. we have a few companies who are bidding for that opportunity right now. once they start into that project, the end of that project by 2017, we will have a man to test of an american vehicle at that time, and they will probably do one test flight may be to station, maybe not. from then we will be rotating crewmembers on the american vehicle. >> host: how much input do you and the other crew members have to these private companies? how is it received? >> guest: i personally do not have employed. nasa does have input. i believe it is received quite well from talking to folks to do

that work. because these companies want to of succeed. they want the contracts and want to build a good vehicle, they really do. they do listen and try to make the best vehicle they can. of course it is a cost analysis going on at the same time. they can't build, you know, the most luxurious cadillac out there. however, they build a good vehicle. >> host: commander, you talked about moving forward, 2017 you talked about. as far as the station itself, how long is it going to remain functional? >> guest: that is a good question. right now i believe it is on paper and tell 2024, and that is just more to certify the life of certain components and also for the resupply missions for certain things. so it could go wonder if we wanted. it all depends upon where we want to spend our money. >> host: what do you mean by that?

>> guest: well, if we want to go -- nasa budget is limited, and a portion of it goes to space station and keeping it running. so a different task we want to take on, signaling to the moon or mars or an asteroid or whenever it happens to be, we might not be able to do both at the same time given how big each plan is. >> host: what is the role of the station in future manned space flight pass and then? >> guest: right now future of space flight, the station is a test bed. we test all sorts of things up here. right now we have a recycling system for water. we recycle our water, everything , and we need that if we're going to go other places. and that is just one example. we are testing out new technologies that will enable us to go farther.

>> host: you would say the station is needed past 2024? >> guest: that is a good question. i am not sure. it would definitely be a good test bed for all sorts of things. we can easily get things up and down from here, more than you could from a longer mission. that is why you want to make an update to your product or equipment. you can do that more quickly. it is a great test bed. however, again, a limited amount of money. >> host: say by 2024 nothing is decided, what happens? does it fall to earth? >> guest: well, that will be a decision for management. consider the politicians and the nasa administration. however, if it is decided it is

no longer needed, it will deorbit and burn up on entry. >> host: commander steven swanson, we every day go through our normal lives here in a gravity atmosphere. what is it like on a day-to-day level, in a weightless atmosphere? tell our viewers some of the things you may not expect about living in space and the things you may have to overcome because of the environment you are in. >> guest: year out. it is really the simple things that are much more difficult up here. getting up in the morning, shaving and getting yourself ready. about 20 feet behind me. i do not have to go for, but things like that in the morning. you do not have a sink to wash up and. brush your teeth differently. eating is a chore because everything floats, again. it comes in packages and wants

to go everywhere. all of these little things, and even tying your shoe ends up being differently. you don't have gravity, so you have to be more flexible. all of these little things you did not think about make it a little less efficient to be up here. however, there are benefits. we love it up here. it is a fun thing to do. looking out the window is fantastic. it cannot be beat. >> host: commander steven swanson, though, once you return to earth what happens? how does your body just? >> guest: that is the good question. we work out two hours every day year to help in that return. the idea is our muscles will be strong and our bones will not lose bone density. that way when we get back we have to worry about our new vestibular system. once that gets back under

control, which varies a lot between people. once that gets back under control you are still strong in your bones are good. it takes about six weeks' worth of rehab and you are back up into the 95 percentile, maybe higher than that on how you are feeling and what you can do. >> host: when you return -- how long have you been on board the space station? >> guest: i have been on board about two and a half months, and i return in three months. >> host: your background is in computer science. how do you end up an astronaut on a space station? >> guest: a good question. i did go to work for nasa, which was a big help for me, and i decided being an astronaut was a goal. it really what i worked on was aircraft control systems. that is what my main work at nasa was on. that played into working on the shuttle and helping out.

then i just got lucky on the selection process. there are some many qualified people to try to be astronauts. it takes a little bit of luck to get in, and i happened to get a little bit lucky. i had all of the requirements needed and a little bit of luck, and i made it. >> host: in about 30 seconds tell us about the best experience you have had on board the station itself. >> guest: well, the best experiences always looking out the window, and the best way to look out the window is not have a window in front of you. and that is going on a space walk. it is a good time, a fantastic feeling. a little pressure on you at the same time, but, boy, it is quite an experience and something am looking forward to doing again. >> host: commander steven swanson, who is on board the international space station talking to us about experiences there. commander, thank you for talking with c-span.find out why on sun.

>> "washington journal" continues.

of "the-nehisi coates atlantic." how do you define reparations? guest: america coming to account with its own history, the bad part and the good part. host: what does that mean? guest: in the case of african-americans, it means accepting the relationship between american government, american society, and african-americans has for most of our history not been a positive one. the fact that we decided about 50 years ago that we would have some politics in which we would stop doing some of the negative things we had been doing does not make the consequences of the past go away. they have to be directly addressed. host: you mean money. guest: i do, among other things. i do not mean literally mailing a check right now. that would not suffice. i do not mean hush money. so weot mean money given

never have to talk about this again. money is part of the process. reparations, by which i mean the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences, is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely. guest: that is exactly it. money is part of that. one of the things we try to theblish in the piece is way people traditionally think about the african-american community relationship with the state is one in which we have segregation. we have collared only signs, colored only water fountains. we have the lunch table and black people sit over here. it is not simple. it is not wealth being extracted out of one community to benefit the other community. of america.history in youru indicated

piece, about 16,000 words in this cover story, if you want to you it at atlantic.com -- have also indicated that federal policy has been discriminatory. i want to read a couple of examples. division,cs of racial the record is mixed. guest: whenever you have a conversation about reparations, people say we are just talking about something that we can end right there. the 20th century, you can still trace a line of policies to disadvantage african-americans. that includes some of the folks who set the most progressive policy, the new deal, which was passed on the backs of white

supremacy. it would not have been possible without white supremacy. social security was written in such a way that 65% of african-americans who would have been eligible, 80% in the south, were not eligible. welfare, what we call 10 of --- tanf, was written in much the same way. the g.i. bill, the housing , were designed in the same way, to exclude african-americans. the mechanisms by which american families built wealth in this country have excluded the black community. african-american community and see social and economic indicators. it is not a mystery at all. it is explainable. host: the new jim crow, you ande, quoting a history political science professor at colombia. one collaborator america's

democracy could not do without. guest: that is exactly right. people believed democracy was in doubt, the onset of world war ii. we see fascism rising in europe. his book is called "fear itself." there is great fear in this country. it passed policies to deal with this new era. of this country, the highest priority was white supremacy. north --you in the this piece focuses on chicago, so i do not make it sound like a southern problem. but the democratic south, the solid south as they call it at the time -- its highest priority was white supremacy. they were not going to pass any social legislation that compromised that. host: we will get to chicago in a moment. i want to get these other facts, writings, on the table first. he said this quickly.

i want to read it straight from your piece. the omnibus programs passed under the social security act in 1930 were crafted in such a way as to protect the southern way of life. old-age insurance and unemployment insurance excluded far more -- farmworkers and domestics, jobs heavily occupied by blacks. roosevelt signed social security into law, 1930 5, 65% of african-americans 70%-80%ly, and between in the south were ineligible. protested, calling the new american safety net a sieve with holes just big enough for african-americans to fall through. with --oming to terms that is what i am talking about. proud of social

security, of the g.i. bill. the flipside of that is to come to terms with the fact that some cution of our populations out. what are the consequences? it is not like african-americans were emancipated in 1865 and the countryside, welcome. you are free to enjoy the same rights as everybody else. one of the big things we talk about is housing policy, redlining. outlawed until 1968. living african-americans went through this process. host: who is clyde ross? i-91-year-old man living on the west side of chicago. i hope he is watching today. he might well be. mr. clyde ross was born in mississippi in the 1920's, when

mississippi was majority african-american. but the majority of people living in message -- in mississippi could not vote, had no political power, his family being among them. his family had some means, some land. they had horses. they had mules. they had cows. a chicken. all of which was taken from them on a false tax bill. they were reduced to sharecroppers. he spent his childhood in mississippi. his childhood there was people taking things from him and giving them to other people. separate but equal, when you see schools, a black and white university system, remember that african-americans in a state like mississippi were taxed, asked to pledge fealty to the law, to build

facilities they could not attend. i am being asked for schools i cannotgo to, pools i visit, libraries i cannot borrow books out of. this is the systemic thunder that mr. ross into her for the first 18 or so years of his life. the senator in mississippi at the time, whose name i am forgetting -- theodore bilbo -- i remember. i am going to use the word he used. to keep the knee grow away from the voting booth, do it the night before. negro away from the voting booth, do it the night before. ross fought in world war ii, decided he could not return to mississippi, went to chicago, was able to get a job. did not have to deal with jim crow customs anymore.

when he went to buy a house, he was cut out by the greatest wealth opportunity in american history, home ownership. african-americans around the country were cut out of that process. buying on contract was a particularly onerous rent to own scheme. you have all the disadvantages of home ownership and all the disadvantages of renting. you owe somebody presumably a mortgage payment, but not really. you do not build equity. should you miss one payment, you are kicked out of the home and they keep all the money. mr. ross somehow managed to hold onto his house. but there are swathes, literally thousands of people, who bought their homes in that way in chicago. it is estimated that 85% of african-americans in chicago

during this period both their home through a contract. host: this was -- guest: 1950's. , 1950's. it is made possible by a policy of the united states which did not believe african-americans to be responsible homeowners. host: like the home owners loan corporation, the federal housing administration insisted on --trict the quotas restrictive quotas. the 1940's, chicago led the nation in the use of these restrictive covenants. neighborhoods were effectively off-limits to blacks. what is the neighborhood of north lawndale? now, it is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city of chicago. 95% african-american.

it was not when mr. clive ross and the people we profiled moved there, but quickly became that way. there was a tendency to look at the way people move throughout society, the way people relocate, and to think people are merely expressing their own preference. the policy like redlining, which meant that when african-americans move to your block, you were no longer eligible for fha-backed loans -- everything got harder. was government policy, bank policy at the time. it was toward the people moving -- white flight is a direct result of social planning. it is not an autonomous process by which white people looks down the block and said, i would rather be around my own. there might be some of that, some level of prejudice.

what you had policies that basically buttressed prejudice, that made it very inconvenient if you were a white person and wanted to live in an integrated neighborhood. you had activists who were trying to create an integrated living environment. country, of of this the state of illinois, of chicago mitigated against that, and we have north lawndale. host: speculators in the 1950's and 1960's knew there was money to be made off white panic. guest: again, this is private enterprise.

some of the lowest private enterprise you can imagine. met clyde ross, the first thing he said -- i said, why did you leave mississippi? he said, i was seeking the protection of the law. i did not understand what he meant. he said, we had no black attorneys, no black police. we were outside of the law. that is a theme you see even has he moves -- as he moves up to chicago. if you have a set of policies and exempt black people -- we are not talking about the criminal justice system, the educational system. just on housing. say, this is for everybody else, but not for this group over here. the predators are outside of the

protection of the law. how would that happen? ist: ta-nehisi coates national correspondent for "the atlantic." he has the cover story this month. it is about reparations. there is the cover. charts of chicago as well, showing some of the redlining. we would like to get your views on what we have been reading so far. with reparations, you are either for it or against it. let us go a little deeper and a little further out. how long did you spend on this story? the issueu feel about of reparations prior to your research? in 2010, i made a blog post saying i was not in favor of corporations, and i was

at the time. in debates with other writers around issues, relating to some of the problems we had in the african-american community, is that there was something that was not being talked about. issue, for instance, about what schools african-americans go to, and why they go to those schools. i think beneath that is where african-americans lived. an issue like gentrification. obviously beneath that is how much money african-americans have to remain in neighborhoods they want to remain in. why do african americans live in certain places and why do white people live in other places? i are african-americans the most segregated minority in the country? why is the wealth gap funny-one? what happened here? it is hard to avoid the fact -- you mentioned the restrictive covenants. people have deeds in this state and other places they can show

you, and it says, this should not be given to jews, negroes, or other undesirable minorities. our policies have been very explicit, up into the 1960's, about how we were going to regard african-americans, what policies they were going to benefit from. if the state has effectively said, we are endorsing african-americans, punishing african-american success -- the idea that it would be any me asent began to strike absurd. what should we do? conclude, as i have, that ,he policy has been to strict you have to believe that some of that wealth should be returned. wells fargo bank, in 2009,

half the programs in baltimore whose owners have been granted loans between 2005 and 2008 were vacant. 71% were in predominantly black neighborhoods. it is really depressing to talk about this. -- notls fargo case is right now, but in the past few years -- if you go and you read reporting,ts and the there is nothing particularly hard to see about what wells fargo is doing. it is very clear as to how they regarded the people who they were offering these loans to. wells fargo realized that the african-american community was a community in which people had traditionally, in the history of this country, then cut out of

wealth building opportunities, and was desperate to build some well. they went with african-american churches, public figures. they went to black people and told them, here is your opportunity. what they gave them was subprime loans. it is very important to make here. we have looked at african-americans. we have compared them for credit. everything you might think that would explain this, besides -- african-americans still got worse loans. it is the fact that these people are segregated and are sitting in this one particular area -- it makes explication very, very efficient. a barrel.ing ducks in they are all right here, in this contains space. you do not have to look for earmarks.

they are right there, because of american policy. you keep saying we wrote the story, but your name is the only one on there. guest: this was a two-year process, and i think my great editor, how much we went back and forth -- if you want to put a case for reparations on the cover, there is going to be a lot of back and forth. checkers.out my fact what they did to make sure that -- making was correct sure every sentence made sense. a teaml like it is effort. i did write it. we have the maps. as a full package -- i am sorry for everybody i did not mention from "the atlantic."

that is why i keep saying "we." host: is there a book out of this? guest: i hope so. host: republican line, you are on with ta-nehisi coates of "the atlantic." caller: i did read your entire article. we have a subscription. i discussed it with my husband. a very basic, basic question for you. oft is your interpretation collective guilt? to be able to have reparations, you are going to have to convince a majority of the white population that they have collective guilt. what is your definition of that? catholic, but i do not feel i have collective guilt for persecution of the

jews in the early church. nor the spanish inquisition. german, but i do not carry collective guilt for hitler and his atrocities. white and i am a child of the 1960's that came of age in and i have always felt like there was progress, idea thaturt by the all white people in america have collective guilt for what happened to african-americans. it hurts me to my core. i love people. i treat everybody with love. and that is what i have to say.

on the case for reparations, yes or no? caller: it depends. first of all, you have to convince me i personally have collective guilt. and then there is going to have to be a structure similar to office, aurity, or an national office of reparations, where people would have to go to state their case, how they have been harmed by white people. and i think it is going to be awfully, awfully hard to implement. host: mr. coates? guest: you obviously did have the article and even have some plans. you went further than i did. i appreciate that. i would like to shift the frame away from collective guilt to collective responsibility, which is more important. i try to make this case. we recognize ourselves as americans, as part of a larger state, art of a larger society.

we understand the state outlives us, that it does think that we do and youy did not are responsible for. i was obviously not alive when world war i was fought. but i was one of those who pay pensions for the veterans who served in world war i. i was not alive at the time of the american revolution, but i celebrate on july 4, like everybody else does. a state,are part of you assume responsibility for what the state does, and that outlives you. we have these conversations about the national debt. we have these conversations about climate change. we have any sort of conversation about what the future of america is going to be. we invoke our children, grandchildren, the world beyond us. somewhere within that is the notion that when you are part of a state, part of a nation, part

of a society, that it is broader than you. a state in which you are only responsible for that which you actions you do, the individually take, is a failed state. it cannot be possible. the state would have to regenerate itself virtually every generation. we have dealt with reparations cases in the past. the state of north carolina is paying reparations to african americans because, for many years, the state of north carolina had its hospitals sterilize african american women coming in to have babies or routine procedures. the state is paying out right now. that means every citizen in sterilizedina african-americans? of course it does not. did every north carolina and think it was a good idea? of course not. it has state realizes responsibility. in the 1980's, when we made a

decision to give reparations to japanese-americans who were interned during world war ii -- is that mean that every person who was alive thought it was a good idea to in turn japanese-americans during world war ii? some of us were not even alive. what we recognize the idea that those were done in our name. we are american. patriotism means something beyond our self. it means we are responsible for things, both good and bad, that we do not personally do. when you have a policy that was done, a policy that was executed , in our names as americans, there is responsibility for that. stand up and to talk about how great the g.i. bill -- every president lise to talk about how proud he is of the g.i. bill. if you want to talk about what was good about american policies, the beacon of democracy, all the great things we have done in our history, it

is only fair that we talked about the responsibility we have for those things. you do not get to just open up your paycheck and not open your bills. you have to deal with both. that, to me, is an elevated form of patriotism. host: i am going to read a series of tweets. normally i would not ask you to respond to all of these, but it is all along the same thing. i think you'll get the idea.

guest: what can you do about that? if people want to read the article, i will have a discussion with them about the article. people who want to remain in their own ignorance, there is not much that can be done. i am obviously very enthusiastic about having a conversation about people who take the issue seriously and stop you do not have to ultimately agree with me, but there is not too much i can do about that. host: where did you grow up? guest: baltimore, maryland. host: college? guest: i dropped out. i was never a good student. host: when did you become national correspondent for "the atlantic"? but i have recently,

worked for "the atlantic" six years now. host: graduated from howard? started left howard and writing. i have been writing since i was 20 years old. almost 19 years now. riding for a while. i have been writing before that, from when i was about six years old. my mom had me right essays when i did anything wrong. it has been a consistent thing through my life will stop i started writing when i was in college, and i loved it. i could not believe somebody questions,ou to ask to report, to go out to a city and ask questions of poor people that you were uniquely curious about, and then write it up. i have been doing it ever since. i am going to read more from "the case for reparations."

guest: that is a very, very important -- when you write this, you have to deaden yourself emotionally. it has an effect. it makes you feel a certain way. that is a very important paragraph. you see "a colored man of means," upwardly mobile, being equated with criminals. that was the policy of the trade

groups in this country. that is what it was. during that time we had the greatest wealth building opportunities in our history, that was our attitude. we have some responsibility for that. host: you talked about similar suits pushed against corporations such as aetna, which insured slaves, and lehman brothers, which was a founding -- whose cofounding partner owned them. host: the ivy league schools in the north, many of them, and how much, or wealth is built off slavery. brown university did a magnificent report some years ago on the brown brothers. one of the great educational institutions in this world.

how much of their wealth and how much is built off of slavery and off of slave trading? you cannot get away from this. get out ofgoing to this. it is one of the great forces in american life. not arguably, i would say definitely, and you cannot isgine modern america as it without thinking about slavery and all the things that came out of it. thanks for holding. caller: good morning and thank .ou, mr. coates i grew up in the jim crow south. i was pretty young then. i do not know how to explain this, because i saw it for what it was as a young boy. guilt -- you white are talking about justice.

this is so important to me. robinson, when he was on, i wanted to thank him too. jim crow is so incredibly disgusting that a little child could see it. it is amazing to me that we have not done anything about this. you can here i am breaking up a little bit, because i saw this in reality. and it is really disgusting. whatf we -- i don't know we can do, because it is very difficult. but i know what i would do. and everybody would be really mad. toould give free education every african american person in this country, and i would make sure it was a good education. and i would help them in every way i could think of. breaking up too much.

thank you. you do not really go into the house. -- the how. guest: one of the reasons why i did that -- you are talking about 250 years of enslavement in this country. african americans were slaves in the colonies and in this country longer than african-americans have been free in this country. you are talking about 250 years labour, of theft. after that, you are talking about the greatest wave of domestic terrorism we have ever seen in this country, directed that african-americans. you are talking about the blazek -- a sick pondering of the right to vote in the broad swath of this country. you are talking about nonenforcement of constitutional amendments, the plunder of tax dollars to put up institutions african-americans were excluded from.

you are talking about property, body. one of the most heartbreaking stories -- this comes toward the end. when mr. ross talks about his brother, winter ross, who had an , was taken toure parchment. it was effectively slavery in the 20th century. it is a mississippi prison. esther ross and his family heard that his brother was there. they went to get him and were told he was dead. you were shocked to hear this. they asked for his body and they said, what do you want his body for? body.er saw his brothers he effectively disappeared off the streets of america. that is an individual example. we have to deal with new deal legislation that it actively cut african-americans out of all these wealth building opportunities. the shape of our cities could not be what they are without white supremacy. it is impossible to imagine.

we wonder why, in a city like d.c., where we live, why african-americans live on one side of the park for the most part, and not on the other side. we think this is magic. it just sort of happened out of nowhere. bill we cannot quite pay off. nothing to make this totally right. but what can we do? what is the best way? once we have acknowledged our history, what is the best way? america begins in black plunder and why democracy, features that are not contradictory but complementary. 1860, the majority of people in south carolina and mississippi, and about half those in georgia, about 1/3 of also the dinners were black. the state with the largest number of enslaved americans was virginia, where in certain counties some 70% labored in

chains. their backs, the economic basis of america and much of america was erected. next call, jim, in midland, texas. how you doing? thanks for c-span. how you doing, mr. coates? guest: all right. how about yourself? caller: good. two questions.

many -- the first question -- how many generations of --ple is a going to take to the like people are going to be basically racist for how long because of slavery? how many generations is it going out?ke before that smooths is, what isestion your definition of racism? thank you very much. guest: i will take the last one first. at a root level, because of a basic belief that something genetic about you makes you superior to somebody else, superior to somebody else. and everything that follows from that -- the right to subjugate

people because they are inferior to you, the right to take possession of people's bodies, property, families, because you feel superior to them. the second question is much more difficult. as a lot of people have pointed out, we have an african-american president. thatmust necessarily mean we are not quite as racist as we 1968, or certainly not in 1948 or 1848. but we are making progress. i believe that reparations is part of that progress. not see it as, over the long term, a divisive process. i think it is a process by which , in this situation, we look at each other across the room. i have a feeling someone has taken something from me, and you have a feeling that something unfair that you cannot quite name happened. part of the reparative

process. one of the examples we talk about in the piece is the example of germany paying reparations to israel. there is a strong argument that deal was as good for germany as it was for israel, and perhaps even better. is, we all have to imagine what if germany said nothing? what if it never apologize, or ,ave some sort of pro forma never paid anything to the folks of victimized during world war ii? is that a world that we want? think we can look at ourselves and say, are we going to be better off or worse off for facing our history? what are we so afraid of? what are we scared of? what do we think we are going to lose by acknowledging what happened? host: the atlantic.com is the website. if you want to read, he see -- piece,a-nehisi coates' which he worked on for about two

years, there it is. you can go online. 10 people contact you online? guest: twitter is the easiest way, probably. host: twitter is the easiest way? peter in alexandria, virginia. caller: please do not cut me off. i want your guests to understand that white people are not responsible for slavery in this country. you have several different ethnic groups, people of european descent. they might fall under the category of white, that you shouldn't use white as a reason why these people are guilty of slavery. you have the english. accuse italians. you cannot accuse germans. ,ou cannot accuse irish polish so many groups of people who fall under the white category that you cannot accuse. so i think you need to correct

in your book which ethnic groups are the people who caused this problem. i really think you need to correct that. host: we have to leave it there. guest: i encourage the caller to read the article. host: what are you working on now? are you still responding? has there been a lot of back and forth, a lot of conversation? isst: i think if there anything healthy that has come out of this, people have viewed reparations for a long time as a radical idea that they do not need to take seriously. been radicals who advocated for it, in my view correctly. what i think the basic argument

hearing will come to order. good morning, everybody. and welcome. this is the fourth in our series of hearings on the war on poverty here in the house budget committee. we've been talking about how to promote upward mobility in america in the 21st century, and today we're going to pick up where we left off last time. last time we heard from people fighting poverty on the front lines. today, we are going to hear from people who have worked on the supply lines. we're going to look at how the states and federal governments can better support the fight against poverty. because if we've learned anything, it's that there's room for improvement. each year we spend nearly $800 billion on 92 different programs to fight poverty. and yet the official poverty rate hasn't budged in years. if we're going to people -- they can get help if they fall into poverty but far too many people

still can't earn enough to get out of poverty and over the past three years deep poverty has been the highest since it's been recorded. clearly something's not working and we need to try something new. and given our history i'd say we're due for an adjustment. the last time we made big changes was welfare reform in 1996. that was almost 20 years ago. we all know what happened. poverty among children of single mothers fell by double digits. we also learned and our witnesses are unanimous on this point, that work is crucial to fighting poverty. and there's another takeaway. before congress began drafting legislation, it allowed states to try out new ideas. the national evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies program tested a number of different approaches for work programs, education programs and different mixes between the two. i think that approach, with an emphasis on results, on concrete evidence, on what works, is just the mind-set that we need today. but times have changed.

today the biggest means tested programs are medicaid, s.n.a.p. and the earned income tax credit. we spend more on earned income housing, and we haven't made serious reforms in almost two decades. pofr if i is a very complex problem. and deep poverty is especially difficult. many people in deep poverty face serious challenges like addiction, homelessness, disability, and all of these challenges are interrelated. but the current system is too fragmented to give them the care that they need. if we can provide better coordinated care, we can help more people actually get out of poverty. today we will hear from two panels. on the first is our colleague, a leader here in the house, the esteemed democratic leader congressman james clyburn. he is going to brief us on the 10, 20, 30 plan that he's been discussing. and to make sure we have enough time to hear from all of our witnesses we will not take questions from mr. clyburn. on the second panel we will hear

from three people who have extensive experience working with aid programs at the federal, state and local level. first we have jason turner who worked with wisconsin governor tommy thompson to reform our state's welfare program. then we have robert doar who served as commissioner of the new york city's human resources administration under mayor michael bloomberg. finally, we have olivia golden who led the d.c. children and family services agency from 2001 to 2004. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and sharing your expertise. the question i want answered today is how can we improve. what are some ideas to do a better job? how can we better focus and target, interrelate these programs? how can we make these programs better? how can we get more bang for our buck? and how can we get more people involved? i said we need to hear from people with different points of view, and from different walks of life. today we'll hear from people who have firsthand knowledge of the challenges we face, and with that i'd like to recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm glad to have another opportunity to talk about what additional measures we should

and can take to fight poverty in america. let's begin on a point of agreement that for all those who can work the best anti-poverty measure is a job. and many of us believe that if someone works hard all day, all year around, that he or she should be able to earn enough to keep their family out of poverty. that's why the president and democrats in congress have proposed to raise the minimum wage, which has less purchasing power today than when harry truman was president. and according to the congressional budget office, that measure would lift over 1 million hard-working americans out of poverty and raise low wages for another 15 million working americans. here in the house, speaker boehner's refused to even allow a vote on that measure to raise the minimum wage just as he continues to refuse a vote to extend emergency unemployment compensation to 3 million americans. but we all know that even if we raise the minimum wage, huge

challenges remain. and we must examine the past to chart the best way forward. a january report from the council of economic advisers did just that. it found that about 50 million americans remain in poverty. an unacceptably high number. but it also found that steps we've taken over the last 50 years have cut poverty in half from what it would otherwise be. that over 40 million americans who otherwise would be in poverty are not. that's why, mr. chairman, we cannot understand the disconnect between these hearings on poverty, and the republican budget that was recently adopted. that budget is full of trojan horse policies that are heavy on sound bites but actually shred the social safety net and push more americans into poverty. the republican plan undermines the existing supports for the most vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and children. it guts food and nutrition programs, it slashes $700

billion there the base medicaid program which primarily serves these vulnerable populations. and it repeals the optional state expansion under the affordable care act. all told, two thirds of the budget cuts in the republican budget come from initiatives to help middle and lower income individuals. now by what logic do we reduce poverty for the millions of americans in poverty today by cutting programs that have helped lift about 45 million americans out of poverty? it's bad enough that the republican budget targets these programs, but it does add insult to injury to do so to protect special interest tax breaks for powerful wealthy elites at the expense of middle class families and those working to climb into the middle class. the republican budget passed this spring calls for a one-third cut in the tax rate for millionaires and refuses to close a single special interest tax break to help reduce the

deficit. not one. but it doesn't just slash safety net programs designed to prevent people from hitting rock bottom. it also slashes programs that provide opportunities to climb out of poverty. it cuts deeply into early education. it cuts deeply into k through 12 and cuts very deeply into higher education programs like pell grants, and student loan programs. and just this week while the president and many of us are working to try and reduce the debt burden being faced by college students, here in the house, we're talking about permanent unpaid for tax break extensions for businesses. allowing future generations to foot the bill. so, in the end, mr. chairman, the republican budget will not create jobs, it will not make people more employable. it will not reduce the poverty. it will reduce the ladder of

opportunity, and shred the social safety net as part of a trickle-down ideology obsessed with cutting tax rates for the wealthy at the expense of all the other priorities. when you get to the top in the republican budget, you pull the ladder up, after you. so i hope, mr. chairman, that today we can really get to the bottom of some issues here on moving forward, and we have a tremendous witness with us right now, the assistant democratic leader mr. clyburn who has spent his life working to improve the lives of those living in poverty, particularly in communities that have had persistently high poverty rates. we couldn't ask for a better person to be before the committee, and i'm proud to join you, mr. chairman, in welcoming mr. clyburn to the budget committee. >> now that we set a nice bipartisan tone for productive conversation, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much,

mr. chairman. let's hope we can keep it that way for awhile. mr. chairman and ranking member van hollen, members of the committee, good morning, and thank you very much for having me here today. i want to thank the chair lady of the congressional black caucus first and other members of the congressional black caucus who have adopted this formula as an appropriate way to tackle this issue of persistent poverty. i know that all of us know that it is no secret that there are major disagreements among the members of this committee, and our respective parties, over the role the federal government should play in fighting poverty and confronting many other national challenges. these disagreements put simply

come down to a question of federal resources. i believe that we should target more resources to impoverished communities. than you proposed budgets allocate. and i believe you can do see efficiently and effectively. i was privileged to have the opportunity to work through some of these disagreements with you, mr. chairman, last year, as a member of the budget conference committee, and the results, while not 100% of what either of us wanted, was a reasonable compromise on federal spending through the end of the next fiscal year. i was proud to support that agreement. now that we have determined how much the federal government will spend, we must determine how to spend it most effectively. it is on this latter question, how to allocate finite federal

resources to get the most bang for the buck that i believe we need to work a little harder, and more creatively to find common ground to make real strides in combatting persistent poverty in america. now mr. chairman there are currently 4 8 persistent poverty counties in america. so defined because 20% of the population live below the poverty line for the last 30 years or more. they're diverse, including counties in states like kentucky, and west virginia, native american communities in states like alaska, and south dakota, latino communities in states like arizona and texas, african-american communities in states like south carolina, mississippi, and alabama.

there are urban communities in the northeast, and rural communities in americaaries heartland. 139 of these counties are represented in this august body by democrats. 331 of these counties are represented by republicans. and 18 are split between the two parties. from that impersistent poverty should matter to all of us, regardless of party, geography, or race and ethnicity. in early 2009 when we were putting to the the recovery act, i proposed language to require at least 10% of funds in rural development account to be directed to projects in these

persistent poverty counties. this requirement was enacted in law. in light of the definition of persistent poverty counties having at least 20% poverty rates over 30 years, this position became known as the 10-20-30 initiative. this provision bore dividends, as economic development projects proliferated in persistent poverty counties across the country. the recovery act funded a total of 4,655 projects in persistent poverty counties totalling $1.7 billion. i saw firsthand the positive effects of these efforts in my congressional district. projects were undertaken that would have otherwise gone lacking, and jobs were created

that would have otherwise gone wanting. among these investments was a $5.le million grant, and $2 million loan to construct 51 miles of water lines in a community in marion county. which i represented at the time, but today is represented by our colleague, who silts on this committee, mr. rice. in lyons county, mississippi, $17.5 million was spent to install a water line, elevated tank, and two waste water pump stations, providing potable water to mississippians and created badly needed construction jobs. the special utility district in brasso county, texas, received a $538,000 loan to contract more

than nine miles of new water distribution lines, and connect over 50 pauseholds to a new water source. i come before the budget committee today to ask that as you decide how to allocate federal resources, you expand 10-20-30 to other federal agencies. in 2011, i joined with our former republican colleague then-representative joann emerson of missouri to introduce an amendment to the continuing resolution that would have continued 10-20-30 for rule development, and expanded it to 11 additional accounts throughout the federal budget affecting economic development, education, job training, health, justice, the environment, and more.

i hope to work with members of this committee to include similar language in future budget resolutions and other legislation. and i want to be clear about two things. number one, 10-20-30 is not a license to be applied to an inadequate budget. and number two, it does not, i want to repeat this, mr. chair, 10-20-30 does not add one dime to the deficit. it simply targets funds already authorized or appropriated to needy communities. over the past 30 years, the national economy has risen, and fallen, multiple times. during each economic downturn, while we have been rightly

focused on getting our economy as a whole back on track, we have not given attention to these communities that are suffering from chronic distress, and depression-era levels of joblessness. as a result, they have suffered even in good economic times. the 10-20-30 approach will provide a mechanism to address this depravation in time of want and times of plenty, in times of federal investments, and in times of fiscal austerity. i published an article on 10-20-30 in the most recent issue of the harvard journal on legislation. in that article i discussed the history of our nation's efforts to address chronic poverty, and more fully lay out the case for

broadly implementing 10-20-30 in a bipartisan fashion. i have included the full article in my written testimony so that it appears in the record. >> without objection it will be included in the record. >> thank you, mr. chair. and i encourage the members of this committee to please read it when you have the opportunity. i look forward to discussing this issue further and working with you to eliminate the scourge of persistent poverty in these distressed communities. thank you so much for having me here today. >> thank you very much, mr. clyburn. i understand your schedule is very busy and you have to move on. but this very appreciated and thank you for your contribution to this and thank you for all your hard work on this issue. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. >> we'll now move to our second panel.

jason turner, the executive director of the secretary's innovation group. robert doar the morgridge fellow in poverty studies at the american enterprise institute. and olivia golden, the executive director of class. to make sure that every witness knows that it is against the law to provide false testimony to a committee of congress, we are going to begin a new committee practice, which is occurring in every committee here, of swearing in all the witnesses. this does not reflect any mistrust we have in a witness. we are taking this step only because of recent legal guidance

we have been given from the department of justice. so please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> i do. >> i do. >> let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you. why don't we just proceed from our left to right, and mr. turner. why don't we start with you. -- a couple of seconds. >> can you hear me? >> testing. >> okay. >> there you go. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. i'm the executive director of the secretary's innovation group made up of 17 state secretaries of human services from around the country. reporting to their governors, and representing 34% of

population of america. our group exchanges ideas, and examples of state program innovations, and we press for national solutions which favor work, healthy families, economic growth, and budget responsibility. in 2012 our members proposed a policy recommendation which would rebalance the relationship between states and federal government, and these remarks are adapted from our policy as developed and agreed upon by our 17 member sents. whenever our organization meets with congress, mr. chairman, our secretaries always ask for less money, and more accountability. to take an example, our members requested through our food stamp policy proposal a fixed allocation, a bloc grant, with a 50% federal and state shared risk, benefits going up or down either way, rather than the 100% risk borne currently by the federal government. adapting this proposal in a legislative initiative last year

we proposed that the house agriculture committee allow willing states to 100% self-fund a new food stamp work program comparable to tanf for similarly situated s.n.a.p. recipients with benefit savings resulting from increased work levels and independently verified shared 50/50. our members were pleased to advance this proposal in 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 tanif unleashed energy. adults newly finding and taking jobs, case workers oriented to work first, time limits inducing urgency, new program purposes such as the promotion of two-parent families. it's an example of how it's possible for the states under a proper federal state partnership to make major improvements to poverty, dependency and employment. why did it work so well? well, first it eliminated the individual entitlement to

forever benefits. second, it combined new and appropriate federal program objectives such as work and marriage. third, it set constructive federal measurements such as work activation and participation while allowing states credit for positive outcomes such as dependency reductions resulting from employment. it permitted states operational freedom to experiment with multiple approaches, it permitted states which reduced caseloads to reuse the benefit money for more constructive purposes than cash payments. in fact, only 29% of the current tanf budget is allocated for cash benefits. the rest is going to supportive services and other constructive, more constructive purposes. and finally its fixed allocation capped the growth in the program as compared to the former entitlement program formula and induced, therefore, greater budget discipline. i saw that in my own home state, in wisconsin, where after the

program, tanf program began to grow again under the subsequent governor, the instructions came down for the agency to redouble its effort to get people employed, and to manage the case load better and that occurred. my written testimony contains specific examples of what tanf-like authority could do. but -- and i will leave that 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 activation. you could require universal engagement in appropriate work activities. you could reduce expenditures through aggressive detection of ineligible recipients which is precluded by federal law for instance under s.n.a.p. in certain cases. you can recommit savings from to from effective program administration, for other purposes, including supports to

working families. these are all kinds of things that you could do if you had the proper shifting. so now i'll be quick, because i know that -- i know there's a time constraint. excuse me for coughing. the secretary's innovation group has proposed that states be able to implement demonstrations that the adaptation of tanf and other programs, and the simplest way to think about this is that it's the reverse of the current law which is hows tanf funds to go to other programs, for instance transferring funds into social services bloc grant. but this would be the reverse. the principle is if 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. but with some of the components of tanf such as work as other

provisions integrated into the merged program, and finally, mr. chairman, i'd like to commend to this committee hr-4206 which has been proposed as introduced by representative reed of work state, and that proposal would do many of the things that our member sents would like to see having to do with experimentation and consolidation. thank you. >> thank you. mr. doar i want to ask you a couple quick questions. >> sure. >> i'll start with my last one first. eitc childless adults. this is a particular area, especially with labor force participation rates, that -- i'm not sure what that is. never mind i guess. childless adults. this is an area where we are particularly concerned about low labor force participation, it's especially problematic for young

men. what is your take on how or if we should modify the eitc for childless adults. and then i want to ask you another question -- >> the difference in the benefit is very significant. it's tax average for adults something a little bit less than $500 for households with children it gets up to over $5,000. so it doesn't have the same effect in promoting and supporting work. and this group, particularly for young men, between the ages of about 18 and 25 who are really out of the workforce, i believe it could be an important way to help them get in to and stay in the workforce and to make work pay. mayor bloomberg proposed something about this back when i first joined bloomberg administration, and i thought that it was something to do. the only issue with eitc that is a problem is the error rate. i ran welfare programs, cash assistance, medicaid, i'm familiar with error rates. and the error rate in the eitc is too high. >> what's the best way to deal with that? >> well, i think that the irs has to take it more seriously

and gather more information and do more data matches against their samples of returns that they receive. >> may i add to that? >> but there has to be a solution, because you can't expand a program that has an error rate of 20%. >> reputation in the program itself suffers as a result and therefore its popular support is undermined and lost as well. did you want to add to that? >> yeah, i just wanted to add two things on the eitc for childless adults and for younger men, i'm not sure if that was in your proposal but in the president's also bringing the age down i think we share believing that that's important and it also has the potential for addressing some of the issues of marriage and family formation because there's certainly some evidence there. on the error rates, my experience broadly in operating a range of the programs, and in reading the inspector general and gao reports is that errors often arrive from complexity, and one of the insights about the earned income tax credit is that one area of complexity is who has custody of minor children and is entitled to

claim them so that single adults is probably less likely. but more broadly i think the lesson is that clarity and explaining and training are key aspects of reducing errors. >> is this something ways and means can take up? this is definitely an area we want to get into. that was a flood warning. don't worry, we're not under any imminent threats here. mr. doar -- since we're on the second floor. could you -- i want you to expand on reducing disincentives to hiring and relocation assistance. can you expand the points you were trying to make there? >> well, under mayor bloomberg in new york city, the mayor never made any apologies for all of the things he did to create jobs of all kind, and to have an environment in which employers were comfortable about hiring. so that included possibility jobs, retail jobs, and tourism jobs, and health care jobs, some of which wages may not have been as high but the