and saving money through preventative measures. instead of addressing comprehensive immigration reform on many of the other urgent priorities my friends on the other side are continuing they're obsession i heard this and tell it was just pounded in me. you say that a lot. it would destroy millions of jobs and caused tens of millions of americans to lose coverage. yet since it passed nearly 10 million jobs have been added. in the 1st year 10.3 million people

previously uninsured have gained coverage. it will reduce the deficit. you have no other program and have presented none. you have not shown us anything that is an alternative to this measure. we have concerns as to what your plant is for people to be insured. we will you spend all your time in the 56 times we have tried to repeal the act. people from having insurance, now you come and argue that those have been insured, you want to take it away. i want to stand here and watch that. i will yield.

>> this is the. again, we are the rules committee. i made reference to this word submit as opposed to report. that had to be redrafted. we have a new version which removes the word submit. this is how this bill is being put together. if their if their is anything my friends on the other side of the aisle should be clear about is how to write a bill to repeal the affordable care act and here we are with yet another version of the self executed amendment being dropped on us. it goes to what i was saying earlier. you want to open this

process up and rely on regular order and not the drafting things at the last minute and changing things as we go along. this process is just as flawed as the underlying bill. i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> i thank you, and i repeat with the gentleman said. twenty-two years ago i i learned that close rules were not a good thing. it is just as bad now as it was 22 years ago. i will continue the mantra that we should return to regular order. thank you for your presentations. thank you mdm. chair. i yield back i yield back my balance. >> the gentleman yields back. we have a parliamentarian hear to give us notes on what to say when people may not be saying exactly the

right things but we owe to our colleagues, especially our colleagues on this committee a great deal of civility. i have been concerned in several meetings we have had recently about words that are being used in this committee in terms of being on the edge of impugning the integrity of other members. if we were on the floor the parliamentarian would be called upon to make a ruling on some of the words used in here relating to members. i want to say to the members two things: one, when i 1st came on this committee their was a five-minute rule for how long members can speak. it was viciously enforced

for the majority. we have not done that. i am also very concerned, again, about civility in this committee and i want to say that we owe each other, again, being civil especially to our colleagues on the community. i just want to urge our members to be thinking about those two things and about the amount of time being spent on something that is considered a waste of time. >> one thing the gentle lady said, i don't ever recall a five-minute rule on this committee and certainly not one that was viciously implemented. that was not a rule when the democrats were in charge and

certainly not when the previous republican chair was in charge. i do not disagree with the gentle lady. sometimes i wish their was a five-minute rule but i want to make it clear -- [laughter] >> be careful what you wish for. >> i believe the time is mine in the sequence. >> doctor burgess is recognized. >> i do feel that i need to say is part and parcel, but their is no reason to impugn the people of the state of this country and i will await the gentleman's

apology. i yield back. >> you will wait until hell freezes over -- >> the gentleman -- >> for me to say anything in an apology. i will i will apologize to you if i was directing my comments to you. i was commenting about the state to five. >> i i believe -- [inaudible conversations] >> digital man from texas controls the time. i do not see the value in a member of this committee -- >> the gentleman from florida does not have the floor. >> thank you, madam chair. i will be fairly brief.

i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey, the jersey, the gentleman from texas and the gentleman from virginia for appearing before us. i want to thank you for your work on health care. we may disagree on how to get their, but i appreciate your contribution and how you fight hard for the people you represent. i appreciate you being here today. one of the things i think we all agree on is americans should have access to meaningful and affordable healthcare. their are ideas that are more affordable and sustainable including association health plans aggregation legislation fda -- their has been so much their is not an actual

replacement. many of us around this table i hope we can work in a bipartisan way going forward you know i know no healthcare has become one of those polarizing issues and that is unfortunate. i think the american people deserve better .. i i appreciate you being here today.

>> would you be surprised to no the same article says the uninsured rate came down to 13.4 percent before the exchange taken and did go down further currently according to the cnn article >> from the economy recovered more people got insurance, yes. >> have all of you had a chance to review the cbo statement? it is pretty voluminous. >> there is no cbo -- >> the cbo letter -- i'm sorry -- of earlier last year. >> if the gentleman will yield, the only thing -- the february cbo statement of last year. >> the only thing i have says that the cbo estimates repealing the law would cost taxpayers a hundred

9 billion and leave 19 million people without health insurance. >> reclaiming. >> reclaiming my time for a 2nd that same study says it is because it takes away about a trillion dollars in taxes and says that their would be 2.5 million less jobs. working only for insurance the same argument could be made. >> that was part of it. >> a lot of people quit they're jobs. >> i reclaim my time. it talks about people supplying less labor and ultimately to and a half million jobs would not be created because of this. and if you put the cnn study that claims 4 million people were insured and we lose

2.5 million that is one job loss for every two that are insured. >> especially for those people unemployed. >> i i would raise questions about the statistics. >> okay. >> the one thing i want to mention. the number of uninsured -- and i have not seen the article you mentioned. anyone who is undocumented is not included under the affordable care act. if your numbers are including the census census the census includes the undocumented. but they are not eligible. you are talking about tens of millions of people. >> it is a cdc study that originally commanded the others national health

interview survey. can. can i submit that cnn document for the record? >> without objection. >> i do frequent town halls and talk to my constituents. i guess my question for the gentleman from virginia and new jersey is, what is, what would you say to a woman like my constituent that now is trying to balance her budget unless hours because her employer cannot afford to employ her full-time because of the definition under law the reduction in labor. >> 97% 97 percent of businesses covered by the employer mandate provided insurance without a mandate. i am sure they're are some that just

don't want to provide insurance and will do everything that they can but i would suggest they we will not be able to get away with it because people we will up and quit. the economy is so bad right now that they don't have options. >> what would you say to the lady who lost her job, i guess is my question. go question. go out and get another job is that what you are saying? >> no, i'm no, i'm saying 97 percent of the businesses provided insurance without a mandate. i'm sure you can find some company somewhere that we will do everything they can to get under the threshold. i can tell you the reason that 97% of 97 percent of businesses provide insurance is they want the best workers and you are not going to attract good workers. i hope that you gentleman will try to work with folks

like me going forward, and i pledge to you that i will try to work with you. with that i yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, madam chair. i think the chair for recognizing. we serve on the judiciary committee together. doctor burgess, from the perspective of our side of the aisle you always give a great defense. one interesting thing that you said you made the comment about intent that the judiciary will rule on intent of the law.

now that is the new standard, we we will have to go back to law school in chains the statutes because that is not the way it is supposed to start. if you look at it from any basic understanding begin with a starting point. it is is the language of the statute itself. the language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. a cardinal principle of statutory construction. we must give effect if possible. every part every part is presumed to be meaningless

unless absolutely necessary. only where it is open to two or more constructions. the statute is clear. we get into the future look of this. we can have disagreements. i think that is pretty well stated. i believe what my friend from georgia rallied things to think about. of these things are not the way that this needs to proceed. we will come back and see.

i will be happy to yield. >> the interesting thing we can go back. the law will begin. that has become the problem what this means and when we we will enforce it. when we we will exempt and when we won't. to me that is not an option. words on paper still matter. i matter. i am glad we are here. with that i yield back.

i do acknowledge and appreciate all three of you the dialogue that took place hear. excuse me. excuse me. i have been asked to submit testimony on behalf of the gentleman from iowa. hr 596 before we move further i would like to address an issue that was

brought up during the hearing portion. questions around the change in the word from report to submit in the amendment. all part of the chair and tried to look up and made a few phone calls to find the practical application of this work. i talked with him. we are back to report.

what did it mean to back. >> i appreciate you doing that. >> there is no time requirement a glaring issue that has paved the way. i think the gentleman. >> with that regard is important that the words do

matter. >> the gentleman from north carolina. >> i've moved the committee grant hr 96. the reconciliation act. providing 90 minutes of debate divided among and controlled by the respective chairs. the bills amendment will be considered as read.

>> the gentlewoman from north carolina. >> an amendment to the rule. an open rule. the committees have organized. given the fact that they're were no hearings and they did not report legislation the least we can do is have an opportunity. participate in the process. >> i i think the gentleman for discussion. those in favor say i oppose know. [roll call]

>> the gentleman does not seek time. thank you very much. the gentlewoman from north carolina. the eyes have it. >> this fox, i. [roll call]

>> the motion is agreed to. the gentleman from texas will be handling this. i will be doing it for the democrats. i love texas. [laughter] >> the gentleman from massachusetts will be handling this. >> i love our united states and would say it is a great country and that for us to work together is important. i want to thank the committee for its time today , let the community now we expect to meet tomorrow at 3:00 o'clock p.m.. the committee has now

concluded its work for the day. >> tomorrow the house considers house considers a bill to repeal and replace the health care law. it also orders certain committees to come up with an alternative.

>> now freshman north carolina senator speaks at the bipartisan policy center he talks about his goals the congressional agenda for his 1st term and lessons learned from working in state government. this is about 45 minutes. unstateun in state government. this is about 45 minutes. good afternoon everyone. welcome to the bipartisan policy

center. i am bill hoagland the senior vice president here. it is a pleasure to kick off the new agenda setters series. for those of you who may not be familiar with the bipartisan center we were established in 2007 by four former majority leaders of the united states senator. bob dole howard bake senator tom dash and george mitchell. just on a personal note i had the pleasure and honor of working with all of the those over my career in the united states senate as a staffer. we are launching this series at the beginning of the new 114th congress. our goal is to explore timely issues in policy making and politic

politics throughout 2015. each event highlights people in decision making roles and some like today who might have been just put in the role and come forward to solve critical issues that challenge the country and world. we are pleased to have senator thom tillis with us for this inaugural event. you have his bio. elected in november. he is the junior senator from north carolina. he is being joined by my boss jason grumet the president of the bipartisan center. please join me in welcoming ten senior tillis and jason to begin the discussion. jason? >> thank you, bill. welcome to the beginning of the agenda setting series. couldn't be happier to start the series with you, senator. i am confidant you will be one of the most influential members

of the class of 2014. i think we have an opportunity to talk about your policy and your ideas and commitments that you bring to this work. there is a lot of discussion today about opportunity and the challenges of opportunity in the country. i think there is no body who i am aware of who has been elected in the last cycle who embodies the possibilities of the country more than you. i am not sure most people know this but senator tillis graduated and immediately went to work in a warehouse to earn the resources to get a college education. put himself through college and while doing that he worked at a number of esteemed institutions. in his mid-30s he was an ex executive at price waterhouse coopers and ibm. so i think the spirit of hard work creating opportunity in this country is certainly something you can speak of not just in theory but through

experience certainly. the senator's public service career followed the same deliberate path. starting out at the pta. >> eight years ago. >> then joined the north carolina board of commissioners. 2006 house of representatives in north carolina. he was chosen to be the speaker of the north carolina house and served from 2011-2014. there is a passion for public service and an ambition the country needs. we welcome you to the bipartisan policy center. i want to spend about 20 minutes asking questions and then we will turn it over to the audience. i think i would like to get started with an issue you spoke about in the campaign and that is what you were hoping to get into. the obstructionism in washington that i think it standing in the

way of public interest. how would you turn this place around? >> i guess i can look back to what i did as speaker of the house. in 2007 i ran against the two-time republican incumbent in 2006 when was the award getter of all of the conservative organizations in the state. but he wasn't very effective and that is why i decided to run against him. it wasn't people getting ribbons but people getting results. going into the legislature, i spent a lot of time in my freshman year -- it is great being a freshman and irrelevant because you can spend time finding your way around. that is what i am doing now. trying to build relationships that i think will be helpful on both sides of the aisle. i mentioned before starting that i spent most of my time reaching out to members of the democratic

caucus. and meeting with them one-on-one. i have met with seven or eight of them. i do the research to know where they are on policy issues. i had a great breakfast with a member this week. i said i read your background and i am convinced on 80% of the issues we are in disagreement but there were some things i thought could provide a bases of working together. i started having those conversations and building those relationships and recognizing upfront and don't mince words when you will have different objectives. i think i am trying to get back and forth to the capital without getting lost. i am doing that better with a month passing. but understanding the process and finding ways to help my leadership that is committed to

regular order and getting the senate functioning again. take a look at the number of votes we have had over the past month if you doubt that. i think it is good from both sides. even among members of the minority they are just glad to get out and vote. even if the amendments are defeated. they get the opportunity to put them forth and have the discussion and it is healthy. i just want to be a part of the group that is coming in and getting the senate to move and function again. because it will never go as quickly as i would like to go and quickly as i did in the house. >> i think you made a number of important points. the one i want to drill down during the issue of the keystone xl pipeline, no matter what anybody thinks of the importance of that issue, you had the opportunity to coming in three

role call votes and i want to see if you can build on what that means in terms of the chemistry. you are on the floor voting and there was harsh exchanges but how important was it to build this relationship? >> i think it is enormously important. if you are in the minority and you know you will have an opportunity to have things heard you will be more likely to check your partisan tendency in the interest of moving them further along. i think the sense i am getting from the members i met with on the or side of the aisle is they are optimistic about having real work done and they can have a meaningful roll in. i talked to senator whitehouse franken and all of them

genuinely believe they may be able to get more down under leader mcconnell than senator harry reid over the last couple years. i believe it is true. there is a lot of things we do here. you can try to make it partisan but you can probably get the policy to get it done. maybe not as much as i want done or the minority but progress. >> touch on a couple issues where you think there is potential to build momentum with your colleagues and the administration? >> i think if you go down my bias is toward regulatory reform, we talk about tax reform and a number of other things we want to do but if we go back and examine some of the problems we have with regulatory overreach and expose some of these areas whether it is epa or labor or any number of areas in

a very focused way then you can sit sit down and say the regulations may have made sense in a vacuum but couldn't nathaniel philbrick context of how they affected business. let's clarify regulations we know will help businesses expand. if we can do that and start having a more positive sustainable impact on economic activity it makes a lot of other things we will have to do that will have bases in the ideas to have people disagree it makes it less likely we will go there because the economy is thriving more. if you look at the issue of sequestration, i think most people realize it was probably a bad idea. when we first implemented we thought it wasn't going to happen. >> it was designed to be a bad

thing. >> we thought it would be so bad it would not occur. now it is commonplace. i have not looked at the president's budget. i don't know if his path forward is the one we will embrace but a number of people think we have to do a better job with budgeting and the sequestration is something we should join together and get rid of and join the task of responsible budgeting. >> you are a aaa senator. agriculture, armed services and this committee. you were speaking about armed service. let's go there. how do you think the republicans are going to reconcile the defense to safety and the budget. the sequester is the tip of that but broadly how do you see that playing out through armed

services? >> i think it may make for an interesting next in terms of the strategy going forward. i think you will see people at the extremes of the spectrum be opposed to things that senator wright are eosinssenccentric and the people opposing it might be on the extremes of the caucus. we have to be realistic about numbers. if we had a veto or a super majority then obviously we would do things differently. at the end of the day, we have to look at what it takes to send the legislation to the president's desk that can withstand the veto but also the policies the american people want to see. we are looking to get 60-plus votes. to do that i think we will have

to be very patient in our approach. i think that we have so much pent up demand on the part of the people that voted for us a very excited base of people back home that are calling me about a thousand times a week already, to try to figure out how to prioritize things. we are early in the process and worried about the foreign policy and the iranian talks. i don't know how those things fit together and how they will create coalitions or create significant differences between the two conferences. >> tough issue on defense budget. north carolina very significant presence for the military and i believe there is a hearing tomorrow in the armed services

looking at the issue of military pay and pensions. it has been said by some our military is a pension-benefit health care company that occasionally fights a war. and the current trend are such that we will have to address those personal issues which obviously people feel very passionate about based on the great appreciation we have for our veterans and folks in the active service. you see room on that? how do you see engaging that? >> i think you have to go back to the bigger issue of overall spending. we had a panel of generals and one admiral last week. we talked about sequestration and the need to appeal it and i said i believe we need to do that because as a partner of price waterhouse i would never

go into and read the organization and my question to the general who said that sequestration was producing a devastating impact on our armed services said let's separate sequestration from the fundamental policy. did you believe the department of defense and armed services are operating at a level of efficiency? the question -- the answer is no. so the question is how do we talk about things that require more spending or better use of funds? we have to be more systematic to the approach of understanding pension or weapon system or regardless of the category are we spending it best to its highest use. i don't think that question has been asked whether it is acquisition or precurement reform. things that businesses have done

forever. those are the things we need to start looking at to create the currency to address legit issues where we see them or other areas of government. i don't think we have done that on a systematic bases. we operate in 12 month cycles. i think we have to be more sophis sophis sophis sophis sophisticated. >> we agree with that view. >> i didn't read the background so i am happy to hear that. >> on agriculture or judiciary, do you have anything you want on the there? >> the agriculture is poised to

grow and an $80 billion industry. it is poised to grow if we promote trade or continue to promote and fund research so we get more productivity out of the agriculture sector. again i hate to sound like a broken record but regulatory reform is first and foremost one of the things we need to deal with. if you go out and talk to these farmers, they will give you a litany of non-senseical regulations that really do not provide the value, commence with the farmers and we have to get trade right and expand opportunities for agriculture and exports. our farmers are prepared to do it. some are making headway. a lot don't realize how successful successful north carolina is as an exporter of sweet potatoes.

we have 120% increase in sweet potato increase to the uk. and europe is opening up as a market. we need to figure out how to help them provide access to more markets and how do we eliminate the regulations that literally make no sense. it is not just environmental regulations. it is workplace regulations and immigration policy coming into the mix. there is just a number of areas we need to short live, identify the burdensome regulations and systematically remove them. on judiciary, it has an enormous oversight. we had the first conformation hearing last week. it provides an important oversight function. we are trying to sort out how i will personally use that as a vehicle for certain things that need to be looked at. >> and just about anything you can boil is a sure thing in the

uk. i think you have other options there. agriculture and judiciary -- >> in the south it is anything you can fry. >> challenging issue that congress has been working on is immigration. you mentioned it and judiciary and agriculture have a lot to do there. the debate was moving in a good direction and then it unravelled and i think we are years back with the angry rhetoric. do you see anything that can bring the debate back together? >> i think the problem is at least from a far, when senators or members of congress try to get together on immigration reform, they let it go beyond a scope i think keeps enough people on board, i personal believe we should focus first on border security. and the reason i believe that is that if we can come up with a

creditable way to reduce the growth of the illegal present population, first we establish creditability with the american people and more importantly we stabilize the problem we then need to go back and systematically address. and i think when we go about doing that it will put people out of their comfort zone on both side of the aisle. but we have to be realistic about immigration reform that doesn't embrace either of the extreme points of view out there right now. i think you do it in a fashion -- the biggest problem is people are thinking one single legislative matter will solve the illegal immigration problem in the country. but that has been a -- there is a very long well documented bipartisan history of failure when they tried to do that. now i think we need to do it in a systematic way.

start with sealing the border and look at the illegally present population and determine how you come to a closure on it. it is not going to be done in a bill or a year. but i think you could map out a strategy and then start explaining to the american people, my supporters and detractors exactly how you would go about doing it. first and foremost you take a a lot of the issue out by sealing the border. i don't think it is necessarily true, the conventional thought about sealing just the southern border, i think the relationships with mexico and southern border. 80% of the people coming across the border are not from mexico. that should give you a sense or more creative thinking about how you go about sealing it and then you build on the creditability to address the population that is here. >> i will ask one more question so you can think about how you

might jump in in a minute. and that was reflected on your campaign. which was remarkable. not only your success, but you know and i don't know if everyone else does but the most expensive senate campaign in history. $120 million. there is a lot riding on you. you are a heavily invested person. >> two thirds was riding on the other part. >> fair point. of the overall resources, i think about 90 of the 120 million came from third party sources. recognizing the supreme court's views on money and speech and the limitations therein any thoughts? any thoughts on how -- assuming you will do this again in six years how you can improve upon the system? >> you know i think that the

third party money is a reality. i think there is something to be said for some level of increase transparency and disclosure. i know it gets people nervous on both sides. i was having this discussion with senator whitehouse last week actually during the votes. in a strange way i think it is one of the -- the fact the 80

we really have shy audiences at the bbc. we have a couple of mics running around. let us know who you are. one here and one here. >> good afternoon, patrick wilson. it's good to see you senator. one of the questions the president just got today and i will pitch it to you because i think it's timely and that is what we do about tax reform? this was an issue you talked about on the campaign and given what you said about the regulatory burden on american business certainly having u.s. business burdened by the highest tax -- corporate tax rate in the world i wonder what you think the prospects are for trying to take care of that in this congress? >> i think the challenge we have

here are two different perspectives between them on tax reform between the president and the current congress and the leadership of the congress. we did tax reform in north carolina. not in our first term but in our second term. we simplified it. we went from 44 in our tax burden to 16. a lot of that was through simplification but it was also through a half a billion dollars in spending cuts so they could actually with tax reform not only changing the way the tax code works most people assume it's going to be a reduction in the tax rate. it sounds more as much focused on how to derive more revenue from an economy that i think needs to have more money moving to the private sector. that's why you feel strongly we need to work more in policies

that can improve economic activity so you can make tax reform and the easier thing to deal with. it's never going to be simple because i will tell you as i told everybody in north carolina everybody is for tax reform. everybody's for broadening the base. everybody is for lowering the rate except for everyone wanting that one exception is righteous for the sector they happen to represent it's very challenging. it's almost impossible to do without bipartisan support or supermajorities were both parties in charge at both ends of the street. so i think tax reform to me think sweeping tax reform this year, i've not had a discussion with leadership but it seems unlikely to me because of the challenges and because the president is coming in with a different perspective on the raises revenue and that's not one that i happen to support. i don't believe that -- we have a debt that we have to deal with so reducing revenues

even if you were to reduce spending you've got to come up with a credible way to start retiring the debt. even if you were just spending it raises a question about how much of that would translate into a reduced tax burden. we have to spend a lot of time looking back and figure out if we have similar philosophies in both the house and the senate and the then sufficient support from the minority caucus to get it through. the other problem you have is a political one. tax reform to me is something that has to be implemented at least a year before an election. the reason for that when we did tax reform we had a six, seven and 7.75 personal income tax system in north carolina. we simplified it and brought it down to 5.75.

we also lowered the sales tax by 10 or 20% if you look at the base. we knew if we implemented that and going into an election year and people were not going to believe you actually had a reduced tax burden and you would have basically been exposing yourself to a political cycle. we implemented it last year so this past april people saw the benefits. they saw that the withholding was lowered for their refund checks were larger. you can't implement something in january of this year or july of next year and i think go to a cycle where the american people would see the benefits so you got to work on timing as well. >> another question in the back. the mic is being run to you hence the word leg runner. >> hi i am joanne from the

center for -- you are also on the special senate committee on aging and i wanted to have you comment on that. doubling the number one of the most predictable challenges for the country. north carolina has had some interesting experiments with primary care and pharmacy and on the other hand dependence on families is becoming really pretty thin as families are smaller and more dispersed. so what do you see as the priorities for your service on the special committee on aging? >> i'm excited to be on the committee and i'm particularly excited to follow the lead of senator collins has the chair. i have not spent a lot of time

talking. we had our organizational meeting last week the fastest committee meeting i was ever in. we voted on the budget and got back to the boat and literally lasted 10 minutes. there are a lot of things that we need to work on that i i think and then the curve and provide more resources. i for one have a personal interest in alzheimer's and dementia. because i have personally experienced it and also i went back and took some courses on it to become a better caregiver for my grandmother who was diagnosed with alzheimer's at a relatively young age. but investing in research and some of the things that are making the costs of providing support to elders higher than it necessarily has to be a something i'm very interested in learning more about and finding how aging ways into that. i think when you get into the discussion of entitlement reform and a number of other things i've had people come up to me

and i have a lady come up to me in western north carolina. she said i couldn't support you because you are going to end medicare. i said i will be honest with you, talk to my mom about it and she said i couldn't do it. [laughter] i think a part of what we have to do is recognized the promises that have been made up there but it goes back to to certain extends the discussion on pension reform and a number of other things. how do you do things in a way that fulfills the promise you have made and gives the next generation of people enough time to deal with the new more sustainable model? i think the most recent people people -- though i am 54 so i would probably be part of the group that may have to look at medicare and social security a little bit differently than let's say people who are four or five years away from possibly qualifying for one program or

another. i think we have to look at that so if we can reduce the fear among the seniors population generally there are people out there in part because a lot of the third-party money being spent to honestly think it's going to be taken away. i think we have to go in tackle that and there are obviously another other committees that would fall under their jurisdiction. i think entitlement reform is something we have to get serious about. i'm afraid that they are promises that have been made that we can't keep. it's causing a lot of concern among seniors who view it as critical to their lives. i look forward to working on it and seeing how aging weighs in on it the committee i guess. >> we have time for a couple of questions. >> thank you. rhaman buehler from the madison coalition. i believe he may be unique and correct me if i'm wrong, you may

be the only former speaker of the house who was just elected to the senate and that gives you a unique perspective and i wonder what you think of the idea that sometimes bipartisan cooperation is easier to achieve among speakers and senate presidents of different states than it is among members of the house and senate in washington. and he talked about problem of regulatory reform, widespread concern around the country. 2-1 voters don't like what they see. what do you think of the idea that in the same way that states states.the congress to propose the bill of rights to limit federal power that states could do what by state legislative chambers have artegon which is to urge congress to propose a constitutional amendment called the regulation freedom amendment

to require congress to approve major federal regulations instead of having them dictated by bureaucrats in washington. >> i think there may be something to that. if you think what's happening now we are trying to disallow regulations. it's very consistent with what we did in north carolina for me came in 2011. our first pass of regulatory reform was to require a business case for the regulations so that the cost whether it be taxpayer costs are costs to industry to be commensurate with the benefit whether his workplace safety or environmental improvements whatever it may be in the many cases there will be a think about what argument for it. the business case has to be developed and there has to be a consultation with the legislature in north carolina. it's consistent with exactly what you're talking about and i think until that could potentially be put into place at the federal level you can kind

of use that as a way to go back to fair thinking members and say let's talk about how these regulations are affecting your state, your constituents were no great gain and use that as a way to build bipartisan support to least repeal some of the regulations that have simply gone too far. it's worked in north carolina. i don't believe it's any coincidence over the last four years in north carolina's economic activity is outpacing virtually every other state in the southeast. i don't think it's any coincidence that north carolina for the first time in 10 years is ahead of south carolina on an appointment i think it was through some of the systematic approach we have used for responsible regulatory reform. and incidentally it's not always pulling it all back. it's doing it in a reasonable fashion. north carolina's upper state in the nation to tackle coal as sure issues and putting forth a regulatory framework to do that.

we have gotten all the stakeholders together environmental organizations and utilities and i think we got it right. we balance the regulations. there were a lot of people who are concerned because we had the coal ash bill in the dan river that was just overreach. i refuse to allow that to happen happen. we want to use the same framework that we tell the regulators in north carolina that they have to follow for us to attenuate the policy to solve the problem is not just all of a sudden run based primarily on emotions and maybe the pressure we were getting from certain special interest groups. they got a good policy and i believe that return policy is one that will be ultimately adopted by other states. >> another question right here. >> senator was curious about your views on transparency. my name is denise and i represent the -- we asked

documents and the government said no and so we went to foia and you told us to foia them. the question we have because we are scratching our head going this doesn't make any sense especially for the cost being put on us paying for these documents, what can be done to improve the situation regarding transparency of documents for the business industry? >> i think we have to do a lot of we also have to be mindful that there are people out there who abuse these requests as well. and so you have got to balance balance -- it's very difficult to do. after i became speaker we had transparency -- we have document requests for just a non-believable number of areas that we had little or nothing to do with so they seemed like they were a part of a chess game that

was being played versus a legitimate request for transparency. i think we need to figure out what sort of oversight or maybe even independent review of requests to try and get to what the motives are and that somebody wants the documents given give them to them but there may be a cause with them. my concern is a lot of times legitimate request that may be very revealing and very important to the american people get clogged up in the other one's going to the cycle. i don't have an answer for it but i do think it's a problem and i do think sometimes even congress can't get the documents that they want. i was just watching c-span watching a house member complaining about documents that congressional panel has requested that they can't get. i feel the pain of people wanting to get information that they feel is really important they can get. >> time for a final question i never hear.

>> my name is michelle and i'm a trained adviser with the british embassy so we appreciate your sweet potatoes in the u.k.. >> buy more. >> when you're talking about agriculture you mention the need to expand exports are wanted to ask your views on trade legislation starting with the trade authority to negotiate and the transpacific partnership great. >> i think tpa scenario where we may end up having an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis. he probably got more positive reaction from from our side of the aisle than his own. i think it's critically important. i think tp is critically important. i think trade agreements we are working out with europe are critically important particularly for agriculture.

the world likes american products. they think it's one of the safest food sources that they can have access to and i think we need to build on that. north carolina has a tremendous opportunity to grow its agriculture sector to $120 billion if we were able to have more access and lower-cost access to the markets. and i would support it and i would support the tpa. >> i want to thank all of you for joining us. i think you certainly have a sense that we have a new senator in this town who is both eloquent and substantive. usually you get one or the other but it's wonderful to have it in a single passage. >> and i share one little thing. [inaudible question] to share this just to get an idea about where my bias is when it comes regulatory reform. the states back to, i was in the minority still so i was the minority whip. this would have been around 2010

and i was having a discussion because i really do believe you can get regulations to a point where you preserve the environment and you keep the workplace safe and you can do all that. he wants to. i hope there is no republican or democrat here who has run for office to destroy the environment or make sure their children can't drink clean water. i was having this discussion with someone and we were at a starbucks in my district. we were tricking -- talking about certain regulations where i felt maybe you should allow businesses to opt out and let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure and advertising through employment literature or whatever else. there is this level of regulation that maybe they are on the books but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to it. she said i can't believe that. she said opting out and at that

time we are sitting back at a table near the restrooms. one of the employees came out and said for example don't you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves your food is important? >> said as a matter of fact i think it's one i can illustrate an appointed i said i don't have any problem a any problem at starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post assigned to us as we don't require our employees to wash their hands after using the restroom. the market will take care of that. so it's one example but then let them decide. that's probably one where every business that did that would go out of business but i think it's good to illustrate the point that that's the sort of mentality we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country. one of the most regulated nations in the history of the planet and i think that we go about it in a commonsense way

that solves a lot of problems and these big problems that we are talking about are eminently more easy to solve. >> i'm not sure i'm going to shake your hand. [laughter] i want to all express our appreciation to senator tillis for joining us today. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow come in the white house budget director director discusses the president's fiscal year 2016 budget request and a hearing of the senate budget committee. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on the stand three c-span3. >> corporation for enterprise development. holding an event. sherard brown of ohio spoke about his support of the tax

credit in providing economic relief to low-income americans. >> welcome everyone. i am the director of tax credits for working families, we are a nonpartisan communications campaign to promote credits at both the state and federal levels. we have worked a long time now and we are thrilled to be partnering with them today for this event.

this year marks the 40th anniversary of the enactment by congress in 1975. they are widely regarded as some of the nations most powerful anti-poverty programs yet one in every five eligible workers does not take the credit. also the vital role that plays in this. the senate in the budget and ourselves are working together and i encourage you to grow website draw website at tax credit for working families.org to view our recent video interview with one of our keynote speakers today, professor catherine eden on her latest book. without further ado i would like to introduce your friend of the hatcher group and president of the corporation for enterprise development.

>> thank you, it's such a pleasure to be cohosting this event with tax credits for working families. it's my coming-out day because i just came back from a major it injury and this is a day about hope. what they have talked about with many people are whole philosophy, it's not just about income it's about helping people build their future by being able to invest in assets that help them live the american dream. >> thank you for your insightful book on the situation. we can see how this works and

how people make their lives work under incredibly difficult challenging circumstances. all of us are dedicated to public policy who make it easier for people to be good but productive forcing people to we all want them to be. we are thrilled to be hosting this event because the tran-sevens did so well with our mission. last year they formally took on a portfolio of work to advance policy programs that is specifically aimed to provide low and moderate income taxpayers with new tax opportunities. this brings together organizations and individuals to provide tax assistance to low-income communities. this work also build on our

experience the opportunity network which is a national network that brings movement oriented advocates and practitioners and policymakers and others to expand the reach and inside of the epic elting strategy in every community in the united states. >> he has been such a champion of the eitc. even more importantly he is doing at a tireless advocate for expanding tax opportunities to lower moderate income americans, particularly as director of research development and public affairs to the neighborhood housing services at the state of queensland. the other great thing about david is that he's one of the few people in america that make

me look shy. so welcome. [applause] >> following entry is never an easy thing. thank you 214 starting with so much energy on point. it's a great pleasure for me to introduce our keynote speaker senator chirac sherrod brown. my graduate school friends are more excited that i am with professor egan. so it's all about perspective herriot speaking of perspectives, there are so many different assets with the itc and if i could touch on one policy that is not direct the part of the panel and the conversation this morning, it would be to emphasize the growing importance of the delivery system. and in the book she also

touches on this issue at a families are paying upward of $500 to receive tax assistance and additional dollars to get their refunds from democrats they are losing their earned income and being couched it frankly. tax repairs must be regulated in the should be required to provide good-faith estimates before not after their tax returns prepared. so we are excited that working with colleagues of the new america foundation promote we have released a report that create cause for such members including what has been going on with credit cards and prepaid debit cards and we have that right outside. senator brown is a long-term thinker around this. and this includes a permanent expansion to the third child of coverage and the longer situation as well.

and senator brown understands that working families need these dollars for economic development and achieving and growing assets. his newest film is right on target for dancing some dollars to help working families pay bills to save and to achieve assets throughout the year and not just the tax cost. and if it helps him not use payday loans i'm doubly excited and i know that the office is as well. here are a couple of things you might not have known, when he was represented, he ran a pretax website out of his office in cleveland. so he opened up his office and for the past two years the senator has worked tirelessly to increase funding for free tax preparation by three times the amount that was currently funded through the irs to ensure that can families will pay $0 at tax time to secure this. so thank you all for being here.

nicu senator for coming to speak and thank you for your dedicated staff that is always working on this. there's some time after the senator's speech, about five minutes for questions at and answers and so we thank you very much for that. [applause] >> david thank you. thank you to you all we are glad you are back at work. congratulations and thank you for your contribution. especially with how important it is and to all of you all of you have been particularly important and i've talked to the white house, educated them, help to get them going with this and take you for your terrific work. i talk this way i don't smoke and i'm not sick. this is a true story that i'm about to tell you. my wife and i were talking about

this together in three or four of us were speaking as he set the stage and began to talk. the guy standing next my wife she had never seen before, and she turned around and read i hate that guy's voice. and she said wanaque speaks it's like fingernails on a blackboard and i can't stand it. and she said i kind of like his voice. and she said yeah, i do i really like it and she says i really like it when he wakes up in the middle of the night and says i love you, baby. [laughter] and my wife is a pulitzer prize winner, she has like the best facebook ever and her name is connie schultz, so check it out. [laughter] and you will laugh at more things than what i have told

you. and david is such a gem in northeastern ohio, he has testified a number of times to the subcommittees that i have chaired with financial issues and he's now a part of the neighboring services in cleveland and has been a perfect advocate for people that don't have a voice no matter what it sounds like. and he has been so valuable and you can tell your parents that. and your academic friends, you can tell them that as well. and the minister said something there. and they said your life expectancy is connected to your zip code. your life expectancy is connected to your zip code.

when you grow up in ohio, east cleveland, a suburb, if you will, when you go up in shaker heights, whether you grow up in in a suburb or wherever you go your life expectancy is determined in many ways quality of health care whether you get a good education social support necessary that you have from the neighborhood organizations and all of that. obviously it shouldn't be that way in the country this rich my savior and are certainly his 48th in the country. its 50th for mortality we are not a poor state, but one that is underinvested in public health and early childhood education and underinvested in the kind of safety net that really does give people some opportunity. so many low income people pay for it every day. and it's an economic, moral, political issue, recent polls

found that 60% 3% of people believe that the u.s. economic system favors the wealthy. so while over half of americans think that the system -- they think that their government works more for wall street and main street and works better for the elite and wealthy in this country than it does for people who have opportunity. one worker's wages stagnate and when they struggle to provide us with their families, we have a moral problem. people that work hard and take responsibility and do the best they can. when they believe that the economy is rigged against them we have a political problem. and then the next generation of workers, when they retire with little savings or little or no savings and little defined pension benefits anymore, we have an economic column including the child tax credit are so very important. and you know its history.

expanded by every single president most importantly, of course it is the expansions of the '90s led by more than half a million single mothers to move from a cash welfare system to work. double the results than welfare reform which i opposed when i'm in the house and clearly didn't do anything close to a we thought it would do. and so it has lifted more children above the poverty line than any other government program. in 2012 alone, more than 28 million american households, almost a million people in my state and a fitted from this and you know these numbers it's important to emphasize important to tell stories around the numbers amami do that, we can stand up and talk until we

are blue in the face about public policy but we need to tell stories, as you know tell stories about this and the effect on them. alicia told me last year that she lives paycheck to paycheck and getting this every march or april, the one time of year she can actually pay off her bills. rose works as a manager at a fast food restaurant and when you think about that, she's a manager at a of the restaurant, making $9.35 an hour. she says her family struggles to pay bills and the eitc has been a lifesaver since she found out about it. thousands and thousands of stories like this, lifting people above the poverty in making such a huge difference in their lives. the state of the union address, i thought perhaps president obama's best one. he laid out plans to reform the tax code by making eitc and ctc

permanent extending credits as well. and so if you work in this town you live in this town and you hang around these buildings and you hear about tax reform, what you hear is almost always that we have to lower the corporate tax rate and that is how the debate has begun that is not how how we can let the debate begin that way the president i thought for the first time emphatically in the state of the union began to change that debate that were not when you have corporate tax reform until and unless we expand this and we make the expansions permanent and otherwise we don't attractor for any kind of tax reform. there are no tax breaks for corporations about working families. so it's something we should be able to agree upon and we know in the past that i first read on

the son of 12,007 was the support of the minimum-wage bill. it was signed by president bush and was a bipartisan bill. a quick story about that for speech january 2007, just elected to the senate, senator obama was in office, he stood up and when you stand up in the senate you address the chair and my first words to him was mr. president i think he liked the sound. [laughter] probably not entirely true as is tori. [laughter] two or three weeks ago with jason jacobs, a cincinnati resident, graduated from ohio university, kind of a middle-class kid the university hasn't been able to find a job as a teacher, he's now working as a professional in a school district, just to the east of

hamilton county were cincinnati is. he made only about $16,000 last year and because he doesn't have children he will miss out on critical tax credits putting more money in his pocket. he mentioned the working family tax relief act that would triple the size for workers without children and would expand access to young workers and make the enhancement of this that will expire in 2017. expanding this is in our legislation that president obama proposed in the state of the union, lifting more than a half-million people out of poverty and help alleviate this for the additional 10 million people. for even 1 dollar credit would mean about $600. sort sent this tax further into poverty because he gets no help

from the earned income tax credit. and we know what this means, we know what it means beyond putting money in families pockets and we know what it means similar to the children's health insurance policy. i'm introducing non-and that has been bipartisan for 25 years. .. i'm introducing that legislation in the next week or so. that has been bipartisan for 20 years. in my state is 130,000 children benefit from the chip program and what that means is not just giving parents the peace of mind of knowing their children have insurance, not just eitc nctc giving apparent peace of mind that they can do a few things for their children that they couldn't do. it also means better performance in schools. it means they miss fewer school days and when they are at school they're less likely to be sick and may be less likely to be

hungry because they have a little bit more money and their parents have more money in their pocket. if we care about not just these families in these neighborhoods that we raise children that would have higher test scores higher graduation rates higher college attendance rates and more people getting ged send more people going to college and finishing college. it means higher salaries and we enable the cache for the 44% of households that have less than three months worth of savings almost half of the people as country of less than three months of savings whatever age they are and if they are in their 50's we know what that means for their retirement. half of the people more or less half the people in this country on social security depend on social security for more than half of their income. if we ever going to build wealth in this country and get people and young children a chance in older people a chance for

earning a more secure retirement eitc nctc are so important. but if we fail that if we fail to renew it 50 million americans could lose their eitc. in so many ways that's the worst kind of class warfare aimed at working families. people that dress like men have good titles and get good salaries and good government paid pensions and health care don't rise to the occasion and make permanent the eitc nctc and on expand the programs and the children's health insurance plan don't raise the minimum wage things that have been bipartisan this country for most of the last 30 years. minimum wage has a third less buying power than it did in 1968. think about what that means. it's not mostly teenagers. it's mostly people that support themselves and their families.

only talk about lowering the corporate tax rate is the worst kind of class warfare. these people need help but poverty and not being taxed into it. david talked about payday lending. there are more payday lending stores in the united states today than there are combined with donaldson starbucks. more payday lending stores and combined mcdonald's and starbucks. in upper income neighborhoods there a starbucks and mcdonald's and if you look at the whole country think of the concentration of payday lenders and moderate and low income neighborhoods. so what happens in for so many people like the woman rose and mention from toledo ohio. she depends on eitc.

in february march or april she depends on the check to pay down her bills just to catch up. what if in october rose has some unforeseen problem that costs money which for people always are more likely to have enter car breaks down and she can go to work because her car breaks down. she has to go to payday lender because she hasn't gotten her eitc refund. she has to go to payday lender and the average payday lender the average person goes seven times. you get the first payday loan and you can't pay it all back so you go again and again and end up paying 200 or 300% or more and some have testified up to 500% interest. once you are in a downward spiral you have to borrow money against your eitc to stay alive because your cars more likely to break down.

20 years ago when i lived in columbus i tutored the young man about my age who had dropped out of high school. he wanted to learn to read so he could get a better job. he worked works in a hospital and he wanted to be able to read out loud from the bible at his church. one out of four times we would meet because i had young children and i was a single parent. on sunday nights i couldn't leave the house because they were small. he would come to my house and one out of four nights we would do it every sunday night, his car would break down and he just couldn't get there. my car didn't break down. i had a good job and decent income and i had a car that was three years old. he had a car that was 12 years old or whatever it was. the cost that obviously not preaching to you. it costs money to the poor. that's the reason for this. i am hopeful that we have a real

shot because i hope we get bipartisan support as we have in the past on the eitc nctc to allow a 500-dollar early advance advance, not paying interest on it. it cost the government very little money to do a pity if your car breaks down in october you can get a 500-dollar dance. when you get your refund its $500 less of course but of course but i can keep people out of that downward cycle of getting a payday loan and what all that means. so i will close with this. as you navigate around here tell your stories. tell the story we are all in the business. pro--- pope francis said a few months ago he exhorted his parish priest to smell like a flock and you get the biblical connotations of that. we do public policy and the scent town and we are supposed to understand the lives of a

broad section of people. we don't do that well enough. lincoln when he was present his advisers want him to to stay in the house and preserve the union. he said i had to get my public opinion. it's important to listen to people and hear the stories of jason and hear the stories that we then pass on to policymakers and others. i will close with this. john lewis who a number of us including senator scott and tim and i are on the finance committee. we have had primary discussions. tim and i are going to summit to mark the 50th anniversary that i was able to take my young daughters they are back in 1998, the first time we did a congressional trip. six of us from a house of representatives went in john was among them but john tells the story when he spoke at emory

university. i want to read the words that he said because they are way better than i would say otherwise. he tells he said when i was a kid i saw the signs, john was born in 1940 to the stories would have been in the 40s and 50's britain is and 50's britain is although scientists at white men, men white women, women, white waiting room waiting room. i came home and asked my parents why? they would say that's the way it is john don't get in the way and don't get in trouble. in 1957 at the age of 17 i met rosa parks. in 1958 at the age of 18 night that bart luther king, jr.. these individuals inspired me to get in the way and get in trouble. so i encourage you he's exhorting his graduates find a way to getting good necessary trouble. as you tell your stories and

tell stories of people that you fight for think about getting an good trouble and necessary trouble and encouraging your friends to do the same. thanks. [applause] >> do we have time for questions? >> another thing about telling stories you don't have to take questions. >> i am an actual figo volunteer tax attorney. [applause] i have been in briefings with conservative theorists that actually say that eitc is a better solution to helping with

the minimum wage and we can debate the minimum wage another time. i will say by personal experience my in-laws were -- and people use the issue of eitc fraud. they had eight kids. they filed and gunned eitc refund on a debit card and i'm hearing from in-laws and countless in the district. how do we cut down on eitc fraud on a debit card fraud and generally if it can cut down on those things on the amazingly abuse program we can provide more eitc to people. >> thank you for raising that issue about the opponents to eitc expansion will use a 23 or 25% fraud number. that number is misleading in part because unlike tax returns

for higher income people there really is a challenge to an audit from an eitc beneficiary then there might be to someone whose income is much higher number one so the 23% number would be dramatically reduced maybe as much as 50% if the process of appeal were to play out because in many cases it's the government's mistake that the eitc filer. number two sometimes the eitc credit, the eitc check the goes to the beneficiary to the taxpayer to the earner he earned this, she earned this is actually an underpayment. that is part of that 23%. it's important keep that in mind

and also important -- i headache comp conversation with a senator who will remain nameless for this conversation and he brought the 23%. i said well we obviously should audit these returns and clean that up. i said you know that if you put more into eitc enforcement democrats aren't going to support eitc enforcement but not corporate tax and income tax enforcement. you guys want to keep cutting irs funding so we do fewer audits. let's play it straight and play this honest and do it in a way that's fair but we don't seem to back away from other federal tax policies because there is some fraud. in most cases the fraud is only a few dollars.

there's not that much money at stake for a taxpayer compared to real fraud or real missed payment or underpayment or overpayment among higher income people. i appreciate your comments. i think we need to deal with this. we need to answer that question better than i just did with facts and figures but that's simply not a reason in my mind not to do that. thank you for being inside a work or volunteer. thanks everyone. [applause] >> thank you so much senator brown. that was great. we appreciate your fight for lhota moderate income workers. it's my honor to introduce professor edin is the bloomberg professor. she insisted that i call her café café which is uncomfortable but i will. kathy and her co-authors provide a clear picture of a complex financial lives of americans in

this country. it's a phenomenal book. i encourage each and every one and every wanted one of you to get a copy of it. it's moving and insightful and is quite prescriptive which is important for this crowd. they are great proposals for reform that we can talk about today so please join me in welcoming kathy says she can tell us all about it. [applause] >> i look like one person but i'm actually five people. lisa adams is the best literary agent of the nation. if not she's the best for academics who want to write things people want to read. also my co-authors sera laura and jan brewer my graduate students three graduations, three academic jobs three marriages and they are now people and scholars in their own right. imagine a cast of five up here as i speak. i'm going to start with a story

about my former dean at the kennedy school and good friend david ellwood. many of you note during the 1980s he gave us the first evidence that most welfare recipients a ftc were not long-term but rather short-term recipients and he went around the country trying to defend welfare and soon found it was the worst job in america. he got hate mail and he was vilified on the oprah winfrey show. there's a fight that was caught on camera and recipients of the program refused to defend it. all of this led him to a critical insight that any effort to help the poor that would have any real long-term viability have to be fully in line with american values especially the privacy of work and independence of the individual. based on this insight he came to washington with an idea.

it was held by lots of folks but under david ellwood's inspirational leadership the modern eitc was born. you might want to think of this is the first thing from adolescence to adulthood. the world changed for poor people. now how i come into the story is in the early 90s i was traveling around the country interviewing hundreds of low-income mothers most welfare recipients and workers about how they pay their bills. i wrote a book with laura lane called making ends meet describing this incredible struggle that both those who were on welfare but especially those who are trying to hold down a job had you just making the basic bills and all the shortfalls causing problems for families. imagine my surprise when in 2007

i returned to the field to talk with poor people about their budgets most centrally for workers who are receiving the modern eitc. what i found was so fundamentally different than than what i've i had seen in the early 90s. as it turned out this made in america program, we invented this policy prescription right here in this country, was not making people feel stigmatized and shamed the way welfare head. when you collect welfare and the old days and this is still true, it was almost as if you had to trade your citizenship card. you had to cross the road from being a citizen to be an outcast in order to collect that benefit benefit. in east boston were where some of this research was done there was an old dickensian visage of a welfare office with words over the door, overseers of the public welfare with wire mesh

covering the windows. imagine the experience of walking through those doors compared to the experience of walking through the friendly doors of an h&r block to claim their benefits like every other taxpayer. so in short what i learned is that while welfare our traditional way of aiding the poor lead to separation what the eitc seem to be doing for people was making them feel a sense of incorporation. the very famous slogan of that year that h&r block was using i thought people was repeated again and again in interviews as people described incorporating experience a feeling that the government was rewarding them for doing the right thing and going out and working and

perhaps the most profound thing that was different about the interviews we were conducting in the late 2000's as opposed to the early 1990s was a sense of hope hope for upward mobility hope for upward mobility. this is almost absent from the narratives of the folks in the early 1990s. this big lump sum attacks time six seven, almost $8000, 40% of your income. the sense of hope on this, this attachment of the eitc to work, the sense that you are getting something he you deserve like you have earned like every other taxpayer turns out to shape how people spend money. you might think if you give a poor person six or $7000 attacks time they will blow it. everybody will be going on a fantasy vacation. instead we found remarkably responsible financial behavior.

what we did as they followed 110 tax filers from the moment they receive their refund to six months later when usually the eitc was fully allocated. we found that 25% went to debt. some of that debt was improved during the year as senator brown alluded to because in actuality usually can't make that on wages alone. another half of that debt was for long-term debt that people wanted to clean up on so they could move ahead and acquire more assets, most centrally a home. another 25% less than 25% was spent in training consumption paying those bills that you can't usually paver mountebank ahead particularly for car insurance and rent so is to create a personal safety net for the hard times as so often, and the work interruptions like a mouth -- almost be counted on. 40% went to mobility purposes so

those of you in the asset field can cheer about 17% of that of the total was for savings and the rest was generally for durable goods often cars stand-alone freezers that allowed you to live more cheaply and allowed greater access to greater labor markets and higher education. and then there was just a little bit extra, about 10% to invest in your kids. ..

indeed you cannot even find the best seafood restaurant in america in massachusetts because massachusetts has know red lobster chains. the entire family hopped in the car and went to connecticut and that $64 $64 spent on that meal was the best part of that mother's meal. so 10 percent goes to support people's identity as parents. there are shortcomings of relying so much upon the tax code. it is not acting as the safety net. we used to cover 60 percent. now it is about 25 percent.

a growing proportion of american households are forced to survive on less than $2 per person per day. we need a vigorous temporary safety net when the eit c is not enough. we also need to expand work opportunity. it is almost impossible to find full-time work and have found in fieldwork that work can be healing in and of itself provide a sense of incorporation which is so vitally important as long as it has enough. in conclusion in doing this work you can have stories of your own the critical

insight was that everyone longs to contribute. part of the reason people felt proud to claim this credit is that it was like a badge of honor that they were members of they're communities, citizens, taxpayers playing by the rules, making a contribution over and over again. they felt like real americans. thank you for coming. [applause] >> thank you so much for speaking and pushing the field forward with your research. i am happy to invite the moderator of our field to join us. fundamentally a storyteller.

he has told stories through his work of people in poverty and fighting poverty he did the same when he had a weekly column with the nation. he has been described as one of the most consistent voices in poverty and i would add to that consistently thoughtful and on. we are excited to have him. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you so much for that kind introduction. i have the pleasure of moderating this distinguished panel. i will introduce each of them to you. seated right next to me is lori and who works with the national institute of health national human genome research institute. along the line of the importance of telling stories along the numbers she we will take care of that. you met the distinguished bloomberg professor in the department of sociology at john hopkins university. cannot say enough about the book that you and your co-authors have recently published. seated at the next table senior tax policy analyst. welcome.

and at the end of the table is barb montague honey current board member of the committee tax aid. let's get right to it. i will start with lori. a little background information. you face the prospect of being a single mother without a high school diploma, but you graduated high school on time went on to earn a a ba in public health at the university of maryland college park and went on to earn a masters in public administration with honors, i believe.

the university the university of baltimore, all while working full-time and raising her daughter. last year not only did you get married but you are a candidate for delegate to the maryland general assembly at the same time. came up a little a little short and we are rooting for you. you have quite a story. but you said that family and various government programs were essential to your success including your experience with the eit c. could you talk about how that helps you and your daughter? >> i think the senator touched on it a lot. you know, that time waiting. you incur a lot of unnecessary or excessive expenses, whether it is your car breaking down or you

have this opportunity to have extra money at a time when it puts you in a more comfortable feeling being in poverty and low income a sense of stress. you are not sure of what to expect day-to-day. it gets you back on track. a cushion to help along the way. >> how would you see that impact your daughter in particular? >> well, she well, she got to take advantage of after school activities. i was able to put her in ballet classes. being a single parent, you want to overcompensate. being able to do those extra things it really made her

feel like she was no different from anyone else were missing out on anything. >> and in terms of obtaining the eit c doctor kathryn edin and senator brown both mentioned. can you talk about what that did for you and your family. >> going to those sites and having the people volunteer time it is a reassuring feeling. you do not have the stigma of someone looking down at you. in an environment where people are ready to help you , and it is a comforting feeling to no that those services are available for people in need. i learned because i joined