to be how do we improve the programs that are in place? are they working? are they working as well as they can? what can we do to make them work more efficiently? mr. doar, you mentioned snap oftentimes replaces work. i wish you would expand on that. >> well, the feeling in the period after the end of the recession in new york city was that we had pushed the snap enrollment efforts as a work support and countercyclical efforts to help people going through difficult times to such an extent that the case load, then as the economy recovered, that there were maybe households and families and individuals taking advantage of the benefit and not working to the extent they could have. we actually tried to, using volunteer programs, and we had a work requirement, to push people into our work programs to help them get the jobs. if you do look at the data there is a portion of the case load that is not seniors, it's not children, it's not disabled, but

doesn't appear to be working. -just thought that that appeared to be a problem that we ought to address. you can't live on food stamps income alone. so something was going on there that was missing out in the work push of the tanif program we ought to address. >> and you saw positive results when you did? >> when we had people come in and take advantage of the work employment programs that are tied to tanf and we expended to it some food stamp recipients, they got jobs. >> there is a remarkable graph in your written testimony as jobs go down, poverty goes up. it's a pretty significant correlation, is it not? >> the economy is the key ingredient to improving lives. >> when we look at some of the programs the federal government institutes, oftentimes there are byproducts that may or may not have been intended. one as a physician closely

looking at the aca over the implementation, we've seen, and you mentioned there are significant disincentives to work within obamacare, within the affordable care act. can you expand on that? >> casey mulligan has done interesting work at the university of chicago indicating, and this is not for the poverty population. it's more likely to be people much further up the income ladder who are receiving a subsidy, but the subsidy is tied to their income. to the extent their income goes up, they may lose more in the subsidy for health care, and i believe the congressional budget office wrote a report saying there was a job reduction aspect to the affordable care act. that's a concern. >> may i add on poverty -- >> on the testimony of the cbo director before this committee a couple of months ago was aca has disincentives for work within it. you mentioned you felt we should

reinvigorate tanf. how would you reinvigorate a program that has worked in the past? >> as i look at the statistics across the country and look at what i see coming from the federal government, i sense an ambivalence from the work reform program. the role of the federal oversight is significant. how often are they in your office? how often did they write you aler or ask why your statistics aren't getting better? in some programs, child law enforcement, food stamps, there was a significant involvement, in my experience in new york city. i had not seen that in the tanf. i looked at a chart to the extent which states had been in penalty status as a result of failing to need to work participation rates, and i don't think any state has been in penalty status in the united

states in five years, which just shows there may be less of an enthusiasm about the work requirement aspects of tanf. >> if i could comment on that, the federal government encouraged states to recruit food stamp recipients and they give bonuses for the increase in food stamp recipients that states have measured as a percentage of everybody that's potentially eligible. this is a counterproductive policy. i think it contributes to the increase in the nonworking food stamp case load, excluding aged and disabled. >> so i would add on -- >> from the able-bodied 2.3 million. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

thank you the witnesses for appearing. i have half the time they had so i hope you would answer my questions very quickly. how are you, mr. turner? >> very good to see you again, representative moore. >> it is. we do have a history, mr. turner. i know a lot of your experience you've done fantastically in your career was based on your work with tommy thompson at a time when i was a state senator. and so i do have some questions related to that. i'll just get right in there. are you concerned that some of the policies that you are promoting really promote women becoming a permanent underclass in our economy? the reason i ask that is because you focused on, for example, work first. we all know sitting here, all of us are educated in this room. that some kind of post secondary

education gives you more opportunities in the job market. while there's a lot of agreement work certainly helps your income-earning potential, the strict denial in limited educational opportunity really cuts that off. the day we passed so-called w-2 in wisconsin, 10,000 women in wisconsin lost their opportunity to go to technical college and higher education. that's my first question. >> yes. you'll also recall, senator moore, that milwaukee -- >> representative moore now. i'm entitled to both the titles. >> okay. i'm sorry about that. representative moore. the milwaukee poverty rate went from 34% to 26% in the first five years of w2. >> let's back up though because the economy is not doing well.

>> yes, but that's because so many people were streaming into the labor force. just because they are not enrolled in a program doesn't mean people don't take jobs. >> we didn't keep data and statistics whether they were going into work or not. that was a deliberate activity. i was there. let me ask you another question. when you talk about the 29% of tanf dollars don't go for benefits, and you say they are going for more productive uses. what was your thought of the $18 million in profit that went with that first round of tanf dollars? what productive use was that in the milwaukee area? i ask that question because i believe that all it did was incentivize people who were not necessarily public workers, as you propose, to keep people from getting benefits. remember we had these diversion specialists. you could walk in with a big

belly, nine months pregnant, two kids hanging on you and it was their job to deny you as many benefits as possible. i want you to respond to what productive use you think the $18 million was. >> the 29% figure, representative moore, is the current proportion of tanf federal funds that go to cash benefits. that means 71% of all that tanf block grant money is going to childcare, working families, some going into the state. >> okay, good. i have one more question because my time is waning. you gave us an example section 8 housing in your review of the welfare state. $16 billion for section 8 to provide people with stable housing opportunities, low-income people, and they've been receiving these benefits

too long. there is a moral hazard dependency. what dependency does the $70 billion a year we spend on the mortgage interest reduction, which i look forward to every year, what kind of moral hazard is it and what productive use is the mortgage introduction of $70 billion versus $16 billion to our economy? >> as you may know, if you get a section 8 certificate, that can be worth $250,000 in that present value, yet there is no connection between what happens once you get take a voucher like that and your obligations to go to work or to move on. >> i mean, do you have to go to work to get the mortgage introductieres interest deduction? i'm dependent on it. >> it's outside my area of expertise. >> it sure is. thank you.

and my time is expired. >> miss rice. >> thank you for coming today. i'm a small business owner from texas. we still employ people. i appreciate you all being here today. i guess my statement would be this. the best way to tackle poverty we talk about today is to create a job. we all agree to that. however, you create the job through opportunity, not through a guarantee. a guarantee is not a job. an opportunity to grow and expand is. increase and hiring is up to the private sector, i believe, not the federal government. the private sector offers you an opportunity. the federal government offers you a guarantee. we talked about distractions in hiring today. i can tell you big distractions

in hiring. i'm glad to hear some of my colleagues on the other side agree the economy is not fixed. it is not good. distractions in hiring would be minimum wage increase. minimum wage increase does nothing but cost jobs and make prices go up. we should not be a country of minimums, we should be a country of maximums. we should be able to compete for workers. high tax on business is another job destroyer where small business owners cannot, they are paying too high taxes. then obamacare is a real disaster when it comes to small business owners and what we can plan and who we can hire, not hiring this many people so we don't have to be involved in the program. there is no work unless businesses can hire. small businesses, we are playing defense every single day. we don't know regulations, we don't know rules, we are not hiring people. i think the idea we talk about states and states competing is always a good thing to reduce unemployment, come up with good ideas. i guess my question would be to

you, mr. doar, based on your experience with the welfare reform, do you think these programs we are talking about, as well intended as they may be have the effect of trapping people? trapping people in poverty and creating incentives for them to become dependent on the government? focus on having a guarantee in their life rather than opportunity in their life? >> i think they can if they are not run well. they are not run with a focus on employment as being the most important thing and a willingness to do everything you can to push people into work. so i think they can be, but i don't think they have to be. there isn't any question that as the welfare commissioner both jason and i lived off the opportunities that were available for people who were seeking assistance but really wanted to work. and we also, and we should point this out, we were successful because the people we asked to go to work, went to work and they did it.

and they wanted to do it. i think that we have to set up a circumstance that says to folks that are in need, we have high hopes and high -- we believe in you and we believe in your ability to go into employment and want to make every opportunity available to do that. >> to do that, you have to tell small business owners it's okay if you make money, it's okay to take risks and reward hiring people. i want to hire people. i'm afraid to hire people unless they are on commission. that's a real problem in our country. thank you for your testimony, all of you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. pascorale. >> when we fail we go back to the aca. i would ask you to finish what you were trying to say, what is your take on that? >> my take on the aca as it

affects families in poverty, those states that have taken the medicaid expansion have removed one of the worst disincentives to employment for parents. in those states that have not taken it, the eligibility limit for health insurance for a parent is typically 50% of the poverty level or less. if you are working minimum wage, more than a few hours and you get the chance to work steady part time or full time, you are placing your health insurance at risk. if a state takes the expansion, you have the ability to keep that health insurance and sleep secure at night knowing you have it. >> thank you. mr. doar, in your testimony today you state the earned income tax credit, the childcare assistance, public health insurance, food stamps can all

be important work supports that make earnings go farther for a family. love is not enough, sometimes work is not enough. correct? >> what do you mean? >> well, your job may not pay what you really need to support your family. >> that is absolutely true. wages can sometimes be lower than what is necessary to support a family in certain places. that's why we have these work supports. >> i think it's important to acknowledge how difficult it can be for americans to have jobs and working for low wages, and how important a robust safety net is for those folks. what you are trying to do is reposition the chairs on the sinking "titanic." it seems to me if we want to look at ways to reduce our spending on these safety net programs, one of the most obvious way is to raise wages to the point where the families no

longer need public assistance. >> well -- >> i didn't ask the question yet. we can do that most effectively by raising the minimum wage, unlike your position. let's use an example. you like to use examples, let me use an example. many americans would be surprised to learn that walmart, the nation's largest private sector employer, private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer-supported aid. the corporation's employees receive a total of $6.2 billion in public assistance each year. why do they need public

assistance? there is nothing more than corporate welfare that allows walmart to continue to pay poverty wages and it's the taxpayers who pick up the tab of up to $5,815 in assistance for each employee and $1.75 million per store. so mr. doar, do you believe federal spending on means-tested safety net programs for walmart employees would be reduced if these employees were earning a higher wage? >> okay. there is a trade-off. if the wages go up and the people's ability to go into the labor force diminishes, they are going to need to come to welfare and need assistance without the work. do we have a safety net built to help them? what we built through many years bipartisan effort is a work support system that shores up low wages.

that's what we do and i think it's more successful than having more people out of work depending upon a safety net system. >> they could be working at a job that does not afford them the ink they need to raise a family. and therefore, they are going to have to look to public assistance. public assistance is not for someone totally out of work or a child or older person who can't move. do you agree with that? s. >> yes. that is what a work support system is. >> thank you very much. i'm glad you support the system that exists. >> par for the course. >> i thank the chairman. i thank the witnesses for their compelling testimony. do you have any final response to mr. pascrell? >> no. i'm fine.

>> sometimes we have single entry book keeping. walmart is one of the biggest wealth creators in the country because of the pressure they put on suppliers in producing low prices. when you take away their right to have a low-priced economy, you are also hurting the people that are consumers there, as well. and they are low-income people. >> great point. thanks for adding it to the record. i also add speaking with the ceo of mcdonald's, the franchisee started out at the cashier. a minimum-wage paying job. i would cite that as one of the country's best and most efficient, most successful upward mobility programs to raise folks out of a life of poverty. >> may i also comment on upward mobility for low-income workers?

a professor of georgetown looked at a data set and took people earning less than $12,000 three consecutive years and looked what happened six years later. these years were in the early 1990s. only 29% of the people that were in that category were still low wage six years later. the median increase in their income was 86%. the point here is getting on the ladder is going to move you up wagewise. a manufacturer in wisconsin told us we hire $18,000 employee from the ranks of proven $9 an hour employee, not through people in a government training program. >> you raise the minimum wage and you can't get on the ladder. i notice when representative van hollen was questioning you,

there was agreement that the best anti-poverty program is a job. i appreciate that that was recognized. then he said there were time limits put on welfare recipients of the snap program. >> in the food stamp program there is long standing policy concerning able-bodied adults without dependents who should be working and have a work requirement. during difficult times, states are given the option of waiving that requirement. >> under the law or begin by the administration? >> under the law. then in the first act of the obama administration, they extended it for the whole period of the recession. most states took advantage of that. one place that did not was new york city. we kept the requirement because we felt the economy we felt had

enough activity churning it. we believed in saying to people seeking assistance that work is where we need you to be headed. >> i'm sorry. mr. turner, you were having an exchange with representative moore. it seemed from trying to digest this that you made a point about snap recipients or coming back into the work force. her comment was, well, i was there. i saw the data and something is not correct. did you want to respond to that at all? do you know what i'm talking about? >> i know what she said, but i'm not exactly -- i think what she said is the private companies made a profit and that profits made by private companies helping to put people to work were somehow illegitimate. i have the opposite point of

view. >> please expand. >> when i was commissioner in new york city, we had 138 employment vendors, which we reduced to 13 prime providers with subcontractors, and they were only paid if they got people jobs and retained them. when we did that, the first full year after we switched to performance contracting, which included for-profit vendors, our total budget for employment and training went down by 1/3 and our recorded placements doubled. some of the money that went for that purpose went for profits, but it's not like nonprofit organizations don't have profits of their own. they have indirect costs, but it's the same thing. you have to make a profit if you are going to run an operation. >> thank you.

>> i have a few questions. i wonder if dr. golden would like to respond. you were trying to respond on the question of work waivers under snap. >> the main point was that the law allows states to not have a work requirement for the able-bodied individuals when unemployment is high enough and that problem will be solving itself over the next few years as state unemployment rates get stronger. it's part of the statute and reflects a reasonable responsiveness to states' economic circumstances. >> thank you. one of the questions congress has been wrestling with that has an effect on poverty or puts many americans in jeopardy moving from the work force into long-term poverty is the loss of extended federal unemployment benefits. in michigan, for example, the governor and legislature rolled

back from 26 weeks to 20 weeks of unemployment. it typically takes a working person, a person in the work force who lost their jobs, about 37 weeks to find that next opportunity. i just really nervous about what happens to those families in the 17 weeks on average that it takes them to survive on nothing, and whether or not that potentially puts those families at risk of entering the cycle of poverty they otherwise would have been able to avoid. if you would quickly answer. >> sure. yes, losing unemployment benefits is damaging to families and to children. unemployment insurance is important as a way of keeping families out of poverty. i think one of the things i would highlight about our whole conversation today is we are, to a large degree, talking about parents often with young children. we know a lot by now from research, far more than we did at the time of the war on poverty about the life-long effect not having economic security, good nutrition, stability in your life as a young child. i think you are right to worry

both about the immediate and longer term effects for families. >> thank you very much. i wonder, mr. doar, there's been some discussion about minimum wage. i wonder if you might comment on minimum wage in this regard. it was your position, i believe, that raising the minimum wage would have a negative consequence on those young workers that are trying to enter the work force. is it your position that the current federal minimum wage is precisely correct in order to accommodate entry into the work force? or it would be your position that we should reduce the minimum wage in order to increase, by theory, access to the work force? >> no. it would not be my position we should reduce the minimum wage. i should also say i also support not having the federal government determine the minimum wage for the whole country.

>> no minimum wage whatsoever? >> no. that there should not be a minimum wage that is established at a level that will discourage work at a high level for the whole country. that's what a lot of people are raising concerns about a $10.10 minimum wage. i don't think it's an anti-poverty program. i think it will hurt the most vulnerable, not help them. the current proposal. i don't object to the minimum wage where it is now. >> this is where i struggle. we hear about this and we hear objection to the establishment of a higher minimum wage, but we won't own the notion, the implication behind that, which is that either there should be no minimum wage whatsoever, which apparently would support this notion, this theory that lower wages are better because they allow walmart to offer lower prices, which allow people making poverty wages to afford

foreign-produced products at a very low price, that does not stimulate the american economy. to me, what we are describing here -- i'm sorry mr. williams is not here -- is a race to the bottom. he describes this notion we ought to aspire to do well. the aspiration to do well should not be one that is just limited to people who own the so-called businesses who are the so-called job creators. the aspiration to do well should apply to everybody. i'm really curious about this notion that lower wages somehow supports lower pricing for retail outlets, and that somehow has a positive net impact on our economy. i was always thought that the notion was to have a cycle that takes us all up, not one that takes us all down. >> i think we want a cycle that

takes us all up, but to get on that cycle you need to get a job first. the concern is that disincentives to hiring will lead to fewer opportunities for people on the ladder going up. >> thank you, mr. kildee. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, panelists, for being here today. i'm curious. i think the state employment rate is 6.3%? >> i don't know what it is. >> that is the state and federal rate. do you think that is an accurate reflection? >> no. it doesn't include individuals not included in the employment rate. for instance, the disability case load has gone through the roof. the food stamp case load has gone up. people not actively looking for work are not counted. so our employment rate has been going down. >> thank you.

m mr. doar, do you believe it is an accurate picture? >> know. the better is the labor force participation rate which is remarkably low. >> i think it helps us see trends. in every recession we ever had, the recovery for those on the bottom takes longer than those better off so for low income mothers raising kids, it takes longer to come back than it does are for the average across all 6.3%. >> mrs. golden, you said that the aca medicaid expansion was, took away a disincentive. it doesn't take it away, it just moves it further up the income level? if you're at 130% of the federal poverty rate and you are considering a job you lose that subsidy? >> not until 400% which is a decent level. in other words you have support through medicaid then you have

support through the subsidy on the exchange. the law is designed so that by the time that help fazes out you are in better position to take care of your family needs. >> there is disincentive once you approach that 138? >> i'm not a health economist. i look at these issues from the poverty perspective. i think it will depend a lot about the specifics of how your state has organized that exchange. in the states i'm working with, they are trying hard to have a smooth transition, but i don't know the answer to exactly. i also suspect it would be different by person exactly how it would play out. but the key design of the law when a state takes the expansion is that there is ate about it to get help fazing out all the way until you are secure enough to pay for it. >> what is a living wage in san francisco? >> i don't know the answer to that numerically. >> what is it in south carolina?

>> it's interesting. i'm doing work in south carolina. i would say what people share around the country, and that's one of the reasons i think increasing the minimum wage is important, is the need to be able to feed their families, have secure work, good quality care for their children. it isn't, as we've been hearing, isn't only from the minimum wage, it's the intersection of a better minimum wage which will help low-income people reduce poverty. >> san francisco, is the living wage the same in san francisco? >> i think we always had a federal level we thought achieved a decent standard of living everywhere and higher levels in some places. >> is a living wage the same? >> no. it's not. >> mr. turner, is a living wage the same in san francisco as in dillon, south carolina? >> of course not. >> one-size-fits-all federal mandate, isn't that going to create hiring disincentives in areas around the country? >> yes, it will.

>> okay. >> all of y'all mentioned that work is the best aleafation for poverty, right? you mentioned we need to do away with federal disincentives to hiring and federal disincentives to work. can you name the primary federal disincentive to hiring, in your opinion? >> i don't even know where to start there. certainly the excesses of the great society taken as a whole have weakened families, driven men out of the labor force and are responsible for some of the social problems, much of the social dissolution we see today. >> we've got disincentives to work and disincentives to hiring. can you name your primary disincentives? >> in hiring, i'm not a business economist. i want them to be as few as

possible to hiring people in trouble economically. on the federal policy, i looked at casey mulligan's work. unemployment insurance extensions are a principal culprit followed by concerns about what's happened with disability insurance. frankly, the welfare programs are not as significant players in this disincentive to going to work as they might be. >> thank you. mr. cardenas. >> dr. golden, did you want to answer that last question? >> sure. i was going to highlight that a key issue for employers is the quality of workers and their skills. so i do think when the federal government doesn't invest enough in early childhood education in k-12 and access to longer-term educational opportunities, particularly for kids who start out behind, that that, in turn, ends up as a disincentive to

hiring. failing to invest sufficiently is one of the things we should have on the list. >> early investment seems to pay very well when it comes to the economy on the macrolevel down to the individual work level and individual household level, correct? >> yes. >> on that note, walmart was given as an example the biggest private employer in the country. would you say they are more of a short-term investor in our economy when it comes to what you just described or are they a long-term positive or short-term positive? >> again, i'm not an economist expert in individual firms. maybe i'll comment on low-wage work more broadly. >> excuse me. what i'm referring to was talked about earlier. disproportionate percentage of walmart workers are actually on public assistance. in that context, is that a good short term or more of a long-term effort, so it seems?

>> it's clearly -- two things. the first one is that i do think having a safety net that's able to provide, for example, health care no matter whether your employer provides it or not is an important place to be. i think that's part of it is having the public safety net. in terms of the employer like walmart, clearly, when employment is unstable and low wage, i think one of the other issues we've been working on at clasp that is a contributor to big problems for families is schedules that make it impossible to raise a child and work. when employers carry out those practices, low wages and a whole set of lack of benefits and bad practices, they are not successfully investing in the work force they need in the long run. i would say from that perspective, it's not long run either for them or for the country. >> one of the things that really

bothers me, i think most americans have an idea of what the face of poverty is, what an individual in poverty actually looks like, and i think these recent times people realize it affects everybody, rural, big cities, small communities, et cetera, of every color, every persuasion. today as it stands, do any of you know whether or not when it comes to the percent of people on public assistance, is the majority of people on public assistance nonwhite minority or nonminority white? anybody know that figure? >> i don't know the figure. >> the most recent figures you've been aware of? >> i can tell you about child poverty for the broad programs like medicaid, i would be almost sure it would be nonminority white. that covers a broad swath including the elderly disabled. for child poverty, that's divided roughly 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, white, african-american,

hispanics, slightly more hispanic children are poor, but it's pretty close across the three of them. >> the reason i ask that question is because what frustrates me is every time we see people getting a welfare check or something they always go to the poorest inner city places and show a line of people and it tends to be of one color. when you step back and look at the nation as a whole, it's my understanding it's well over 50% white people 0 on public assistance, closer to 60%, actually. that is not the picture america sees. i think that adds to the stigma and idea people are lying on the couch. >> when you see the picture, you don't see the person working long hours. i'm struck in the work i'm doing in these six states. the people they see on snap or medicaid don't have time to stand in the welfare office for four hours to get their benefits because they are working a couple of low-wage jobs. and trying to take care of the kids, as well. that is another aspect of the

accurate picture that doesn't get shown. >> dr. golden, what is your answer to this question? should poor families be able to save money while they are still retaining benefits? >> yes. i think there is evidence that contributes to stability in the long run. that's why so many states have chosen where they have the possibility not to enforce tests that would get rid of all their savings. >> i felt the move to eliminate asset tests for medicaid receipt and snap receipt has been a mistake. there is no limit on assets in new york to offering up an option. people can have hundreds of thousands of dollars or $100,000 and still be eligible for these programs. i think that is a mistake. >> thank you. mr. mcclintok.

>> did some states not follow the welfare reform requirements? i know back in california, the state excused people, the five-year time limit slightly reduced their benefits. the state's unemployment rate which had been running well below the national average had been running well above it. the reduction was miniscule to those experienced by other states. did you study such comparisons? >> i have not done a full-fledged study of all the states and their approaches. there was flexibility but supposed to be strong strings attached that would be enforced by penalties should they fail to comply. >> mr. turner, any observations? >> the observation i have has to do with a growth of disability. it's taking over a lot of the low wage employment marketplace.

13% of philadelphia, working aged adults are, are either receiving ssi or ssdi. a lot of them came on when the rules were relaxed and allowed people with -- >> i'm looking for a contemporaneous comparison between those states that follow the 1996 act. >> i can comment both as assistant secretary then as researcher at the urban institute. early information from the late 1990s suggested there was not a race to the bottom by states. one of the worries had been all the states would all make choices that would cut back their benefits. states focused on work, but did not, in fact, reduce their investments. unfortunately, in the most recent few years, that hasn't been the case because of the nature of the bloc grant. what you see is sharp cuts. >> in california performing very poorly compared with the rest of the nation after it essentially opted out of the welfare reforms

the state only cost the state about $1 billion. the reduction in our welfare roles was minimal compared to other states. go to the breakdown of the family. seems to be provides strong safety net. first line of defense, the interdependencies between a mother and father and between the parents and the child are the strongest bonds in our human nature. parents care for their children when they are helpless. parents care for each other throughout their lives. children then care for the parents when they become helpless. is that system breaking down? if so, why? >> i would argue it's breaking down over time because the federal government is replacing many of the roles that used to be the purview of parents and families. the greatest single income transfer program is between a father and mother and their

children. once you start having the federal government providing benefits directly on behalf of children, you are taking parents out of the equation. >> so we are basically destroying that natural safety net that ought to be our first line of defense against poverty and against want? >> yes. >> do we have data on the reemployment of individuals as they approach the benefits cut-off? >> there is apparently a study in one of the carolinas people went back to work rapidly as benefits were cut back. i don't knowcts on that. >> there is u-shape where people become employed, the employment rate goes down flat, right before it ends, it starts going up again. >> do we have data on how much, on the relationship between the time one spends on unemployment

and their difficulty finding reemployment? >> we do know this recession has been a particularly problematic one on both dimensions with long-term unemployment and difficulty in reemployment. >> let me touch on the remaining time on minimum wage. do we have data how long people stay at the minimum wage? >> we have data showing that if you stay in a low wage job starting at minimum wage, the likelihood you'll be out of that category within six years is 5-6 chances. >> we know a lot about the fact minimum wage jobs are frequently intermittent and not as secure. i think there is a complicated dynamic there. >> thank you. my time expired. >> thank you very much. this has been very informative, very enlightening. i appreciate all three of the witnesses spending their morning with us this morning. thank you so much.

this hearing is adjourned.

our live coverage continues here on cspan3 this afternoon at 2:00 eastern with a report on how u.s. money is being spend in afghanistan. the house foreign affairs subcommittee meets to hear about u.s. reconstruction work in afghanistan. the special inspector general is going to report on whether the money was well spent. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on

cspan3, we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, cspan3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series, the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history book shelf with the best history writers. the presidency looking at the policy and legacy of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in histories delving into america's past. our new series "reel america" featuring archival government and education films from the 1960s and 1970s. voters are going to the polls today in six states. five of those states are holding

congressional primaries, maine, nevada, north carolina, south carolina and virginia. north dakota. senate incumbent lindsey graham is facing six challengers. he must have 50% of the vote to avoid a run-off. we'll have the results tonight. in virginia, eric cantor is facing college professor david brad in the republican primary. his seat was considered safe, but even so he spent millions on that race. we'll have those results tonight on c-span. religion is a powerful identity-forming mechanism. part of human society is figuring out who's us and who is them? who is my group and who is the out group? religion answers that question easily.

if you pray like me, if you eat like me, if you go to the same church as i do, then you're us. if you don't, then you're them. you can see very easily how that kind of us/them, ingroup/outgroup mindset could lead to extremism, marginalization. religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation, but just as powerful is violence. how do you know who's us and who's them? if you're fighting alongside me, you're us. if you're fighting against me, you're them. far from religion and violence being these two things that are at odds and should have nothing to do with each other, they have as everyone knows throughout history, been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> religious scholar and best-selling author reza aslan. will take your calls and comments live starting at noon eastern sunday july 6th. in the months ahead, august 3rd,

former texas congressman and republican presidential candidate ron paul. september 7, former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights and children's rights advocate mary frances berry. this month we are discussing "the forgotten man." start reading and join others to discuss the book in our chat room at booktv.org.

> . you know, you used to

joke when you are swimming in the ocean, you just have to make sure you're faster than the guy next to you when there is a shark. i see some, and for some, you know, it's a very business case analysis. what is the risk versus what is the cost? i think for some the assessment has been perhaps i'm not large, perhaps i'm not in a market segment. perhaps i have enough capability. i can afford to continue what i'm doing, i can deal with the risk. i'll mitigate it if i have to, but i don't want to put the time, energy, resources, or money up front, if you will. and don't get me wrong, every entity has to decide what's right for them. i'm not going to say hey, this is the right level of investment. we have worked on developing standards, if you will.

across the federal government and the civil sector to say look, these are standards we urge you to adopt. if you do that it significantly increases your ability to forestall penetrations, your ability to deal with penetrations should they occur. we're putting, collectively, a lot of work into it. we're clearly not where we need to be today. >> and hackers are sophisticated. you think about what you have in front of you. you have to stay in front of all of these people around the world trying all of these means to break into systems. how do you get the very best talent to help you do that. you're competing with google, for these mathematicians, engineers, and they can go to silicon valley. why do they come work for you? >> i think it's the same reason

is that we're never talking about nsa. we're never going to compete on the basis of money. if that's the metric, we're just not going to be the place to go. where can we compete? we're about serving something bigger than ourselves. we're about an ethos of right and wrong. we're about doing a mission that is important to the nation. we're about doing some things that quite frankly you can't do legally on the outside that will really challenge and test you. that will give you the opportunity to use cutting edge technology and apply it in a way that will help with the defense of the nation. that jazzes most people. the positive side for us is not running into problems under u.s. cyber, or the director of the national security agency, and attracting quality people that want to be part of the team. and don't get me wrong, it's something i pay lots of attention to. i am very mindful, we have a lot

of technology, but if you ask me what do i -- where do i think the true value resides? it's the people, that's where we get the true value. and it is not just their grey matter, it's here. it is their heart, dedication, and willingness to work incredibly long hours. this it is a culture about a mission. i'm proud to be the director of the nsa and the commander of the u.s. cyber command. i didn't have to take this job, i did it for a reason. and i thought, as i was joining the nsa team, hey, we're in a tough spot right now. i would walk away and say not my problem, i don't need the hea heartache, but i said what kind of leader would you be if you did that.

you spent your whole adult life. now it's payback time. you owe it. >> we appreciate the transparen transparency. i speak to a lot of tech ceos on bloomberg tv. i hear a lot of frustration about the organizations and the spying, and the concern is that we're getting into a protection ist are environment. so what do you say to ceo's like john chambers, who take mem feel as though, you know, we're still moving forward as a global economy despite these concerns about one nation spying on another, and another nation spying back? >> well, first, i certainly

appreciate the concern. who are you to think that? far from it. he like many others have a responsibility to the organization and i don't question that. the points that i try to make to my corporate counter parts are, look. what we're doing is the activity that almost every significant nation on this planet does. it attempts to gain insights on the world around it, to forestall threats to it's citizens. i don't care if it's china, russia, us, fill in the blank. every nation tries to do that. varying nations have varying degrees of capability. we have amazing capability in the construct of the u.s. government to help generation knowledge of the world around us and defend our citizens. you have seen some of that play

out. what has not, to me, is so i appreciate the technology, talk to me about the constraints in place to ensure this is not misabumis misabus misabused. talk to me about the frameworks in place. talk to me about making sure your workforce can't abuse this authority. why do you feel you need to do this? why is it in our best interest? that is the broader discussion ? >> it is a matter of national security? >> my comment would be because it's a matter of national security. and being one of the largest most powerful nations in the world means there is a lot of people out there that don't have our best interests at heart. i will not sit here and overhype

the threat, that in the name of this threat we have to make dramatic changing and curtail our rights. if we go down that road, in the end, they've won. if we change who we are, what we believe and represent in the name of security. they have won. in '06 i had a conversation with a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at the time, i said hey, sure, i think this is important for you. we don't want to destroy ourselves or become something we aren't in the name of security. in trying to achieve that level of security, we have to acknowledge that threat exists. we have lost, and our allies have lost, literally thousands of citizens in the last decade if from individuals who have, and continue, to attempt to

generate threats to take down our citizens, to -- if they had their way, and sometimes very spectacular ways, we have been very successful in forestalling much of it. much of the things that we have forestalled as citizens you will never know about or hear about. that is the nature of intelligence. it is the nature of our business. >> if the chinese don't trust american tech companies and the american tech companies don't trust chinese countries, are we on the verge of seeing a war? >> is it possible, yes. but i could be wrong. >> i believe in the end, competition and the quality of what we do, and the value of what our corporations offer will win out in the end.

it's not by chance that the u.s. enjoys their part of the market sector. i think the value of what we produce will stand for itself. >> five chinese officers were brought up on charges of cyber es -- espeonage. >> again, what is the framework we use to resolve issues like this. a legal frame work. not just one nation saying well you're doing this or you're doing that. that's why we have courts, that's why we have the rule of law, and ultimately if it proceeds to a trial, a judge and a jury will make a decision. that's the way the system works. >> just one more question, we have 40 seconds. this is a good way to wrap up.

what can you tell american citizens right here, today, that are worried they will never be fully anonymous or have a right to full privacy again? >> in the digital age of the 21st century, we have to come to grips with what does privacy mean in it the world that we live in today. that's a much bigger question. the world that we're living in by choice and by chance, we are forfeiting privacy at levels that i don't think as individuals who truly understand. and it is so engrained, whether it's cameras on the streets, every one of your personal digital devices asking "askcan share where you are"? the questions that we get asked in doing business.

give me your social security number, your zip code, we're in the world of big data. like it or not, we're in the digital age, and we increasingly, as a nation, and it's not just us. we framed this debate way too narrow in my perspective. this is way bigger. this is a much broader dialogue that i think we need to have b with and that's what john has been doing with the white house, and you saw the remarks from the president saying we need to think about this more broadly. that's an important question for us. what are we comfortable with? but the idea that you can be totally anonymous is increasingly different to execu execute. >> thank you, admiral. this afternoon we'll be live here on cspan 3 covering a report on how u.s. money has

been spent in afghanistan. a committee is meeting to hear o about construction work in the country.wi a special inspector general he looks like report on whether's that money was well spent, it begins at 2:00 eastern. >> what is the most important i race to watchdi today in the commonwealth? is. >> two primaries, in the eighthd district, jim moran, a long-ti e democrat, don buyer, president's ambassador to switzerland. heavily favored to win in an eight-way race.electi that primary is tanamount to ert elections. there is a candidate for the general not expected to get much traction. down interstate 95 to the ri

richmondric richmond, this is the direct of eric cantor. he is a member of the leadership, number two in the house, and clearly interested io thett speakership. and it's that ambition that has clearly gotten cantor in trouble in the seventh with tea partiers and libertarians who numbers are abundant in the rule expanse of the seventh district where theri is not a lot of votes, but a good deal of anger and us fr frustrati frustration. >> who is his challenger?in >> david brat, works at a smalln liberal college. he has been an advisor to a democratic cover and legislatures as well.

it was his association with that democratic governor, tim kane, s that he has seized on.ted to cantor is attacking brad as a liberal college professor that is consented to proposals for higher taxes in the kane governorship. heeen forcefully reputed by the brad campaign, but eric cantor with over $2 million in he is campaign fund, has a bigger and louder ng megaphone. that may give the cantor opposition than opportunity to ding up the majority leader somu what. >> when it goes back to the seat held by him, tell us about don.

>> he is an active northern virginia democrat. he was active in national democratic applicants, first as a fund raider for howard dean and then barack obama. he is a man of some means in the washington area. the name buyer is synonymous asc with automobiles, principally volvos. they have a considerable fortune and this that has supported his political am pligss ovbitions o years. >> he is associated with a bigger story about candidates and theiran willingness to aleae league to president. are they running close with thet president. >> again, consider the eighth ,

district in virginia. it this is in the shadow of washington dc, down to favor a liberal democrat in that area of virginia. there is little downside to expressing loyalty to the public. >> and one more, the virginia senate, some changes there about efforts to expand medicaid? >> yes, not a game for the faint of heart. gover they were divided 20-20 with a e democratic governor casting thee tiesi breaker vote. that ended monday with a surprise resignation of a democrat from thenu far southwee now the republicans have a numerical majority and they used

that new majority to force a final -- finally force a break in this continuing budget a repl impasse.le on thursday, the legislature now with a republican dominates n au legislature isdg supposed to be. acting on a budget before the june 30th deadline to exact one. if they passed that day. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. we're going to be following a few of the primary races tonight when results come in including south carolina lindsey graham facing six challenges in the republican primary. he must clear 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff. in virginia, the second

ranking republican in the house, eric cantor, who is facing david pratt. we will also have those results tonight on cspan. cspan's new book, sundays at eight, includes kenneth feinberg. >> if you try to justify my program, on the basis of the victims lost, i can't convincingly explain why 9/11, yes, 93 world trade center no. i think the only way you sufficient this program as a special carve out is from the perspective of the nation. a recognition that 9/11, along

with the american civil war, pearl harbor, maybe the assassination of president kennedy, and 9/11, it's impact on the american people was such that this was really a response from america to demonstrate the solidarity and cohesiveness towards these victims. >> read more and other features interviews in "sundays at eight" from public affairs books. now available for a father's day gift at your favorite book seller. >> we return now to bloomberg government's day long summit on cyber challenges. they are discussing the cyber threat landscape and thousand had threatens businesses today.

this it about a half hour. thank you, i have another panel coming up that i would look to introduce. we have my colleague here, tim. from bloomberg view, and this is about defining what cyber threats exist out there, where they are, and what can be done to protect all of us. with that i will turn it over to tim. >> thank you, trish. good morning, everyone. we have an excellent panel here this morning. we have wade baker from verizon. we have mike allen. mike later, and bob butler from the center of new american security, add ju security. so gentlemen, to start. i think it's safe to say that the past year has not been a

great one for cyber security at large. we had target, e bay, snap chat, what accounts for what seems like a surge in malicious online activity of all kinds recently. >> i would say it's a combination of things. some that are a change in the threat and environment. there is an increase in attacks that comes through an increasing move online. we use a huge number of devices, we access more things in more places at all times, and that increases the surface area overtime. and -- over time. so i think they're not just happening at a higher frequency, but we're seeing a higher proportion of them because of accountability and all kinds of

other disclosures and things like that. >> i don't think it's particularly a rise, i think it's more awareness of what's happening. i think 2013 was the year of the retailer attack. they're increasingly going after our payment systems. gradually businesses, members of congress, and those of us in the washington policy community are becoming more and more aware of nation, state, pilferage of our trade secrets. it is something that we need to continue to talk about until we make progress on legislation and standards and other things where we need to protect the country. >> when you look at the most serious threats facing american businesses, where are they coming from? who is behind them? and what is the motivation?

is it financial, esponage? what have you seen? >> from my security standpoint, we have about 600 or so clients, my sense is there is, if you're a product company, there is an issue of ip and folks so that as an opportunity to get to level parody pretty quickly. inside of that space, a lot of maneuveri maneuvering, supply chain tampering, and breached reconnaissance. also compliance failure, or reputational risk. i think it depends on the business value, you can trace it back through threat intelligence

and what they're after. >> it's no different from the cyber world. if you're use todd russian organized crime, now you don't have to muscle, you can steal credit card numbers and you can quadruple the gauge you had before. if you're china, the distinction that we call between -- it is stealing property and trade secrets. if you're iran, it's less economic and more of a tool for power. it has america in the title, and you distribute to make their life more difficult. it's everything that we see in the physical world with all of

the same motivations, just being able to do it using a tool to reach a vastly wider audience of adversarial clients. >> i know verizons that dug into that pretty deeply. is there trends you would see for american companies, whether it is method of attack or intent? >> yeah, and these things ebb and flow over time. we have been able to take a ten-year slice of data, and we say what do we know about these incidents that happened over a decade. i think it was, when you had the internet warms where you have blaster, and the purpose of a lot of what we were dealing with and worrying about was just keeping our servers online and

not being knocked off of the internet. since then organized crime has become of age, and the tools they're creating is just amazing. some of them are very, very automated. and the population of attackers that can harm every one of us just at the push of a button has grown because of those tools. there is a community and use of these tools, along with trends, that are spreading out. >> yeah, the worms of 2004, it is almost quaint. if you have not done so, cut and peace about two or three paragraphs from the doj appointment to the chinese, and do it to show the sophistication of which the chinese are do the social engineering, sending the

e-mails, and you can't be shocked to the degree of which people are thinking through this to making national games. >> when you look at the, i think you called it the year of the retail hack, are there broad, big picture lessons that we can draw from some of those high profile attacks that apply to corporations more generally? what to do, not to do, how to respond. >> yeah, just looking at any of the big breeaches, i think ther is a tendency to get lulled. two or three months later we see malware implants. a big issue with people, right? coming and going from a security operation center. overworked folks, paying attention to alerts, noing what

to do, and extended enterprise. how do we deal with interconnecting this in a supply chain and extended enterprise overtime. i think it is a series of factors and there are lessons learned. by the time we identify the risk, looking back, adversaries have moved on and we have not increased work factors much at this point in tile. so the gap is widening as you look for closing the risk that you just identified from the last breach. >> there was a lot of focus on an article that said anti-virus is dead. i'm going to focus on detection

and recovery, is that a prudent approach, do you think? >> i think over time what we have to do is share information to increase what is in our filters at large. not only across the private sector, but also what the government can chair with the private sector and they can share with each other. i think there is a lot to that statement in that when you read the indictment, and you see that plain old spear fishing, that we have heard about so much in the last few years, was the cause of the breaches at alcoa and pennsylvania. i think it is a reasonable conclusion to draw they will get in. but there is a lot of capability on the bench that has not been put out on the field yet. and we have to work towards that so we might be arising tide and be able to lift all boats so we can spread around information and be in better shape.

>> i'm going to say that potentially that quote by the press is not 100% reflective of the strategy, especially since they're a sponsor here, but anti-virus as a solution to cyber threat is dead. anti-virus as one of the arrows in the quiver, and for the less sophisticated utser, the averag mother in iowa who is not a cyber expert should have good anti-virus protection. if you're alcoa, boeing, you still need anti-virus, but you need 20 other things, 10 may be tactical, five have nothing to do with anything but business process, and five have to do with your people. so it is just realistically a much smaller arrow than it was

five or ten years ago. >> i think you have to work across a spectrum of planning where you're involved with protection detection capabilities. you certainly want to be on the left side of the exploit as opposed to being on the right side of the exploit or the boom, but you have to be ready. you're not going to be able to mitigate all risk. a network is breached, we can idea what we can but you've got to be ready to shift risk and do risk mitigation on the right side as well. so i agree that you absolutely should be invested in doing detection and better jobs and up front surveillance but you have to be prepared for the consequence management on the back side. >> can i go back to one thing about target? >> sure. >> target is a good target because evof its name, but peop have to understand how good a company target is for security. target has been more involved with industrial security practices than almost any other

company in the country, and target was still the victim of a huge breach. >> yeah. >> target also is not a traditional company that many might think with be targeted. it's not northrop grumman, who has also been breached. now you have a company that's really good and you wouldn't think would be a traditional target and they're getting hit successfully. that means there really is no company because of their subject matter or their expertise which doesn't face this as a real business risk. >> in terms of -- target is a great example. in terms of the effect of getting hit by one of these attacks, target's sales dropped, share price dropped. seems to have more or less bounced back. is this sort of the new normal where consumers say this happens to everything, we get a little pissed off because we have to change our password, et cetera, but they come back and accept

this is part of the commerce in 2014. >> this is something that's interested me for quite some time is what is the real impact. when you're talking about national security that's a different question than internet fraud. but specifically in something like a target incident, studies have shown that they do tend to bounce back. i think that might be changing. i do an experiment actually with my family when we get together on holidays, and over the past several years i've asked about whatever the largest breach was in my world, have you guys heard of this? and never before target have they ever said yes, but everybody at the table said yes. and i thought that was really interesting. so i don't know if there's something maybe that's changing about that perception of, hey, that really did get in my life and kind of bother me a little bit. but without that outrage you're not going to have people leaving in droves or anything like that. maybe pumultiple times, maybe i

matters more in a business to business type of relationship. all of these things are factors. >> you have to look at what the security value or the business value or what you're trying to market. if you're a one-trick product, that's a problem. you probably won't recover very easily. but if you have established branding in a broad array of products and services, i agree, i think -- and you have a good reputation, i think you're in better shape. now, i will tell you that a lot has to deal with how you handle the situation in terms of the speed of recovery in terms of revenue and profit. you know, and i think there's case studies going back certainly when i was serving in government, we looked at this in terms of reputation and what it took in terms of public imaging going forward. what boards did, what ceos did,

what sea level did across, and those that had a strategy, that reached out were actually probably in a better position than most. >> i think the shoe has probably dropped on target and you can look back and now assess the damage done. i think in a lot of these cases, the shoe hasn't yet dropped. so as bob said, if you're a product company and the intellectual property and the sensitive trade material has been stolen on that product but a competitor hasn't yet built that product, hasn't yet gone to market on that product, well, it's not at all clear how the effect -- how it will affect you and your business and your business opportunities. i think certainly what we saw in some of the manufacturing companies in western pennsylvania took some time and economically it's been quite bad. the second piece is, i think there's probably going to be, because we're americans and we're so proud of our productiveness, we're going to end up with a lot of litigation about this, and a key point on

those five companies, none of them had reported to the s.e.c. about those breaches. i'm only saying this because i in he they already know this. if you're a plaintiff's bar lawyer, wait a minute. you knew about these breaches for how many years and you didn't report it to the s.e.c. that might have a material impact on your stock price? there's going to be a mini industry which sprouts out around these breaches that's going to on the stock value front as well and that's going to drive an additional degree of economic impact for companies. >> speaking of problems for product companies, one of the things you always hear in the tech world is how the internet of things is coming to life, how companies are building products more and more that connect to the internet whether it's your toothbrush or thermostat and they can talk to each other, et cetera. by one estimate there's going to be 50 billion devices connected to the internet by 2020. is it not rational to panic and assume that all of these things

are going to be compromised in some way or am i being paranoid about this? >> the chinese will need a lot of server capacity to steal all that data, that is true. it's an economic opportunity. >> in this space i spend a lot of time looking at, you know, marriage of physical and cyber and data centers and i see the convergence clearly with industrial control systems, operational technology, and i.t. i think we have to do a lot more work here. as i look at what we have left open and the fact that we still organizationally consider things separate, we have facility managers running the data center infrastructure. we have i.t. managers running the i.t. stacks, and a lot of times they're not talking. technologically we're not there, and then from the adversaries' perspective, we have seen this in government, you see a foreign intelligence service running through those seams, right? so i this i therenk there's thr

thoughts. as we become more interconnected, we're seeing new innovation, cloud computing and virtualization. there's a need to create the transparency, right, to make people comfortable with where their data is, but we have to up the game in security. i think in the world of i.t. consumerization and i think about mobile devices, smartphones and tablets and so forth, here we have another challenge because i think as we move forward in time, adversaries are going to exploit a globally interconnected and mobile environment in bigger ways. we're just beginning to see it with mobile sms forwarding malware. so i think as we kind of look aat ip addressing all over the place. we have to get ahead of that and think about it both from an innovation, effectiveness

perspective but baking in as best we can risk mitigation strategies. we're still going to reactively. >> i wanted to touch on the internet of things question there. i try not to get too worked up about the latest threat and all of these trends and prefer to just stand back and study them, but that one is concerning to me kind of going back to your question just by the blend of lots of separate threads sort of converging there. so in the security defense area, i can't say that we've been highly successful yet in sort of defending just a network, like a castle. we haven't fully mastered that yet, and now we're talking about not just defending the castle but the country and then the entire empire spread out everywhere all oufver the place. it's just a different game and the devices can't run all the av and ips and all the things we load on them that take 90% of

the processing power of the computers on our desktops now. it's going to fundamentally change things, and that's the part that concerns me about it. your toothbrush, i don't know, maybe that already exists, but i'm sure if it doesn't, someone is going to be measuring how much time they spend on each tooth and that data will -- >> it does exist. >> it does exist. okay. thank you. maybe i need it. >> it also produces a national point of tension for business. a lot of the reason, bring your own device policies, moving to cloud infrastructure, you know, you're doing more softwares to service. all of these things produce great efficiency for business. allows people to be more mobile, work from home, have relationships with supply chains in ways you could never imagine without this technology. and from that sense if you're a business, you're trying to increase sales, increase coverage, productivity, you're pushing all of this really hard, and then you have those really pain in the tail risk cyber types saying not so fast.

it's a natural point of tension, and, again, when you don't know what the repercussions of loss will be for some period, it's really easy to say, okay, security people, you fix that, we're going to keep going down this bring your own device policy and come back to at the when you have a solution but we're not slowing down our business. that leads to hard choices for boards and ceos. >> is there more that the government could be doing to help businesses protect themselves? mike, i know you have worked on the inside of the house intelligence committee. you are pretty strong proponent of legislation of some kind. >> that's right. >> what do you think we need from congress to protect businesses? >> look, i'm not saying that congress through an information sharing bill will absolutely solve the problem completely. i agree with what mike said earlier, you're going to have to use a wholistic approach, have to figure out what to do with standards, figure out what to do with people, policy, and procedur