let me talk a little bit about a few of the programs. and i'm going to argue it's not these programs don't have negatives, but the reality's much more complex than this notion that we've simply all failed. first of all, welfare reforms. i think welfare reform did a lot of good in the late '90s when the economy was strong. since then the number of disconnected mothers disconnected from work as well as welfare has gone up quite dramatically. and, again, ron haskins writes about this more than anyone else. millions of those moms not on welfare and not working. i'll get back to that. tanf no longer raises anybody out of deep poverty. it used to. it did nothing in the recession to combat the rise in poverty that occurred when jobs weredisappearing in the recession. on the other hand, food stamps -- heavily demonized in the report -- food stamps does raise millions of people and families out of deep poverty. it's successful in doing that. it does -- it did combat the recession.

it had a countercyclical role and, very importantly, the rigorous evidence shows food stamps raises the nutritional quality of poor children. that this' a clear fact when you look at the evaluation evidence on that. and those children -- [inaudible] so, therefore, a rise in food stamps somehow proving that obama has been a failure is simply another falsehood, in my view. the earned income tax credit. the report does have a positive paragraph or two on the earned income tax credit, then it talks a lot about the fraud and the irs, we need to be much stricter combating the fraud. i have no problem with that except we have one problem, the irs has been so demonized by house republicans in the last six or eight years and funding so dramatically cut that it's hard to give them another unfunded mandate to do this work. the juxtaposition of those comments strikes me a little bit. there's a lot written about the marginal tax rates, you know --

i'm going to need a little more time. i'm sorry, robert. the notion that people face these massive cliffs when their earnings go up a little bit. but, in fact, the congressional budget office wrote a report late last year on the marginal tax rate. on average, they're nowhere near as high as the ones slated in the report. i think they're still too high, but it's expensive to reduce those marginal tax rates, and it doesn't always generate the changes in behavior afterwards. and by the way, there's a huge literature on rigorously-evaluated pre-k programs and k-12 programs, none of which were cited in this report. you would think that stuff doesn't exist anywhere, and that was troubling to me. let me talk about when do we know about poverty and the research and two of the underlying -- and do we really believe that suggestions in this report and the many fine efforts that have been discussed are going to be up to the challenge of really reducing poverty especially without more resources? first of all, there are a lot of adults in this country who fit into the category that we often

call the hard to avoid; people with multiple barriers to finding jobs and especially keeping the jobs that they find. it is often -- they often become the disconnected moms. and their children, the children of the poor in general grow up with a lot of what we now call toxic stress, the stress, the instability of life, the resources that run out at the end of the month impedes their brain development and, consequently, cognitive and noncognitive skill gaps develop very, very early in the lives of these children. to me, it defies lodge. and by the way, and then those gaps get reinforced in highly segregated schools, segregated by race, by economics. a lot of schools are not very good and reinforce a lot of failures, but a lot of the choice programs don't necessarily solve those problems. again, if you look carefully at the charter school literature, some are successful, many others are not. so, again, if you look at the

evidence, you make softer statements. let's talk about the labor market for a second. what's happened in the labor market? work is a great thing. i'm 100% pro-work. however, wages have badly deteriorated in the two, three, four decades we're talking about here. right now someone at the federal minimum wage working year round full time makes $14,000 or $15,000 a year. when you add in, you're still below the poverty line for a family of four, for a single parent. and the decline in real wages among less educated men has clearly, number one, helped drive a lot of these men out of the labor force, number two, driven them out of marriage. you can debate the magnitudes, but to make no comment about the level of wages misses a lot of the action. marriage? i like marriage. i like marriage, it's a great thing. we don't have policy buttons to push. marriage and the fraction of children growing up outside marriage has gone up in red states as well as blue states, in every kind of policy

environment. the notion that you blame all of that on these programs is another falsehood. now, contraception is different. we have strong evidence on contraception policies. saw hill, from folks at the national campaign, it's not mentioned at all in this report. and i'll say one other thing. you know, it's true that the poverty programs we have often don't address those problems. they're very, very hard to solve. the notion that the proposals set forward in this report are going to solve those deep structural problems, again, i find nonpersuasive. so i'll close by saying the following: i'm actually open to a lot of the policies, as i was in the aei/brookings report. i'm open to consolidating some of these programs, i'm opening to strengthening work requirements, i'm open to lowering the marriage -- [inaudible] more accountability and more choice. if you do them carefully, thoughtfully. however, people have to meet me halfway, and they have to acknowledge the evidence that some of these programs really do

perform positive things and not just demonize these programs. if you're going to have extra work requirements, you're going to have to provide appropriate work supports and services for people. what conservative scholar larry mead at nyu called help and happen. and whenever i talk to robert doar, i think the problem is he likes to do the same. it leads to a principle that we embraced in our report. nobody should be ticked off -- kicked off a benefit program if they haven't been offered a work with activity along with appropriate services and supports. and i support that principle. and if we want people to work in large numbers, sometimes you're going to have to engage in some job creation. the private market doesn't always get that right as we witnessed in the great recession, as we've witnessed in all kinds of depressed regions. that costs some significant be money. it can still be money well spent, and the emergency tanf program in the stimulus bill, some of the measures we had in that were effective. so i will stop.

i'm going to meet people half way and consider these arguments, but not in the context of a report like this that demonizes democrats, that demonizes programs and deny cans every bit of evidence on things that have actually worked. >> okay. thank you, harry. [laughter] >> i hope harry will tell us how he really feels. >> i e no. i know. [laughter] we're going to go to angela. five to seven minutes. >> okay, thank you. not quite sure or how to follow that up, but i will try to. it really is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. as robert mentioned, i study the effectiveness of primarily federal safety net programs here at aei with focus on trying to reduce poverty and low income in america. also as robert mentioned, for about a decade i worked for the new york city department of social services as the director for policy research, and in that position i really saw how these programs functioned, you know, at the ground level and how

people experienced them. so my comments are very much influenced by that experience, sort of working, you know, more in the field and at the ground level as well as the research that i've done as part of my academic work as well as here at aei. and i also just want to mention, you know, i'm very much a realist. i think it comes probably to a great extent from my midwestern roots, but also i spent a number of years in new york city's welfare department which is about as real as you can get. so my comments really sort of do reflect some of those, those experiences. you know, when i read the report, you know, i had a very different reaction than, you know, professor holzer who i respect very much. and, or you know, many of his comments resonate with me. but i didn't have quite the same reaction. you know, i feel that the plan articulates some very broad themes that i think do resonate with a number of people. i didn't look at it so much as, you know, a report that was

coming out of a scholarly institution, you know? i recognize that the report coming out of a political body and really trying to articulate some broad themes. and, again, many of those do resonate with me based on my experience and my research. and i think the report or the plan does touch on some issues that often times are criticized as political rhetoric, but i think that it's, if we're too, if it's too easy to dismiss some of them as political rhetoric, we don't get into some of the real issues. so i want to focus on, basically, three broad themes that i sort of took from the plan. one is on work, which we have heard quite a bit about. and, you know, both sides do agree that work is critical, obviously, to reducing poverty. but the major question is how do we encourage employment so that we can reduce poverty. as was proposed in the plan, work requirements can be an effective way to do that if implemented appropriately and

fairly, which, you know, to be honest they aren't always. but i think in general the intent behind work requirements are a good intent, and it's much of what we heard from the members of congress earlier. too often i also agree with the members, their comments earlier that too often these requirements are viewed as punitive and some kind of punishment to people because they're seeking benefits when really they shouldn't be viewed that way. they should be viewed as an opportunity to build people up and to provide work programs and to some extent training for people who may not be connected to those type of services. so the supplemental nutrition assistance program, for example, which does have a work component for individuals who are able-bodied without dependent children but doesn't have very robust programs for those who are not. to me, that seems like a missed opportunity rather than some sort of effort to try to implement punitive measures on those individuals. and i agree that work promotion

activities, work promotion requirements can be a larger partner of our other programs such as housing assistance which we heard about, housing assistance programs as well as our disability assistance programs and more broadly food assistance. research does primarily tell us that work is the best way out of poverty if families and if individuals are work-able. and it also shows us that work, as again was mentioned earlier, provides a sense of belonging, a sense of community, self-pride that is really critical not only for affluent people, but low income people as well, and why would we, why would we try to deny that for all americans? census data show us that about 60% of core, working-age people do not be work at all, and so those are the people that are denied some of these opportunities that employment can provide. the reasons that they give for not working are not inability to find a job. it's actually about less than 10% say they can't find a job.

it's primarily illness and disability and home and family responsibilities. so this suggests that a strong, robust economy with a lot of jobs can obviousing do a great -- obviously do a great deal to increase work, but it can't be the whole story. we need other efforts as well; reasonable work expectations can be a part of in this, but it's not the only part. it has to be coupled with supports that allow people to work. childcare assistance, for example, is a critical component. we can't expect parents to work in exchange for benefits if we're not providing assistance to them in the forms of childcare. and then we also know the federal policies that have effectively supported work, and we should continue to support those such as thenned income tack -- the earned income tax credit. as the report also mentioned, the eitc has problems in terms of improper payments. and again, i wouldn't be too quick to dismiss some of those, you know, and there's lots of

issues with the tax system. , but, you know, the eitc is one area, and that needs to be addressed. luckily, aei is putting out a report in the coming weeks that shows there are legitimate and credible ways to address some of these issues, and i hope for people that are interested in that, you'll have a chance to take a look. the second area that i think is of critical importance is the family, and we didn't talk a whole lot about that earlier. and it's kind of a hard thing to talk about. i mean, people often draw on their own values, their own personal beliefs when thinking about marriage from a public policy perspective. but if you look at the issue from a purely empirical perspective, the data are pretty clear. two-parent families experience less poverty. there's a good deal of research to support this. research, as harry mentioned, research has also shown that the government does not do a very good job in promoting marriage. but as the plan correctly

outlines, government should not necessarily be in the business of making low income parents who do decide to marry, making it financially -- or making it a disadvantage to them if they do decide to marry. my own research found when it comes to the eitc that for actual low income, unmarried parents, the penalty for the eitc can be in the range of $1500-3000 if an unmarried couple decides to marry. so these marriage penalties are real, and they need to be fixed, and it will cost money. and so that's another piece that's often not talked about when, you know, when some on the right talk about these marriage penalties. to get rid of marriage penalties, it will cost money, and it, you know, needs to be addressed in that context. the third point i want to make is around experimentation, and this really gets the to one of roberta's points from, you know,

the earlier panel about all these funding streams, that they're together and how, you know, they're able to take an approach that's more holistic, but a lot of, you know, the anti-poverty programs are not set up that way. the plan advocates for more state flexibility to experiment with some of these programs, and i do think that's the direction we need to go in at least on a pilot basis. states need to streamline these programs together, try innovative approaches. i really like the pay for success models that was mentioned in the plan, and there's other efforts as well, savings models, things like that. states need to have the ability to experiment with some of these things. and states really may be in a good position to do that. we learned from the 1980s and 1990s when states were experimenting with welfare programs that, you know, that changes could be made, and we need that same sense of experimentation today. i do, though, understand the concerns that some have that states may not be up to the task

to do that and that it's a risk for poor families. but i would argue that the federal government needs to then take the role of holding states accountable for these pilot programs, have rigorous evaluation, hold them accountable for outcomes and make it time limited so that if they're not producing the result, the funding goes away. and then one just last point i'll make before closing. the final statement in the plan was about the federal government's fiscal health and the needing to get the fiscal health in order and the need to shrink government. while that is true, you know, it doesn't have to mean just cutting safety net programs, and it also doesn't have to mean no new spending, for example. in my opinion, it should mean better targeting spending and spending money on things that are going to achieve the goals that we want to achieve. today we've heard and i've laid out those goals are work, family and experimentation. so if there are areas that are

not effective and you can have less spending, it should be realized that there may need to be new spending in childcare, for example, or paid leave for low income families, things that we know are going to support work and family, because those are the things that we are -- or those are the goals that we are trying to achieve. i looked at the plan a little bit differently than some others did, but i see a lot of possibilities in the republican study committee's empowerment plan. you know, we all won't agree on everything that's in the plan, but i do believe that there's a lot of agreement on both sides in the areas of work, family and experimentation, and i just hope that people will take the plan maybe a little bit more as i did as a broad framework for what can be achieved and try to work towards that. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much, angela and

harry, and i want to give the members an opportunity to comment on anything they've heard, and then i think i might have a follow-up question or two, and you might have a follow up, and then we might want to engage the audience and also our previous panelists. so i'll start with congressman barr. >> well, thank you very much. i'd like to first start by complimenting professor holzer for his passion. [laughter] >> not my politeness. [laughter] >> i think it was perfectly polite. >> thank you. >> let me compliment it, in all seriousness, for the passion. every one of us here should be outraged by witnessing people struggling in poverty. and there should be passion in this debate. and we may have vigorous disagreements. but what we all should be is passionate about this issue, because it's unconscionable that people in this country, a country built on the concept of the american dream, cannot escape poverty. because that denies the american, the uniqueness of the american experience.

and so when i go to eastern kentucky in the eastern part of my district, i go to wolf county, kentucky, i try to absolutely share that passion that professor holzer has. and when i meet a young woman named sally who comes up to me after a town hall meeting with tears streaming down her face and she says it's august, and we're going back to school, and my kids have grown -- my two children have grown out of their shoes, and i cannot afford to buy them shoes. so i went to walmart and bought them flip-flops just to go to school so that they wouldn't be embarrassed going barefoot to school. that deserves our passion. that deserves our outrage. and what she said was the reason why i can't afford shoes for my children is because my husband was laid off because his coal company doesn't have a permit. and he couldn't get a permit. so i would say, first and foremost, let's not promote government policies that actually produce poverty. first, let's not do things that

actually affirmatively put people into poverty. now, with respect to the the anti-poverty programs that we do have, let me come halfway to where professor holzer is as he requested. i think he deserves us to come halfway, and where i would come halfway is that, in truth, some of these anti-poverty programs that have been around for 50 years have alleviated material deprivation to a certain extent. the problem is that the spiritual deprivation remains, persists and is perhaps even whatser or baited. and so when -- even exacerbated. so when we look at programs in my district, we're looking at programs that don't maybe just on the margins alleviate material deprivation by providing some cash assistance or housing or what secretary castro says, let's put people with a roof over their head. what we want is something better than that. we want to alleviate the spiritual deprivation. we want to alleviate the idea that people can't achieve self-sufficiency and

independence so that they can put a roof over their own head. and so it's not that we deny that some of these programs on the margins have helped people like sally in eastern kentucky maybe get through a rough patch where her husband lost the job because of coal regulations or environmental regulations, but because we want sally's husband to go back to work because we want him to have an opportunity where we want her to have an opportunity so she cannot only buy shoes for her kids, but so that she can provide them with a life of greater opportunity. so we're not denying that we should come halfway. of course we should come halfway, and we should all share or in this passion -- share in this passion to do better in the war on poverty. and i want to say this. our report does credit president johnson in some regards for actually talking about the fact when he declared a war on poverty.

we need programs that tackle the root problems of poverty, not just mask the symptoms of poverty, but get at the root cause of poverty. so just in conclusion, that's what we're trying to do. we're trying to actually go with the core causes of poverty, not just mask over with some kind of transfer payment the symptoms of poverty. >> representative reed? >> well, thank you, robert. and i, too, want to echo some of the comments that andy made. i guess i'm the most senior member up here, being here relatively three terms. and the good professor articulated something that i've experienced numerous times especially in my district. i have the most left district, portions of the district with the most right portions of the district. we're very unique in that way. and often what i will hear is rhetoric, professor, such as yourself, that immediate knee-jerk response to potential reports in a partisan, political saying that we're attacking. and i can respect that. and i respect that opinion. but at the end of the day, what

we cannot do -- and i can promise you, professor, that i'm not leaving. i have done this numerous times in town hall meetings. i've been yelled at, calls every name in the book, i've actually been damned to hell for some of my political beliefs. >> i can help you with that. [laughter] >> well, there you go. get ready for it, mark. i'll be in the confessional for many, many hours. [laughter] but after an hour and a half and two hours, what i said is i'm not leaving because i care about this. and we're going to find an area that we agree on. and you know what happens? after you get through that rhetoric, and i've seen that in washington, d.c., it's amazing what we can agree upon if we're willing to at least get through the rhetoric to get to the substance. and so the professor articulates, i think, some of the things that we agree with, that angela points out. we believe and recognize in work. that's where we should spend our time going forward.

where can we find that common ground, that halfway point? where can we find the issues with the silos that the professor articulated is a problem? the issues that roberta keller from our district has demonstrated over a lifetime of commitment of changing how to break down those silos so that the left and right hands of government know what's going on in an individual's life. where can we promote, you know, those training skills, those educational skills that are going to arm people for a lifetime? because you see broad agreement in the reports that i've been part of that want to do that. and i think the professor from the comments i heard is committed to that. so this gives me a lot of optimism. and to the people that are watching this back home, somewhat this is kind of what d.c. operates like for the first 20, 30 minutes. but when the cameras are off and the lights are down, there are serious legislators like my colleagues here who are at this table here today who have committed themselves, begin up so much back at home -- given up so much back at home to get the people's business done that are

going to continue to do this work, because it's the right thing to do. and i can assure you, there will be many times where we meet halfway, professor, and we will be able to find solutions to these problems. because our fellow citizens deserve that. that's why we're here. and that's why i'm, again, inspired by jack kemp and the work that he did in his career here in washington d.c. >> representative walker, and then i have some questions on things maybe we can get agreement. >> sure. thank you. once again, it's been a privilege to be here today. i do believe that professor holzer's comments in some places were exaggerated, specifically i believe you indicted all three panel members saying all three of us had blamed, use your quote, all of this on these programs. i don't believe anybody up here made the case that all this is based on programs. if you were listening to some of my comments, i don't know how much of your notes were prepackaged, but if you were listening, i talked about some of the family and some of the

things there that were part of the issues as well. not just the program side. the other thing i heard you say if i remember correctly was that kids, kids that are on food stamps are better off as adults. i would love to know what report that is based on, and i'd love to get that information honestly there. that would help us there. and the final thing that you talked about, you said when it comes to school choice, you said some charter schools or some choice good and some of it's bad. that's a pretty broad, sweeping statement that really doesn't give you an idea one way or the other, but i would say this in conclusion with my thoughts here, who is it better to make those choices, bureaucrats or parents? so even if not everything is measured fit9 far at the for -- tit for tat, i would venture to guess, how many times those parents make the choice as opposed to more washington bureaucrats. so those are just a few comments. if we have time, we'll get into

some more things, but i will say this. washington, whatever program you want to call it, has failed when it comes to particular genre of mindset when it says we measure success of our programs by how many people we put on as opposed to how many people we transition off. until we think the transition off success and not adding on is the other success, then i think we've got some problems there. thank you. >> so one of the things we hear in these debates a lot -- and thank you very much, congressman, and all of you. they were all wonderful. i want to focus on one particular issue, and that is the work requirement issue. and, harry, i think i heard you say that for an able-bodied individual on food stamps, for instance, because this is really where it sometimes comes to bear, an offered job that is declined or an offered activity that is declined or failed to show up for might engender a response from the agency providing that assistance in an effort to get them to comply or to take advantage of what's being offered them.

how do you react to a work requirement that isn't get a job or lose your benefit, but take this job that we're offering or take this activity that's here and will be on -- is available for you tomorrow, and if you fail to do that, then there could be consequences. how do you react to that? >> well, i'm open to certain versions of that. now, you and i sat through many hours of people debating this issue, and some of these people who are called able-bodied often suffer from pretty severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder that might cause them not to show up. of i like -- whenever you and i talk about programs that have work requirements, the service piece of it is in -- and the support piece is very strong. so maybe not the first time somebody doesn't show, but i think if you have a repeated pattern, and if there have been efforts made to be supportive, you know, the larry mead help model, then i'm more open to considering some version of that. >> i would say that in the experience that i had in new

york city where we really pushed s.n.a.p. or food stamps as a support to low wage households where the wages weren't enough to rise them above parrty level, that's a good thing, but it turned out many, many, many able-bodied adults, working-age adults, recipients of food stamps who we thought we were giving the work support weren't working, and they weren't on tanf, so we don't know what they were doing. and failing to address that is an issue. i mean -- >> i'm open to that. again, as long as the supports and services are provided along with it. >> and then for you guys, so, you know, block grants or state experimentation. are you -- how do you feel about testing that kind of flexibility first? >> well, if i could, i think that's, our hand-up act that we've written, and that's part of some of the proposals that are out there, to give that flexibility, that waiver authority, to make sure that

it's not just a blanket block grant, like that's the solution that's going to be all solutions. it's about having accountability, having that flexibility. so i would say experimentation, flexibility, making sure that we watch and look for the unintended consequences that we're dealing with, because this is complex. it is not as easy as black and white, because each case is unique. >> why they were not accord

coordinated or working together. you know what the food stamp problem is if you are working in new york. if washington decided in your state to use that funding source as the way to give states greater flexibility. instead of allowing the federal government to provide that benefit through the ebt card but instead gave it to states and your programs to find a way to use that money who service the clients you serve. would that alarm you? >> you mean eliminate the food stamp program? >> yeah and take that money and instead give it to your state and say you can give them your version of food stamps but you could also give them a work program or earning supplement. >> this is like have you stopped

beating your wife yet? you cannot get the answer. i think pick one thing and cut it off like that i would not agree. the reason being, i agree with the flexibility. i do. but that is a super important program and to just pick one and cut it out and dwelve out the money. anybody in the room could pick a program and say it is crazy we are spending this money and it is stupid and that is fine. but this has to be bigger. referring to the holistic we have to go to at least a two-prong attack. i don't have a job and can't buy shoes. we have to fix our education. we have to make sure kids are getting edge kate -- educated so when they are 20 they are not there. >> i am scared of block grants.

in new york, it is one of the large largest bureaucracies in the country. the first thing they do is fill in the gaps to keep its in place. i don't think new york is different than other states and philosophies. new york will keep burr first but other states may not philosophic philosophically believe in feeding children. so for different reasons it may have terrible consequences. i think that food and housing and these issues, when i talk holistically and the need for flexibility and more integration

between the services. i am not against block grants but i believe they need oversight and accountability. there are a lot of questions during the bush administration about the block grants and i think that in the last eight years there has been a lot of oversight on csbg and same thing with head start. head start was questioned during the bush administration and i think it is one of the most phenomenal programs in the country. i think people have no idea what the children are coming to school with. if you can take the children who have lived in five generations of poverty and tell me in the fourth grade they are equal to other fourth graders you have performed a miracle. >> do you want to comment on this? i have a couple others.

>> just real quickly. even though the trends are alarming and i don't think that if we look at the national trends we can keep it up. i would say no to block grants to the state. but i will say yes to, when you look at the department of labor and getting people in internships, a lot of people the empl employers and job creators are like we love what you are doing but don't want to take the risk as it relates to someone coming into the company and the department of labor rules and regulations apply to them. we understand how to relax those rules when the comes to the academy. people do internships and we understand how to relax the rules when it comes to interning in the hospital and medical field. we can change and tweak the legislation so that the employer who creates jobs, federal government don't create jobs, will be able to kind of minimize the risk so that if they give someone a chance to intern and

it doesn't work out now they are not playing unemployment insurance. let's look at it from that perspective. those are things we can do to help. thank you. >> you want to follow-up and i want to ask you a question about the tanif and disconnected moms who are on snap. they are not disconnected from government assistance. >> they are disconnected from cash assistance. >> so altering the food stamp program might be the solution. they are right there. we know where they are. i could get a list and track them down. >> i am sure it is a significant number but let's look at the experiment with tanf. i think it certainly did some good especially in the first four or five years when the labor market was really strong. it assumes a very strong labor

market. when the labor market got less strong it didn't do wonders. i don't believe the problems are there because obama gutted the work rules. there are other things. but one thing we have learned about tanf and i recommend the hamilton project at brookings which is a centralist outfit had a program about a month or two ago on potential safety net reform and a good paper on this talking about the pluses and minuses of tanf. they found that states spend a lot of this money on things not even remotely related to the poor. so one of the recommendations that came out, and nobody wants to get rid of tanf. we want to keep the good that was accomplished but build in the safe guards and appropriate oversight to a eliminate.

there should be some rule saying maybe half of the money should be spent on what they call core support. cash assistance, child care, and things of that nature. that is what we ought to be talking about here. let's look at the failures as well as the successes of flexibility and try to come to a middle place that has the benefits and doesn't -- you know, without the costs. >> in partial defense, there is the letter of the law and spirit of the law. i think there is a sense among people who worked in social services programs with an emphasis on work requirements has not been a high priority of the obama administration. that comes through in the tanf administration and other administration of social security programs that don't have them and they are not interested in bringing them into play. i had another question with eitc. did you want to comment?

i want to press you on the irs. >> can i just touch on the work requirements and incentives and the issues raised by the professor. perhaps the labor market is not in a place to accommodate additional jobs. one bit of anecdotal response to that is there is a paradox in the labor market with high -- labor participation problems. yet, when you go actually and talk to plant managers and hr directors throughout the congressionalal districts, the anecdotal evidence is strong there is a demand for unskilled workers. many plant workers in my district tell me, and this is a district with elevated up employment particularly in the east, and employers say i don't even need a skilled worker. just an unskilled worker who is on time and drug-free. that is what i need. i think a little bit of that is overblown.

i think there are jobs available but there is a labor market paradox there. another report says we focus on able-bodied, non-senior citizen age folks for the work incentives. i believe the disabled can contribute meaningful in the labor market and we ought not say they cannot. the professor is right. there are is systematic issues we mead to deal with. the report addresses that. ee talk about portability -- we -- of vouchers so people can escape low-income neighborhoods where there are no jobs and take a voucher to a place where they can actually get to work. >> angel, you want to pipe in on

the labor force? >> just quickly and i mentioned this earlier but it is worth emphasizin emphasizing. the vast majority of working age people are not looking for work saying illness or disability or home and family responsibilities. it may be they have given up looking for work because they are frustrated in the labor market. when i hear things about we have a mismatch in jobs or there is not enough jobs available i think we are missing the point that there is a lack of even looking for work. we need to address those issues if we hope to get more people to work. >> you would agree, and all three congress members would, a lot of people that don't show up in the surveys are men with criminal records who face huge barriers because there is enormous evidence employers don't want to hire someone with a criminal record and if child support they have been sent to court for that. so there are different problems.

or if the mom again has a substance problem, which many do, tanf doesn't get rid of that or post traumatic stress disorder or depression and there is evidence -- that could be the point. >> it is not an absence of opportunities. it is an absence of people moving to take advantage of the opportunities. >> there are low wage jobs available and people left the labor market because those jobs are unattractive. they didn't get married. dropped out of the labor force. it is a complex problem but not either/or. >> congressman, any one of the three of you, one thing tupeers to me and we all agree on there is an inappropriate ratio in the earned tax income credit which is the largest program.

$70 billion a year. 20%, 18% improper payment rate. it does reward and incentivize work so many republicans like it. if the irs came to us and said we can fix this but need to fund so we don't send out payments to people for the wrong reasons how would you respond? >> certainly the means as direct oversight and knows the irs commissioner i think there could be an appetite for that conversation. but it would not be okay. we are going to give you more money overall. it could be a conversation as simple as we need to prioritize this. where can we potentially reallocate resources within the irs that is not working and needs to be deployed into a higher priority and i think you could find the halfway ground both of us could come to and that is a conversation that is

happening, will happen and continues to happen because we recognize as the agencies get bigger and bigger and the irs is an example of that resource issue is a serious question. it isn't just an end all be all. more money is not solving this problem. i have seen it in other agencies across the spectrum. >> and congressman walker, i would be curious, because we recognize the long term fiscal health of the country is at risk. i think the bulk of income we spend on americans is medicaid. so the health care world takes that with payments to providers and management plans. i wonder how whether you react to that desire to maybe to find ways to spend more in some things but less in other things that are less efficient and the

total spending on programs for the poor remains about the same. how do you react to that dispor portionate spending in health care? are you in this for long term solutions or something at stake that is more important? >> it has to be a long-term goal. the short term may get you celebrated in certain circles. but one of the reasons we are a strong component of repealing the sgr was to look at this long term when it comes to health care options. the chitwood authorization programs things like that. we thought that was giving to long term. first, in my opinion, reform intigi entitlement is crucial to look at this long-term whether it is health care, or education, or issues we are talking about

today. there are times but let me say this. we are here to talk about the tough issuesment they are not tough issues or quick and easy fixes. i commend my fellow members here of longer than i have been in congress being willing to tackle something that is a difficult issue. it is very easy to make other issue, the ones at the top of the story lines, featured on different talk shows, but these are issues that have to be long-term resolved. i will say the people are going to be the ones resolving this are people who love genuinely the people we have a chance to represent.

if there is not a genuine concern we don't accomplish anything long term. and challenging the spirit among the panel is inappropriate or not one that is -- i don't believe in we can let certainly the reporters or the audience decide at some point that this has been an overerly partisan shot from the panel. i believe it has been right down the middle where comments were made as far as this or that decision made by some in the past, yes. but nobody is up here bashing the left. i am not sure the word democrats was used a single time by any member on the panel. i want to make sure i have a chance to address this. we are working for solutions and work in these environments. we are back in the places seeing the the progress. >> it is worth noting that the data shows all three districts

have portions that are struggling and not getting better. i'm now open it up for questions. we have about 15 minutes. here are the rules about questions. we like questions. we don't like statements. brief comments and then a question and any of the panelist can address it. let's get some hands up. where do we have a question? right here in the white. >> thank you for being here and having this discussion. it is empowering. i am from south carolina and it is very good to see this conversation going on from both sides of the aisle. briefly, i wanted to give an example and then pose the

question to you. early in my career, i worked in transitional housing without save the world. i worked with a lot of individuals and we worked with them to do job training, to get them the skills to expect what they needed. she was offered a promotion but if she took the raise and promotion she would lose every benefit they would have. instead of moving forward, which would have been a lost to her, she got fired, she lost her job and went back to square one. so i would be curious to see and would almost venture to say that a large majority of the folks

you see who don't move forward may find themselves in that same situation. so i am curious as to how the policy that you are looking at might address the gap between those folks who the reality is, especially in south carolina, a good minimum wage job be the reality for some. how do we build support for them? how do we bridge that gap between dependents and independents so we are not incentivizing people to go back to square one and how do you help states use earned income tax credit to do so? >> this is a major issue in the discussion of the proper calibrating of benefits so you are better off by taking the higher paying jobs for additional hours.

>> this has to be a shared solution by the taxpayer and individual. we did a lot of work on the disability trust fund and worked with the disability community. essentially your message is what the individual hears. they hear if you do well you will be penalized. we have two tools in government in my mind. the market pressure and the government mandate. what i am looking at is by having a shared 3-1 glide pass, for every $3 earned one dollar you keep and one goes back to the taxpayer or whatever the ratio could be. we could have an argument and discussion about that for hours. but i think sharing that incentive makes sense to me. not a cliff effect where if you

go over the cliff you lose dollar or dollar. that makes sense on top level but when you live it, see it, and dive down, sharing the results of that positive step forward sends the right message to the people on the benefit that if you are working you should be able to keep some of what you earned but the taxpayer should share in that saving as it goes forward and you could come up with a solution in an easy time to take that approach. >> in about 15-20 seconds i can say quickly no transitional program should provide a cliff environment for the recipient. there should be no penalty for that upper mobility process, if there is, it is a huge deterrent and probably realize it doesn't have much success. >> and one more thing to add. the other thing that happens because the left and right hand don't know what is going on in government nobody knows where the cliffs are. the individuals are scared because they were told by one office, and they don't know the

difference between housing and snap. they are just trying to get help and assistances. so if you have different clips at levels and program it is complex. >> i would add that the cliff effect is observed by people like you and service providers and transitional housing providers but observed in the labor market. so back to the example of the plant manager or hr manager interviewing someone and interview as a condition to keep the public assistance but decline the job offer because it would not put them in a better position. this is verbatim from multiple people in the district. we are paying people to not work. smoothing out and ending those

cliffs is critical to getting people back in the labor market. >> just two things. number one. there are stories about cliffs that are realities. the evidence, look at the congressional budget office report from 2015. the average marginal tax rates are not as high uniformally. you can get to a place -- uniformly -- but to solve this problem it takes more money to provide transitional benefits as people -- and we have to do that with the itc. it costs more money. so you can do this but the -- if you want to spend the money -- >> if i could. it is very important to note that our report is not about cutting budgets. our report says nothing about

cutting budgets. our report is about lifting lives. smooth it out. it might take a little on the front end of ali but the return is significant because people will get into the stable, long term employment. >> where the cliff is today doesn't mean you have to keep the threshold there. if you move it back, you may not have to have as much additional money if you start from the starting point of where you are today. that sends a policy message of we are in it with you. >> this comes from administrator experience surrounded by wonderful economist like larrla. hundreds of times you hear people telling you this exists and they talked to people who made a choice with regard to their future based on the potential loss of benefits and

the economic evidence and i have to just say it is a close call. i am not persuaded by studies alone that this isn't what is really happening because i hear about it everywhere i go and i saw it at hra in new york city. it is not necessary they are worse off but not better off after the wages. they might be better but it is only marginal. i would only add accompanied with a requirement that is there as well. if you just smooth off and then it is well, we will let the economics take care of it, and you don't have the hassle saying no, we pulled it off and made it possible to make it work for you and you still decline this opportunity as an entry level, but a job, then i think you have something that will violate the values of the american people. they want people to be helped. but they also want them to be

expected to make an effort to help themselves. so let's see what else? i would like to see, yes, sir, right here. >> this is going to be the last question and for c-span, we have five minutes. >> no pressure. going on about congressman walter and patrick cleveland. my dad was a pastor in the '80s. even back then the unification church was talking about beware of government hands coming into your church. what can we do with socially conservative issues being litigated in the court. how can we empower these communities to do these things? >> my dad is a pastor preacher to this day. fifth decade. to me, there are, and i believe there is efrd to support this. as much as we can to keep

government out of the way, not to be too cliche. i think when you said that back it the tornado that hit moore, oklahoma, i remember hearing the newscast on cbs and nbc brian williams said if you are waiting on the federal government you might be waiting a while but the baptist men are here. gives you an idea of how quickly non-profits and faith base groups can get together with the red tape. just because a faith based organization is connected to the government we don't want to put too many restrictions on them to do the work they did in the past. >> anybody have anything they wanted to say they didn't get to say? >> i am likely the only

democratic political person in the room and there is a lot to be said. i worked for michael bloomberg. he is in between. i think i misrepresented myself. >> what is the right way to think about this? congressman walker said it is not how many people get on but how many people get off is the measure of success. i want to disagree with that. it is not by how many people get on or off. there are a lot of working people in low rated jobs that need these supports. they use food stamps to get their families above poverty. that is not a failure. if we help working people, that is my goal. i want people working and i want working people to rise above poverty. ...

that's what they do and we are trying to create. >> thank you all for being here and thank you all for this wonderful panel. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] congressman greg wellman who chairs the house republican campaign arm said today that despite the focus on donald trump's down ballot affect hillary clinton is the one who could end up dragging her party down in many of the competitive races.

here's a preview of his comments which you can find at c-span.org. >> you mentioned you get asked a lot about the top of the ticket. what effect the think the nominee, the republican nominee is going to have on your members >> you know it depends district by district. most cases i will tell you that donald trump is more popular than hillary clinton but in addition to that our members have thereon unique identities because they are working in their districts. people know them. they are favorable and unfair robots are very strong and if you've been out doing your work in your districts your voters know you and i will tell you it's a lot easier to link the democrats to hillary clinton because she is quintessential as that which meant democrats party continuing the obama administration forever and ever then linking the republicans to donald trump. they will try that but they are totally different styles of

campaigning. c sounds like you are expecting your candidates to want to distance themselves from trump. >> know the candidates get to do whatever they wanted me we'll see in many cases we have members and candidates that are openly embracing the nominee. they are out on television all the time and in their districts. that happens virtually every time. their people get further out with a nominee or not and i think you are seeing in that in some cases with hillary clinton. >> wooderson cases where you c? >> i think you sit around the country where they are shying away. they are trying to distance. nancy pelosi for example isn't omaha the other night had dinner with brad ashford and there's a big kerfuffle about whether she was there to help them or not and all that. each of these races is going to be different. >> you can see all that

representative waldman said at c-span.org. he spoke at an event hosted by the atlantic today, the first day the republican convention in letwin. in cleveland.

>> today are concerned must be be -- for the world is changing. the old era is ending and the old ways will not do. c even on to become the youngest person elected president while also featured notable female speakers including u.s. representative from texas barbara jordan who spoke at the 1976 convention in new york city and became the first african-american woman to be a keynote speaker. >> our concept of governing

arrives from our field people. it is a concept deeply-rooted in a set of beliefs firmly etched in the conscience. >> than the 1984 convention in san francisco with former new york congresswoman geraldine ferrero who was the first woman to be nominated for vice president by major political party and ann richards who in 1988 was the state treasurer for texas. she spoke at the convention in atlanta that year and later became the 45th governor of texas. also the 1992 convention in new york city with arkansas governor bill clinton accepting his party's nomination. >> in the name of all those who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the kids and play by the rules in the name of the hard-working americans who make up our middle class i proudly accept your nomination for president of the united states.

>> past national conventions next saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> president obama awarded retired lieutenant colonel charles cavils the medal of honor at a white house ceremony today. as a fly commander during the vietnam war he was credited with saving the lives of 40 soldiers by flying several trips to rescue them. this is about 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen the president of the united states accompanied by lieutenant charles kettles.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> let us pray. lord, god, source of all that is good and just, be with us now and help us begin this ceremony in gratitude for this opportunity to recognize and honor your gifts of courage and selfless service, witness to us in these heroic acts of lieutenant colonel charles

kettles who in his courage remind us today and tomorrow of the great human dignity that possesses an indomitable spirit to serve and protect those most in need. we ask now that lieutenant colonel kettles actions be honored, provide hope and inspiration for those who face the perils of terror and danger as they serve their brothers and sisters. lord, bless this ceremony, the acts we honor that they may strengthen the values that we hold dear in this nation and our military and our families and our way of life. and we ask all of this in your holy name, amen. >> good morning everybody. please have a seat. welcome to the white house.

of all the privileges of this office, none is greater than serving as the commander in chief of the finest military that the world has ever known. and of all the military durations that our nation can bestow, we have none higher than the medal of honor. as many who know him have said, nobody deserves it more than charles kettles. many believe that except for chuck. [laughter] as he says, this seems like a hell of a fuss over something that happened 50 years ago. [laughter] even now, all these years later chuck is defined by his humility which shaped him as a soldier. at 86 years old he still looks

sharp as a tack in the uniform. i pointed out he is obviously not gained any weight. and his life is as american as they come. the son of an immigrant, his father signed up to fly for the united states the day after pearl harbor until his five boys with a deep sense of duty to their country. a time served in army reserve. for a time even as he served in the army reserve, chuck ran a ford dealership with his brother and two families who drove a new karoff that lock the salesman who helped put an american icon in their driveway. to the aviation student said eastern michigan university chuck is the professor who taught them about the wonder of flight in the country that invented it. to the constituents he served as a rare republican as hometowns mostly democratic city council chuck is the public servant who made sure that their voices were

heard. and he and his beautiful bride who grew up literally as the girl next door, chuck is a devoted husband. next march they will celebrate their 40th anniversary, so happy anniversary. [applause] in a lot of ways check is american and to the dozens of american soldiers that he saved, in vietnam have a century ago, chuck is the reason they live and came home and had children and grandchildren. the entire family trees were made possible by the actions of this one man. we are honored to be joined not only by him but also eight of chuck and ann's 10 children in three of their grandchildren. it is the kettle family reunion here at the white house.

we are also honored to be joined by chuck's brothers in arms from vietnam and some of chuck's knew his comrades members of the medal of honor society. may 15, 1967 started as a hot monday morning. soldiers from the 101st airborne were battling hundreds of heavily armed north vietnamese in a rural riverbed. our men were outnumbered. they needed support fast. helicopters to get the wounded out and bring more soldiers into the fight. check kettles was a pilot and just as a volunteer for active duty on this morning he volunteered even though he knew the danger. he called this place chuck valley for a reason. upload the riverbed rows a 1500-foot tall hill and the enemy was dug into an extensive series of tamils.

the ideal spot for an ambush. but chuck jumped into the put -- cockpit into copied around 9:00 a.m. his company approached the landing zone and looked down they should have seen a. >> of green trees. instead they sought a solid wall of green and in the tracers coming right at them. none of them had ever seen fire that intense. the soldiers in the helos were hit and killed but under withering fire chuck landed his chopper and kept it there exposed to the wounded kid get off and said that he could fly them back to the base. a second time chuck went back into the valley he chopped off more soldiers and supplies, picked up more wounded. once more machine-gun bullets and mortar rounds came streaming after them. as he took off for second time around pierce the arm and leg of

the door gunner. chuck was hit and fuel was pouring out as he flew away. chuck had wounded men aboard and decide to take his chances. atlanta, found another helicopter and flew them to the field hospital. by now it was near evening feedback and riverbed 44 american soldiers were still pinned down. the air was thick with gunpowder and smell the burning metal and then they heard a thanks sound and as the sun started to set a saw something rise over the horizon, six american helicopters. as one of them said as beautiful as could be. for a third time chuck and his unit headed into it. death or injury was all but certain as a fellow pilot said later and a lesser person would not have returned. once again the enemy unloaded

everything they had on chuck as they landed three small-arms, automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades through the soldiers ran to the helicopters. when chuck was told all were counted for he took off in midair his radio told him something else. eight men had not made it aboard. they had been providing cover for the others. those eight soldiers had run for the choppers but could only watch as they floated away. we all figured we were done for they said. chuck came to the same conclusion. we left them for 10 minutes he said they would be p.o.w.s or dead. the soldier who was there said that a major kettles became our john wayne. with all due respect to john wayne. [laughter] he couldn't do what chuck kettles did. he broke off from formation took a steep sharp dissenting turned

back toward the valley, this time with no aerial or artillery support. a lone helicopter heading back in. chuck was the only target for the enemy to attack and they did traces lit up the sky once more. chuck came in so hot that his chopper bounce for several hundred feet before coming to a stop. as soon as he landed, a mortar round shattered his windshield and another hit the main rotor blades. shrapnel tore through the cockpit and chuck's chair and still those eight soldiers started to sprint to the huey running through the firestorm chased by bullets. check c. load now badly damaged securing 13 souls than 600 pounds over limit. it felt his head like flying a 2.5-ton truck.

he couldn't huddle long enough to take off but the cool customer that he is, he says he saw his shattered windshield and thought that's pretty good air-conditioning. it's filled with hot smoke as he hopped and skipped the hilo across the ground to pick up enough speed to take off like a jack rabbit he said bouncing across the riverbed. the instant he got airborne another mortar ripped into the tail and the huey fishtailed violently and a the soldier was thrown out of the helicopter hanging onto a skid as chuck flew them to safety. he couldn't make this up. it's like a bad rambo movie. [laughter] but you are listening to this and you can't believe it. so the army is warrior is based

on this simple principle the soldier never leaves his comrade behind. chuck kettles honored that creed, not with a single act of heroism but over and over and over and because of that heroism 44 american soldiers meted out that day. 44. we are honored today to be joined by chuck's door gunner who was hit, the last soldier chuck rescued that day the one who figured he was done for, dewey smith and a number of soldiers that are vietnam veterans who thought in that battle. gentlemen, i would ask you to either stand if you can or waive so that we can thank you for your service. [applause]

[applause] [applause] now, chuck's heroism was recognized at the time by the army second highest award for galler -- valor but bill milano decided chuck deserved an upgrade. he's a retired social worker to which a chuck's house to interview him for projects sponsored by the local rotary club and overheard the interview from the other room and told the story that i told olivia. this. this is something that chuck i have in common, we do what our wives tell us to do. chuck told the story and with his trademark humility he finished it by saying it was a piece of cake.

[laughter] bill, hearing the story started a five year mission along with chuck's son bike a retired navy pilot to award chuck the medal of honor. bill and mike are here as his congresswoman debbie dingell who along with her legendary husband john dingell went above and beyond to pass a law to make sure that even all these years later we can fully recognize chuck kettles's heroism as we do today so we thank them for their efforts. that's one more reason the story is quintessentially american. looking out for one another and the belief that nobody should be left behind. this shouldn't just be agreed for our soldiers, it should be agreed for all of us. this is a country that is never finished in its mission to

improve, to do better, to learn from our history, to work to form a more perfect union. and at a time when that space it you have had a couple of tough weeks. for us to remember the goodness and decency of the american people and the way we can all look out for each other even when times are tough, even when the odds are against us, what a wonderful inspiration. what a great gift for us to be able to celebrate something like this. it might take time but having failed to give our veterans who fought in vietnam a full measure of thanks and respect that they had earned, we acknowledge that our failure to do so was a shame we resolved that it would never happen again. they can take time but old

adversaries can find peace thanks to the leadership of so many vietnam vets who have the courage to rebuild ties. i was able to go to vietnam recently and see people as enthusiastic about america as anyplace in the world, crowds lining the streets. and we were able to say that on a whole lot of issues vietnam and the united states are nonpartisan. here at home it might take time but we have to remember everyone on our team just like chuck kettles and sometimes sometimes with a turnaround sometimes with to turn around and get back and help those who need a lift. chuck said the most gratifying part of this whole story is that do a's name and the name of 42 other darkens he saved are not etched in the solemn granite wall not far from here the memorial of those who have

fallen in the vietnam war. instead it will be chuck kettles name forever etched on the in southern california to south carolina in honor of those who have burned the medal of honor. of course chuck says all this attention is a lot of how about but i will survive. [laughter] chuck you have survived much worse than the ceremony and on behalf of the american people let me say this how about is richly and roundly deserved. as a military aide or peers read the citation please join me in saluting this proud american soldier and veteran who reminds us all of the true meaning of service. lieutenant colonel chuck kettles. [applause]

[applause] >> the president of the united states of america authorized by an act of congress march 3, 1863 has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to you major charles s. kettles united states army. major chuck kettles has served as flight commander 176 aviation company airmobile flight 14 combat aviation battalion america a division republic of vietnam on 15 may, 1967 major kettles upon learning an airborne unit suffered casualties during an intense firefight immediately volunteered to lead the fight of six uh-1 delta helicopters to carry reinforcements to the

battle to evacuate wounded personnel. enemy small-arms automatic weapons and mortar fire inflicted heavy damage to the helicopters. however major catalyst refused to the refused to the pardon to all helicopters were loaded to capacity. he then returned to the battlefield with full knowledge of the intense enemy fire awaiting his arrival to bring more and reinforcements landing in the midst of enemy mortar and automatic weapons fire that seriously wounded his gunner and severely damaged his aircraft. departing major kettles was devised -- advice he had fuel coming out of his aircraft. he nursed the damage aircraft back to base. later that day the infantry commander requested and needed emergency extraction to the remaining 40 troops including four members of major kettles unit that were stranded. with only one uh-1 helicopter

remaining major kettles volunteered to return to the deadly landing zone for the third time leading six evacuation helicopters five a witch whisper from the 160 verse aviation company. during the starch and major catalyst was informed about helicopter that all personnel were on board and a part of the landing zone accordingly. army gunship supporting the evacuation also departed the area. once airborne major kettles was advice that agents have been unable to reach the calico or is due to intense enemy fire. with complete disregard for his own safety major kettles has to lead to another helicopter and returned to the remaining troops and without gunship artillery or tactical air support enemy concentrate all firepower on this aircraft which was immediately damaged by mortar round that shattered the windshield in the chin bubble and was further. by small-arms and machine gun fire. despite the attempts -- intense enemy fire of major kettles maintain control the aircraft in the situation allowing time for

the remaining eight soldiers to join the aircraft. despite severe damage to his helicopter major kettles guided his heavily damaged aircraft to safety and without his courageous actions and his superior flying skills the less group of soldiers and his crew would never have made it off the battlefield. major kettles selfless act of repeated valor and determination are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great -- and united states army. [background sounds] [background sounds]

[laughter] >> with that go forward with joyful prayer with these words, do not afraid for i have redeemed you, have called you by name or you are mine. when you pass through waters i will be with you, through reverse you shall not be swept away. when you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned nor will flames consume you. let us now go forth into the world in peace, dedicated to your service. amen. >> ladies and gentlemen that concludes the ceremony but we have a reception. i hear the food here is pretty good. let's get one more round of applause. [applause] mr. chuck kettles. [applause]

[applause] ♪ ♪ ..

[applause] >> the republican national convention all this week on c-span. the c-span radio app and c-span.org and on monday watch the democratic convention like live philadelphia. >> host: and lawrence strickling is our guest today and you are within the department of commerce. what does that administration do? >> guest: it is the principle advisor to the president on telecommunication and policy issues.