say, one of the issues that i worked on when i wasñi attorney privacy.çó i shareñi the concerns about th and i understano the need toñi have enough to do theñrñi analy. but weñi needñtv be very, very>o mindful of the sensitivities of consumers today aboutñr their information. and i thinkñr there is a growin insecurity. if they look at the federal government, we haven't exactly that we're going to be confidential with it or we're so i lookñi forward to the gao report. i look forward toçóçó enhancedñ% want to mention on payday lending i was probably one cññi the firstñrxd foolish peopleçóx weigh intoxd thatñr area back ii day. i'll tellñrñr awe quick little

story. the payday lending that was going on was just as egregiousñ as it is today. it's just taken different çófori why was i unsuccessful in own ñibusiness. zñi that in that lane there is a desperate need and it's notçóñiñi just beingçó whether to buy cars, diapers, or whateverw3çóñiñrñrñrñr itxd is. we need to be mindful that we venue for be mindful that we that kind ofçóxd creditñió and listened to those 900 consumers and where iñr think that was do incorrectly and i have a lot of concern about what's happening withñi pay dayñiçóñiñrñr lendin have a country that has maybe morexdñrñi economicñrñiñi justi going to need to giveñi people that ak -- access to thatçóññiñ

of credit. i want to talk a little bit about student loans and ask your opinion. the administration iñi thinkñr tñrñi to cap repayment at 10%. a all that is really going to do state, borrowers, is extendñi t time that they're going to have. so they'll never be out of consumer debt. senator warren and i have a bill along with a numberçó of us to restructure consumer debt. how do you see the restructurini the credit worthiness of americans who currently have that levelxdñrñr of debt? >> it's obviously a complicated subject and depends a lotçó onñe individual circumstances, the individual borrower. but it certainly is theñr case that what upsets someone's creditñiñrñi mostçó of all is di and if the payment levels are unrealistic, particularly a lot of young peopleñi comingçóñai o school today are not finding the jobs they hoped to find

particularly in theñi wakeñi ofd financial crisis and so the income based repayment as i understand it was an attempt to maintain some sort of balance there whether the exact right balance, exactly what it should be, is hard toñr ñersay.xd i'm not an expert on it. consumerçóñi or student debt an said restructuring it the wayñr we'veñiñiñi set up thexd abilit ìáhp &hc% 10% andñrñi shorten the time period ofñr repayment? >> it may ñibe.ñiñi obviously it depends on rates. &háhp &hc% mortgage and the comparison isn't exact, butñi there are a t of parallels, it's been loan ñió restructuring and sensiblex:ñ restructuring not any old loan r restructuring because sometimes váu haveñi ñimodifications andñ up withñr higher payments which was not a formula for xdsuccess. it has beenñiçó árerñiñiñi winn

most optimal way ofxd addressin somexd of the mortgage problems of approaoñ could be very beneficial to ñdeople.2# >> one quick comment.tómu'p+e o bank in north dakota. we're quite proudñr of it. >>ñr you're the only one. >> çóyes. wed$ve recently announced a program at the bank for restructuring student debt and it tells you the absolute essential need forñrçóñrñiñiçó people in çóñirestructuring thi debt. >> thank çóñiyou, mr.ñr chairma director, for being with us onci [pigain. i cover arbitration clauses near 3rusually came inxd thinking des arbitration sounds so friendlyç and inexpensive but after studying the law they discoverei that arbitrationñi stacks the dk

against customers inñi favrhrçó largeñi ñicorporations.xdñr arbitrators often have a financial interest in remaining in theñiñrñixd good gric s of ts that do business with them.çó corporations usuallyñr hold all the keyçgvidence in the dispute but are under no obligation to turn it over. orñ qçó arbitrators ruling and not being overturned even if it contains clear legal mistakes or factual errors. so the bottom line is when a customer thinksñr he hasñi been cheated or açóçóñi billñi isñi arbitration clause in the contract makes it nearly impossible for him to get any real help. it is no surprise that many big banks and other big corporations forced customers to agree to arbitration clauses to get credit cards or openñiñiñr chec accounts knowing that this means the customer willñiñr have noñi remedy if thingsçó go wrong.ñi

so, director ñicorderi,ñlasñr y know, there isñrçó a study authorized and theñr bureau is authorized to limit or prohibiì% clauses based on that study. the bureau released the preliminary report last decembei and they were damning. forced arbitration clauses are everywdáq paráucularly in and these clausesçó dramaticall available toñiñiñiok consumers. i know there are additional issues the bureau wants to iny when do you think the bureau will have that ñrñistudy? you know, this is anñiw3ñrñr ing areaxdñi where if you look at w industry says and what consumer ujuñi ñithere'sñr here there seems to beñiçó almo none.ñrçó so as i understand congress waded into this areaçóçó in

dodd/frank in a way that is mori interventionist than congress has been in otherñi situationsñ particularly in business çó the courts as having a policy in favor of arbitration. here,ç'yñrçóhowever,ñrñi under , d-0aii from mortgage contracts flat out by congress. in terms of the other consumerñ finance contracá as you noted what the congress hasñrçó said there seem toñi beñr very diffe views of this.çó

report where we covered certain subjects. we ha/- more to come.çó i believe we have indicatedñi tt the furtherñixdñr work on that ongoing. it's very active. i believe it will be completed this year. then we'll be in a position to make policy judgments based onñ that. so m)p+e my own viewsñi but we're pushing along and trying to do the work as congress set it out in that frame work,ñi the two sp just as they said. >> right. you anticipate it is going to be this year. >> i do. >> good. i'm very glad to hear that. so the second question. now, i'm sure you would tell me%

that you will need toñi see the final study before decidingñi prohibiting or restricting forced arb))ation clauses. let me ask the question this way. what kind of evidence wouldñiñid issue rulesñi on forcedñr arbitrit&on?ñiñiñi >> it feelsñi very h(r toñi me t of like a case undorññi advisem in a court. clearly i shouldçó judgeñrñr th policy interventions before we finish the study. we're well alongñi butñi not ye complete. cer+ï1e in the endñixdçóçóñiçói

i'd really like to, today, here if i can, stay away from trying to prejudge that. >> all right. i want to be clear that if the evidence supports it, the bureau is willing to issue rules regarding forced arbitration. >> i think congress gave us a very specific task. study it. tell us your results. based on those results you have an obligation to engage in policy making that appropriately reflects the conclusions you reach. >> excellent. i just want to say i realize that arbitration can play a very important role in our legal system as long as parties choose arbitration freely after the dispute has risen. but forcing customers into an arbitration system that begs

control is another way to tilt the playing field against consumers. the agency can help level the playing field and i look forward to seeing the final report. thank you very much. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and director cordrey, before we go back to data issues i have one question on operation choke point. news reports tell us that the department of justice and several federal banking regulators are pressing banks to end relationships with legally operating pay day lenders and with gun stores, retailers. and that this operation is known as operation choke point. are you familiar with it? >> i've certainly read that numerous press accounts of it. therefore i would say i'm familiar with it.

the cfpb has a job to do with the law enforcement agency to police illegal lending whether online or in person and much of what we're talking about here is online. there is now the further issue that's been raised is what about illegal lending that operates by piggy backing on the existing banking payment system. that's not something the banks like. it's not risk they want to be exposed to. some of this gets into areas of prudential regulation safety and soundness and sort of risk and operational risk, legal risk, reputational risk that i'm not an expert on does this mean you are participating with operation choke point? >> i'm not sure what you mean by participating. i think that the agencies have all tried to discuss what is the appropriate approach to know your customer? that's really again more of a credential regulator term. our concern as the consumer bureau is we are supposed to be policing nonbank lenders as well

as the banks and many of those nonbank lenders if they're acting illegally and this is one of the enforcement actions i described in my opening remarks need to be addressed. what i would say is it's about whether the activity is legal or illegal to me. it's not whether -- shouldn't be about whether it's disfavored or favored. >> the operation, what i understand, again, and we just get this in the news reports but from what i understand there is a conscious effort to force legally operating pay day lenders and gun store retailers to stop their business. >> i don't know if -- that's in the report and i don't know if it's accurate or not. i don't know if that is what anybody intends or what is in fact happening. the bureau's focus is on ferreting out illegal activity and it's hard enough to do. >> i understand but what advice if any have you given the

department of justice on this project? >> i have not given advice to the department of justice on this. >> all right. again, let me switch back to the data issues. i have a lot of questions on this and others i have to submit for the record. i would hope we can do that. i just want to talk quickly back again about this new project on the national mortgage data base that you're engaged with with the fhfa. >> yes. >> when i read the long list of personal identifiers that the federal record says are going to be collected you indicated that was just the list that was, i don't know what you call it -- >> it's a term of art that frankly is the kind of thing only bureaucrats can love. yes. called a sorn. i don't even know what the acronym is but it's sort of statement of operational risk notice something like that. >> well, accepted.

it is also a statement out of the federal record, the federal register that says this data will be collected here's the difference. i believe in order to access data, we have to secure it from somewhere. procure it. buy it. whatever. and it comes in whatever format it starts out in. it's already being bought and sold out there by industry. >> understood. >> in that format. for us to create the kind of data base i've pledged to you will meet the dacriteria i've ld out. if it comes in a different form it needs to be identified before it can become part of the data base. >> what i understand is you are actually collecting this information. >> i don't want to jump to that conclusion. they're collecting information and i think identifying what may be in it depending on the original data set, which is out

there in the market place and being freely passed around. for our purposes if it contains that kind of information then that would be deidentified before it comes into the data base and not used by any of my employees. >> what the fhfa notice says is that it will include that information and in this notice they also say they'll deidentify it for some purposes. the question comes back to is this unnecessary invasion of privacy of citizens. when you look at the list of identifying information that is contained. >> it could be. it's scary. here is the question. at a 2013 urban institute conference fire to the issuance of this notice and the federal register, the fhfa's own project manager for the data base said the information in it would be, quote, easy to reverse engineer, end quote. i've been told that by many other experts we've talked to.

is that not correct? >> my understanding is that quote is a truncated quote and there is more to it. i believe the individual went on to say that is the risk and it is very important we handle this properly and deidentify information, etcetera. that was part of a full passage and the full passage needs to be quoted to quote it in context. taken out of context it sounds worse -- >> folks can't watch it on youtube if they would like to. >> they can. >> but the fact is, the core question is isn't it possible to reverse engineer? every expert i've talked to about this issue as we've started looking into it has said, yes. that you can reverse engineer and obtain the deidentified data. are you telling me that's not possible? >> this is a fair question and, particularly, in the real estate market with data that has been on the books for, you know, decades, there's a lot of information available in the

real estate market and the mortgage market. i recall when i taught at law school back in the 1990s, my students coming to me and saying, here's the kind of information out there. i was kind of pooh poohing this at the time. they had my mortgage, purchase price, all kinds of things about me. that's out there. it has nothing to do with whether the cfpb exists or doesn't exist. it's a robust market. >> i understand. my time is up. let me just say i do understand that. in fact, it's quite concerning to me that this information is so broadly available in the public or in the private sector. >> yeah, well, yes. >> and i do have great concerns about that. but the concern i'm expressing to you today is the fact the government is collecting it. >> i understand. >> i think it's a different thing and the rationale for the government to collect this information does not necessarily justify the level of potential invasion of privacy involved here. this is a much longer

discussion. >> let me just again speak my attitude toward this. i know you know it but i'll say it again. this is an area where it's a classic area where congressional oversight is extremely important. you're very concerned about this. the public should be concerned about this. we are concerned about it. your work is making us be on our toes to make sure we're doing things as right as we can. the gao inquiry has been significant and exhaustive and it's going to result in a report and we're working with them and whatever findings they have or concerns they raise we will take to heart. i'm happy to have our staff spend as much time with you and your staff as you like on this because it's not just something you're interested in and i'm just trying to fend you off. i'm interested, too. it's important to this agency to be getting it right as we can. but we also just have to have information in order to do our work other than just throwing darts against a wall, which neither you nor anybody else would like. and information about medical

debt or mortgage market or the credit card market is very critical for you to engage in good policy making and for us to engage in good policy making and even know whether we're getting it good or bad. you can't even criticize us very well unless you have information as to whether what we've done is good or bad. >> we'll have i'm sure a lot more discussions about this. we both look forward to the gao report and we'll continue to engage until we get it right. >> okay. good. >> i thank you for your testimony today and your leadership of the important agency. this hearing is adjourned. >> join us later today when hillary clinton recounts her tenure as secretary of state from her recently published

memoir "hard choices." she'll speak with a former speechwriter and co-owner of a book store. the program is held at george washington university in washington, d.c. it's live at 6:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span 2. what's the state of wi-fi access in school and public libraries? the fcc chairman recently addressed that issue and spoke to the institute of museum and library services along with the former chair reid hunt. here's a preview. >> first personal note, my sister is the head librarian in rockville, maryland. my nephew is a librarian, my brother is a public school teacher, my sister-in-law is a public school teacher, and i once was a public school teacher. in washington, they would be called takers.

but we regard ourselves as a family that has had a long, long commitment to public service. and i'm very proud to, if i could be so bold to say that i'm part of the library community. now i would like to express some of the realities of the situation and not everything i say is going to be goodness. the library community folks we need to step up our game. we are in the playoffs. we need to aim higher. we need to fight more fiercely, pull together, and understand this game is definitely worth the candle. and it is critical that everyone understand the political realities that face chairman wheeler and the fcc. before i go into any more detail i want to make sure that you understand that i was not in fact the creator of the e-rate.

leadership is critical in every walk of life but particularly in politics. i want to acknowledge the two principal people who were the lead thaers created the e-rate. first, al gore. it was in the winter of 1992, 1993. al called me into his office. he was a senator who had just been elected vice president of the united states. the office was right over there. he said if i can persuade president-elect bill clinton to make you the chairman of the 'l to find a way to have the following occur. i want every school girl in carthage, tennessee to be able to go to the library of congress without buying a bus ticket. >> i want all that information digital and i want the most remote school child in the poorest community in the united

states to have access to it. that. >>'s just a brief portion of tonight's program looking at wi-fi access at schools and libraries. watch the complete program at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span 2. c-span's new book sundays at 8:00 includes david wood, the huffington post senior military correspondent. >> there is something that drives them to the idea of service and it's like so many people i know who served in war. the intensity of the experience, the intensity of the relationships they have with their combat buddies are so strong and so pure and true that they look back on those times with longing.

and so i've always asked them, you know, do you wish this had never happened? you know? and they're like, i'd do it again in a heart beat. i think there is something else that goes on there, too. it is that going through a near death experience somehow seems to give them so much strength and courage and optimism that i think that's one reason why they would do it again. >> read more of our conversation with david wood and other featured interviews from our book notes and q & a programs in c-span's sundays at 8:00 from public affairs books now available for a father's day gift at your favorite book seller. >> next the impact of federal aid programs in reducing poverty. tuesday, the house budget committee looked into the issue. witnesses included house assistant minority leader

representative james clyburn who stated that the federal government needs to target more resources to impoverished communities across the country. in addition, social policy and poverty study experts analyzed various assistance programs including supplemental nutrition assistance program or s.n.a.p. this hearing is an hour and five minutes. >> the hearing will come to order. good morning, everybody. welcome.wel this is the fourth in our seriei of hearings on thees war on poverty here in the house budget committee. we've been talking about how to promote upward mobility in america in the 21st century and today we'll pick up where we left off last time. las last time we heard from people r fighting poverty on the front lines. today we are going to hear from people who have worked on the supply line. we're going to look at how the state and federal government cas better support the fight againsi poverty because if wens learned

anything, it's that there is hi room forit improvement. each year we spend nearly $800 billion on 92 different programf to fight poverty. and yet the official poverty rate hasn't budged in years. people can help. we're they can get help if they fall - into poverty. get but far too many people still can't earn enough to get out of poverty. over thet past three years, deee poverty has been the highest since it's been recorded.n clearly, something is not early working and we need to try something new.ne and given our history, i'd say we're due for an adjustment.djus the lasttm time we made big wasw changes was in 1996, almost 20 a years ago. we all know what happened. poverty among children, single mothers fell by double digits. we also learned and our witn witnesses are unanimous on thisn point, that work is crucial to fighting poverty. and there is another takeaway. before congress began drafting legislation, it allowed states s to try out new ideas.s. the national evaluation of

welfare to works strategy program has a number of different approaches. work first programs, education programs, and different mixes between the two. i think that approach with an emphasis on results on concretee evidencete on what works is jusj the mindset we need today.t tim but times have changed. today the biggest programs are medicaid, s.n.a.p., and the earned income tax credit. we spend more on section 8 in housing and we haven't made any se serious reforms in decades. poverty is a very complex t. problem and deep poverty is especially difficult. many people in deep poverty face serious challenges like addiction, homelessness, disability, and all of these te challenges are interrelated., we ll if we can provide better coordinated care we can help hr people get out of poverty..

we'll hear from two panels today. on the first is our colleague ae leader in the house, esteemed ee democrat leader congressman n. james clyburn.ing he is going to brief us on the n 10/20/30 plan he has been discussing. to make sure we havee enough ta to hear from all of our time t witnesses we will noo t take tn questions for mr.we clyburn.quei on the second panel we will heaw from three people who have e extensive experience working with aid programs at the federal, state, and local level. first we have jason turner who worked with wisconsin governor i tommy thompson to reformn our state's welfare program.s welfar then we have robert dorrr who served as commissioner of the ad new york city human resources commission under mayor michael bloomberg. finally we have olivia golden who led the d.c. family and children's services agency from 2001 to 2004. i want to thank all of our o witnesses for being here today and sharing your expertise. the question i want answered today is how can we improve?e. what are some ideas to do a ttej better job? b how can we better focus to target and interrelate these programs? how can we make the programs or better and get more bang for ouo

buck? how can we get more people said involved? i said we need to hear from of people with different points ofr view andom different walks of to life. todaroym we'll hear from people have first-hand knowledge of the challenges we face and with that i'd recognize the ranking membei for his opening remarks. , mr >> thank you,. mr. chairman.i'l i'm glad to have another opportunity to talk about ra we -- e o additional measures w should take inf america to figh poverty. forwo all those who can work ths best urantipoverty measure is a job.believe many of us believe if someone works hard all day, all year to round, he or she should be ablen to earn enough to keep their rs family out ofe poverty. that is why we have proposed to raise the minimum wage which ha less purchasing power today than when harry truman was president. according to the congressional budget office that measure would lift over a million hard workinr americans out of poverty and rs raise low wages for another 15

million working americans. s i hear in the house speaker boehner's refused to even allowe a vote on that measure to raise minimum wage just as he continues to refuse a vote to ny extend emergency unemployment compensation to 3 million americans.but we but we all know that if we raisa the minimum wage huge challenges remain and we must chart a patha for the best waynu forward.id the january report did just that.ut 5 it found about 50 million americans remain in poverty, ano unacceptably high number. it's also found that steps we've taken over the last 50 years ery have cut poverty in half from t what it would otherwise be.that that over 40 million americans who would otherwise be in poverty are not. that's why, mr. chairman, we we cannot understand the disconnect between poverty and the republican budget recently

adopted. the budget is full of trojan on horse policies that are heavy on sound bites but actually shred the social safety net and push more americans into poverty. the republican plan undermines the existing supports for the most vulnerable. the elderly, the disabled, and . children. it guts food and nutrition it programs. it slashes lash$700 billion froe base medicaid program, which prg primarily serves the vulnerablet populations. and it repeals the optional ca state expansion underac the affordable care act. the all tolled, 2/3 of the budget ii cuts, initiatives to help lower and middle income individuals. by what logic do we reduce w byw poverty for the millions of americans in poverty today by cutting programs that have helped lift about 45 million americans out of poverty?it's b it's bad enough the republican budget targets these programs but adds insult to injury to do so to protect special interest

tax breaks for powerful, wealthy elite at the expense of middle e class families and those workin to climb intoto the middle clas the republican budget calls for a one-third cut in the tax rate for millionaires and refuses tou close a single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit. not one. but it doesn't just slash safety net programs designed to prevent people from hitting rock bottom. it also slashes programs that ss provide opportunities to climb out of poverty.povert it cuts deeply into early education, cuts deeply into tho k-12, and cuts very deeply intoh higher education programs like pell grants and student loan programs. just this week while the debt b president and many of us are working to reduce debt burdens

for student loans, here in the house we're talking about permanent, unpaid for, tax break extensions for businesses e allowing future generations to foot the bill. in the end the republican budget will not create jobs, not make t people more employable, will no reduce poverty. lad it will reduce the ladder of shd opportunity and shred the sociap safety net as part ofar a trick down ideology obsessed with ng a cutting tax rates for thex wealthy at the expense of all rs the other priorities. when you get to the top in the republican budget, you pull the ladder up after you.er so i hope, mr. chairman, that a today wet can really get to the bottom of some issues here on n moving forward and we have a tremendous witness with us right now, the assistant democratic nt leader, mr. clyburn, who has mc spent his lifely working to improve the lives of those living in poverty, particularlyi in communities that have had persistently high poverty rates.

we couldn't ask for a better person before the committee ando i'm happy to join you mr. chairman in welcoming mr. clyburn to the committee. >> now that we've set a nice bipartisan tone for productive conversation --. >> thank you very much. let's hope we can keep it that e way for .a while. mr. chairman, ranking member van holla holland, members of the committee, good morning and thank you very much for having here today. i want to thank the chair lady of the congressional black the caucus first and other members of the congressional black caucus who have adopted this s formula as an appropriate way to tackle this issue of persistent poverty. i know that all of us know that

it is no secret that there are major disagreements among the e members of this committee and ed our respective parties over the role the federal government should play inhe fighting pover and confronting many other national challenges. these disagreements would simpls come down to a question of a qus federal resources. i believe that we should target more resources to impoverished communities than your proposed y budgetou advocates. i believe you can do so efficiently and effectively. i was privileged to have the dis opportunity to work with you mr, chairman last year as a member e of the conference committee and results while not a hundred percent of what either of us wanted was a reasonable ext

compromise for federal spending to the end of the next fiscal o year. i was proud to support that how agreement.nment now thatwi we've determined hown much the federal government will spend we must determine to spend it most effectively. it is on this latter question, how to allocate finite federal f resources to get the most bang g for the buck that i believe we need to work a little harder and more creatively to find common o ground to make real strides in combattingpers persistent povern america. now, mr. chairman, there are currently 488 persistent poverty counties in america. 20% of the population has lived below the poverty line for the o last 30 years or more. they are diverse, including states like kentucky, west

virginia, native american communities in states like alaska and south dakota, latinoi communities in states like arizona and texas.xas, african-american communities in states like south carolina, . mississippi, and alabama. there are urban communities in a thest northeast and rural communities in america's heart land. 139 of these counties are represented in this august body by democrats. 331 of these counties are represented by republicans. and 18 are split between the two parties. combatting persistent poverty should matter to all of us, f regardless of party, geography,t

or racy.e and ethnicity. in early 2009, when we were putting together the act, i proposed language to require at least 10% of funds in rural r development accounts to be ctedo directed to projects in these ee persistent poverty counties. this requirement was enacted into law. in light of the definition of persistent poverty counties por having at least ty20% poverty 2 rates over 30 years, this provision became known as the 10/20/30 initiative. this position bore dividends as economic development proliferated persistent poverty counties across the county. the recovery act funded a totala of 4,655 projects in persistent

poverty counties, totaling $1.7 billion. i saw first hand the positive effects of these efforts in my congressional effort. projects were undertaken that t would have otherwise gone lacking and jobs were created that would have otherwise gone wanting.amon among theseg investments was ai $5.8 million grantll and $2 million loan to construct 51 miles of water lines in a in mar community inio marion county, which i represented at the timer but today is represented by our colleague who sits on this committee, mr. rice. in mississippi, $17.5 million was spent to install the water line, elevated tank, and two d o waste water pump stations ations

providing portable, water to isa mississippians and creating d bl badly needed construction jobs. the district in rasor county, texas received a $538,000 loan l to construct more than nine miles of new water distribution lines and connect over 50 0 households to a new water source. i've come before the budget committee today to ask that as you decide how to allocate fe federal resources you expand ten, 20, 30 to other federal agencies. in 2011 i joined with our forme republican colleague then representative joann emerson ofr missouri to introduce an amendment to the continuing resolution that would have

continued 10/20/30 for rule development and expanded it to 11 additional accounts nts throughout the if federal budget affecting economic development, education, job training, health, justice, the environment, and more. i hope to work with members of o thisrk w committee to include similar language in future resolutions and other legislation. i want to be clear about two things.ings. number one, 10/20/30 is not meant to be a fly to an inadequate budget.d and number two, it does not, i o want to repeat this, mr. chairman.10-20- 10/20/30 does not add one dime to the deficit.it sim it simply targets funds already

authorized or propose rated to needy communities. over the past 30 years the national economy has risen and m fallen multiple times during each economic downturn while we have beenwe rightly focused on getting our economy as a whole back ontrack we have not given adequate attention to these ttei communities that are suffering from chronic distress and depression era levels of a joblessness. as a result, they have sufferede even is.n good economic times.t the 10/20/30 approach will provide a mechanism to address h thisis deprivation in times of want and times of plenty. in times of federal investments and in times of fiscal

austerity. i published an article on in th 10/20/30 in the moste recent issue of t issue on legislation. i discussed the history of our nation's efforts to address c chronic poverty and more fully lay out the case for broadly implementing 10, 20, 30, in a bipartisan fashion. i have included the full articll in my written testimony, so tha it appears in the record.ord. >> without objection will be included in the record. re >> thank you, mr. chair.d i enco and i encourage the members of this committee to please read it when you have the opportunity. i look forward to discussing this issue further and working with you to eliminate the scourge of persistent poverty i these distressed communities. thank you so much for having me

here today. >> thank you very much, mr. urn. clyburn. i understand yourun schedule isb very busy and you have to move on but this is very appreciateds and thank you for your contribution and all your hard o work on this issue. >> thank you very much. >> we'll move to our second ive panel. jason turner the executive director of the innovation novan group. robert dorr, the mortgage fellow in poverty studies at the american enterprise institute, r andis olivia golden the executi director of clasp. make sure that every witness e e

knows it is against the law to n provide false testimony to ast i committeemo of congress, we ares going to begin a new committee e practice, which is occurring inu everyrr committee here, of here, swearing in all the witnesses. this does not reflect any r distrust we haveef in a witness. we are taking this step only because of recent legal guidance we have been given from the department of justice, so pleasa raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the t whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> i do. >> yes. >> let the record>> reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you. just why don't we just proceed from our left to right and, mr. . turner, why don't we start with you? >> you're ready. >> there you go.the op

>> mr. chairmanpo thank you for the opportunity to appear beforc this committee. i'm the executive director of the secretary's innovation group made up of 17 state secretaries of human services from around the country. reporting to their governors anc representing 34% of the population of america. our group exchanges ideas and examples of state program innovations and we press for al national solutions which favor work, healthy families, economi. growth, and budget responsibilities. in 2012 our members proposed th policy recommendation which would rebalance the relationship between states and federal fed government and these remarks are adapted from our policy as as developed and agreed upon by our 17 member secretaries. whenever our organization meets with congress, mr. chairman, our secretaries always ask for less money and more accountability. to take an example our members

requested through our foodstampa policy proposal al fixed allocation, a bloc grant with aa 50% federal and state shared risk benefits going up or down either way rather than the hundred percent risk born currently by the federal government.adapting adapting this proposal went to a legislative initiative last yeae we proposed that the house agri agriculture committee allow willing states to 100% self-fund a new foodstamp work program comparable for similarly situated s.n.a.p. recipients with benefit savings resulting s from increased work levels as fm independently verified shared 50/50. our members weretl pleased to p advance this proposal in partnership with representative stevewi sutherland and which as the members of this committee ps know passed the house in modified form without the shared risk funding mechanism was enacted into law shall the firso new federal work program since 1996. in two other proposals our members have made for ui and for

disability we proposed federal/state shared risk ial financial models on an opt-in basis.e stat with the state designing and owning the overall system to be -- to better run the program in fact a federal/state shared risk model could be adapted to h any program with entitlement based expenditures going to individual citizens. our member secretaries constitute a pool of proven risk managers who through example ofo our own proposed reforms are r willing and able to consider shared risk models proposed by s congress in exchange for program management andpr operating th control. the adoption unleashed energy, r adults newly finding and taking jobs, case workers oriented to work first, time limits inducine urgency, new program purposes in such as the promotion of two

parent families. it's an example of how it is possible for the state under a proper federal/state partnershim to make major improvements to d poverty, it work so well? well, first, it eliminated the individual entitlement to forever benefit. second, it combined new and appropriate federal program objectives, such as work and nd marriage. third, it set constructive federal measurements, such as se worknt activation and ion whil participation, while allowing states credit for positive outcomes such as dependency reduction resulting from employment. it permitted states operational freedom with multiple approaches. it permitted states with reduced caseloads to reuse the money foh more constructive purposes than cash payments. in fact, only 29% of the current tanf budget is allocated for cash benefits. to the rest is going to supportive

benefits, more constructive purposes.an timely, its fixed allocation a capped the growth in the program as compared to the former entitlement program formula and induced, therefore, greater refe budget, discipline.disc iipli saw that in my own home sh in wisconsin where after the program, tanf programs began tor grow under the subsequent governor, the instructions camei down foron the agency to redoubt its efforts to get people employed and to manage the caseload better, and that occurred. my written testimony contains specific examples of what tanf-like authority could do, od but -- and i will leave that in my written testimony.en here i would like to share our o proposal to the committee in which we would propose that state implement demonstrations

andan adaptations of tanf to otr programs. simplest -- >> mr. -- i'll have you do that in my q and a because i want to make sure we have enough time for the other witnesses.'ll give so i'll give you time for that . in q and a. >> very good. re >> we'll try g to stick to a ifo have-minute rule. >> thank you. >> thank you chairman ryan for inviting me to testify.ay. it is 50 years since president johnson's ambitious call since n the signing of welfare reform, the promise to change welfare as we know it. while we've made significant changes, increasing labor force participation for never married mothers and promoting important work support, there is still is great frustration and tment disappointment with the currenwf status of our nation's war on a poverty. with 47 million americanssi classified as poor, too many americans are not earning theirt own way above the poverty line. almost as sad as the stubborn eo

persistence of this problem is that at least based on our st 18 experience in new york city, i worked for anti-poverty programs. work works. if you rigorously implement work first strategies not only nly focusing on what government canr do tonm help but also on what recipients can do by working, en you will make real progress in reducing welfare caseloads, rtip increasing labor force n participation and introducing labor force poverty.e the key to success are work iren requirements andts expectationsn return for assistance. work supports that shore up edi, lower wages like earned tax pe credits andop benefits for peop. medicaid. state flexibility to address thd particular needs andua not beine afraid inin addition to talk abt family, especially working fathers and parents raising n, children. and wed t need to do everything

can. doing all of that, here's what we accomplished in new york. we reduced welfare caseloads from 1.1 million to 346,000 in 2013. we increased labor force participation significantly for single mothers and we reduced an poverty.d during the most recent period p the laster period between 2000 0 2012, the largest states in america, new york city was the . only one during that period. we also were not afraid to speay honestly about the implications of good decisions and two-pareni families with publices service awareness initiatives witold the truth about the consequences ofr teen pregnancy and raising si children inng single-parent families. going forward we need to focus on where we are weakest now, and

that concerns low income men who are left out of both of the the rigor of welfare reform work requirements. there is no abilityts for. stat and local agencies to bring them into the work force in the way that welfare reform allowed us s to work with single parents. thy and'r they're left out with the work of the work support that op allows us to shore up low wages. we need to reinvigorate tanf.an my experience since joining aic and lookinoug across the countrk is the focus on work rates are lost in the messages coming from washington. we need to look at the extent which the snap program has k, nt replaced work, not supplementedn work for some portions of the . caseload and we need to consider strongly work requirements for portions of that population.ns f we need to look at the affordable care act impact on n work incentives because of the disincentive to earn additional dollars mainly because they ey would lose their affordable carc act benefits, mainly people who

choose not to work more or not to work at all. that is a terribly problematic c problem and we need to do do everything we can to produce disincentives to hiring in our economy. and, finally, i think given the differences in the strengths of the economy across the country we need to consider relocation assistance that allows for eas people in certain areas where th there are opportunities because of the economy to move to other areas where there are greater opportunities. my general impression after 18p years oref working for both governor pataki and mayor g is t bloomberg is that the lessons or welfare reform are good lessons and we don't needan to turn awa. from them. work requirements, work supports for low income working people, strong -- in yonurturing a stro economy and being honest about raising children without two in involved parents in their lives.

we put so much on what government can do to replace parents or to replace the effects of parents in children's lives, it's more than what my colleagues in new york city or new york city could absorb. we need strong families as well as better policy. thank you.teank ou. >> thank you. ms. gold? >> good morning, chairman ryan,m ranking member vanbe holland and members of the committee.ittee. thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. i'm olivia golden, the executive director of class, an ion th antipoverty organization that works at state and federal levels. in addition, i bring experiencey directly administering these pra programs in new york msstates, massachusetts, the district of d columbia, and as assistant secretary for children and clino families in hhs in the clinton y administration. in my written testimony i begin by highlighting several accomplishments on the war on poverty and describing today's a federal/state work support program. just a few. themes from this

longer discussion.rese researchers find that the war oo poverty programs cut the poverty rate almost in half in 2012 and that they have dramatic clil y changed the lives of low income families, particularly by improving children's access to . health and nutrition. that matters a great deal because research shows lifelong positive impacts for children m who get this help in their earls years. at the same time as the war on n poverty programs have made a ma crucial difference to low income families, so have dramatic increases in work effort by families themselves.1975, in 1975 fewer than half of all mothers and 1/3 of mothers with a child under age 3 were in the labor force.rce. by 2012, 70% of all mothers and 60% of mothers with a child under 3.howeve however, trends in low wage work and in the economy more broadly have created an enormous head . wind for public policy leaving one in five children poor todayf most in families with at least

one worker. in addition, and i think roberti highlighted this, low income workers without dependents, including many youth and noncus noncustodial parents, receive rs far less support than families y in achieving economic security, and finally even among low income working families with children, too many do not o receive the full package of programs they qualify for and r need to succeed. the next section of my testimonm highlights five lessons learnedh from the warts on poverty progr crucial to take into account ass we design the next steps. first, the core programs that os have evolved from the war on r n poverty are now designed to support work not discourage it. key reforms in the 1990s, the he expansion of the aitc, changes to child care, medicaid and s.n.a.p. ensured that today's package of federal safety net program supports work.wo research showsrk that when low income working families can get and keep this whole package of

programs, they are better able to keep a job, move up, and helr their children thrive. at class we're working closely with six states, colorado, idaho, illinois, north carolina, rhode island, and south carolint that are influenced by this resa research and their own thei experience to improve working ti families' access to s.n.a.p., health care insurance and the governor of idaho writes that s his state has sought to, quote, reduce the impediments to ing increase these services to help families enter and succeed in the work force. second, effective programs helpr children thrive and parents work. since the war on poverty began,e we've seen not'v only dramatic increases in mother's work but also major break throughs in the underlying science about young e children's development yet while there has been progress, support for child care and early rams childhood programs has lagged far behind what's needed leaving

large gaps. third, effective safety net ecte programs like ss.n.a.p. and medicaid are counter cyclical, meaning that during an economicn downturn resources to the state and the families automatically go up. by contrast, block grants like o tant do not respond well to recession and did not respond well to the one just past. fourth, states and both partiese are seizing the opportunities available today under current g federal law to integrate the major safety nets and address gaps in coverage and, fifth, f achieving strong outcomes for , children, families and the nation requires a blend of flexibility and day-to-day plem implementati implementation, national accountability to achieve consistent results and t sufficient funding to reach desired goals. flexibility does not compensatee for inadequate funding. the child block grant has hit more than a decade low in the

number of children served because of cap funding.f in conclusion, i propose five ni next steps in the written y, testimony, strengthening onomic economic security for low wage workers, enabling parents to work and care for children, improving access to work support benefits, strengthening the sa safety netfe for youth and th childless adults and strengthening our response to o deeply poor families.famili i look forward to talking about all of these in the question and answer period. >> all done within five minutes. >> thank you. t wa >> good. okay. so mr. -- mr. turner, let me e pick up where you left off left because i cut you off to stick h with the five minutes. what i'm interested in particularly is the example i think you th wanted to get intot i want your sense on how it will be effective and how they're uninterrelated and let's start w with the example you wanted to mention and talk about how t states can betterho help coordinate a system.

>> by all means. let's focus on the right thing n instead of the ancillary. we'd see consolidation into units that make sense. an example would be w.i.a., s.n.a.p. and t.a.n.f. you could add public housing as well where these programs are all operating separately and with parallel but overlapping objectives. secondly, you could introduce e. program competition among providers. right now sometimes the federale law says only this can be done r by nonprofit or by government employees and what we've found e in new york city, for example, ,

under commissioner dorr and alsn mayor giuliani is that when we o told the vendors to actually get paid for people going to work, g the first year after we did that the total amount of the budget that we used for that purpose went down by 1/3 and employment -- jobs doubled. you can permit lower levels of v government such as counties to innovate, like, for instance, pennsylvania did that in 2012. r they allowed interior levels of government to petition the state to actually run their on program, including policies in t.a.n.f. you could reorient social dissolution that mr. dorr referred to.to. you could shift program emphasis from amelioration to prevention and work activation. you could require universal engagement in appropriate work c

activity. you couldyo reduce expenditures throug hde aggression detection ineligible recipients which is precluded under s.n.a.p. in certain cases. you can recommit savings from eo effective program administration for othergr purposes, including supports to working families.fai these are all kinds of things that you could do if you had thr proper shifting. so now i'll be quick because i e know that -- i know there's a time constraint. excuse me for coughing. the secretary's innovation group has proposed that states be able to implement demonstrations of the adaptation d of t.a.n.f.'s other programs and the simplest way to think about this is the a reverse of the current law which allows t.a.n.f. funds to go to other programs, for instance, transferringr t.a.n.f. into chio care and the social services lde

block grant. this would be the reverse.f f the principle is that funds ot could be transferred from other programs like food stamps and housing into a t.a.n.f. speciali account with -- individuals whof have been elquibble for the former benefits now eligible fof similar benefits but with some of the components of t.a.n.f. and work integrated into the merger program and, finally mr. chairman, i'd like to commend to this committee h.r. 4206 which has been proposed as introduced by representative reed of new york state. that proposal would do many of the things that our member to secretaries would like to do nd with experimentation and consolidation. >> thank you. mr. dorro i want to ask you a couple of quick questions. >> sure. >> i'llt start with my last one >> e.i.t.c. childless adult. this is a particular area, r especially with labor force

minimization rates, that im -- i'm not sure what that is. never mind, i guess.area childless adults. this is an area where we are particularly concerned be abouti low labor forceon participation. it's especially problematic for young men. what is your take on how or if we should modify e.i.t.c. for childless adults?es and then i want to ask you another question. >> the difference in the benefit is very significant. it taps out for childless verage adults.ess it's something a little less than $500. households with children it getp up to $5,000. it doesn't have the same effect in promoting and supporting work. this groupp,, particularly for young men, between the ages of b 18 and 25 who are really out of the work force, i believe it could be an important way to to help them get into and stay in y the work force and to make work pay. mayor bloomberg proposed something about this back when t first joined the bloomberg

administration and i thought th that it was something toou do.d. the only issue with the i.t.c. that is a problem is the error rate.an i ran welfare programs, cash assistance, medicaid. i'm familiar with the error rat and the error rate in i.t.c. is too high. ay >> what's the best way to deal i with that? take i >> i think the irs has to take it more seriously and do more data matches against their ns samples of the returns that they receive. >> may i add to that?t? >> there has to be a solution eu because you can't expand a s program that has an error rate of 20%. >> >> the program itself suffers as a result and therefore its popular support can be lost as t well. >> undermind. >> did youto want to add to thad >> on the e.i.t.c. for childlesr adults and for younger men, i'm not sure if that was in your mr. ez is also bringing the age down. we share that's important.rtant it has the potential for addressing the issues of marriage and family formation.me there's some information there.

error rates my experiencemy n broadly in operating a range of the programs and in reading theo inspector general and gao reports is that errors also arise from kploeks at this and n one of the insights about the e earned income tax credit is that one area of complexity is who o has custody of minor children so the single adult is less likelys moreon broadly i think the lessy is clarity, training are key aspects of reducing errors. >> this is something ways and 'e means need to take up. that's a flash flood warning. no worries. i i want you to expand on reducin disincentives of rehiring and relocation. can you expand on thee pointstu were trying to make there? >> well, the -- under mayor bloomberg in new york city the

mayor never made any apologies for all of the things he did to create jobs of all kind and to have an environment in which nm employers werein comfortable abt hiring. so thahit included hospitality jobs, retail jobs and tourism jobs and health care jobs, somee of which wages may not have been high but the encouragement was . always on hiring, increasing hiring. and i think that there's some aspects of the affordable care a actbl it appears that once you n higher up the ladder that landsh on businesses thatt they are ru reluctant to hire given the and uncertainties of the program. di that's very difficult for people who are on welfare programs that are trying to help low income people to get into jobs because sometimes those jobshi are discretionary hires.ey m they may not really need them oy may not want to definitely to t but they need to have an nviro environment whernme they're comfortable, happy, positive about hiring people of all kind ofth skills.ave

i think we don't have a lot of n that in the country and that's part of the reason why people are not in. in thankfully a significant ifican increase in the minimum wage up to $10.10 nationwide regardless of the economic circumstance in a particular area is not helpful to encourage their employment.sn that's another tidisincentive t, hiring. >> one minute.provid provider competition. this is something i'm very enamoredored with. a lot of times we have one vendor or one unit of governmena providing a benefit measured batesed on inputs, not on outcomes. can you give me an example of r how provider outcome can help improve outcome? >> absolutely. yes, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to note that the proposed compromise on w.i.a. wi includes aa provision which woue require the w.i.a. boards to

issue r.f.p.s. that's currently not the practice and states get wavers from that, local boards do and it's not helpful because they ta put out a cost plus contract in which people get paid whether they get somebody a job or not.n in a pay for performance contract you only get paid for putting somebody in a job that lasts at least 30 days and then you get paid more if they remai in thesi job for six months. so those are the two indicatorse what that doets, we've seen that in new york in particular, it mobilizes the agencies around not only placement but followinl up with the employer, finding out if there's problems on the job because as you know, with e many people who are not used to work, getting up and going to work and coming back day after day after day, it's a work habit not necessarily a work skill. the best way to move that ford is to continue to work with

people at least for six months. >> thank you. i think that's very important. mr. val hon land. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank all of you for your mr testimony today.ct to yo mr. turner, with respect to your idea where you put other progra programs into thatms construct,c are yoluu proposing to include medicaid as a part of that? >> no. i >> the reason i ask that is med because medicaid is the largest of our mean tested programs we look at here. >> l >> of course. >> now dr. golden mentioned that one of the benefits of programs like medicaid and s.n.a.p. is that when you have an economic recession or a depression, you have a counter cyclical impact and the concern many of us havee with a strict block grant

program is that you are providing a fixed amount of federal support to the states in both good times and very bad yr times. how would your proposal address that issue if you're going to bundle up all these programs that try and help pull people out of poverty and the economy goes through a sicycle where it, collapses, isn't that a timate legitimate concern and how woul you addressyo that? >> one way to address that is you can include as t.a.n.f. does now a provision in which if thes unemployment rate goes up, visin there's an automatic adjustment for the block grant. that's one way to handle that. let me just also point out that a program that's oftentimes remarked upon for anticyclical reasons has created a lot of problems, and that's food

stamps. in 2001 there were 2.3 million total nonworking food stamp households and yet in 2006 a goe good economic year that had gone up to 4.2 and now it's 8.5 million. so these are food stamp households with no working income. so i don't see how cutting a swatch deep into the middle t se class with food stamps and the e growth of food stamps has been helpful forst work although it y appear to be anticyclical in a l dependency inducing way. >> let me just if i could because i'm going to ask the doctor to respond to that. first of all, if you look at the projections for that, over the y coming years they project significant reductions to

s.n.a.p. because they expect more people to get back into the work force as the economy asses improvessm. their o assessment of the nonpartisan analysis -- th secondly, there's been a lot of discussion about this. currently four out of five individuals who receive s.n.a.p. are either chirp and the elderl or disabled who are not expected to work or people who are working but they're in a job where they don't earn enough income to be in the middle class and therefore are eligible for food programs which we would want to provide to them. dr. golden, is that -- >> yeah, let me say a little bis about the accurate facts on cos s.n.a.p. and then ask what's the consequence when you have a cap program in a recession.at its s.n.a.p., the increase has beene due to the recession.

some other evidence is the se people are starting to go down. they've stabilized and they're starting to go down.state when you look state by state ate the increases and the impact, they stick together. the largest increases with the largest recessions. a large share of that are working so that a key effect of s.n.a.p., i mentioned it in my d written testimony and i brieflyn my oral, that among poor children, fully 1/3 live with somebody who's working full time and still can't bring the familh out of poverty.o 70% live with someone's working even if in 2012 they weren't allowed to work. the snap has responded in the way it's supposed to, t.a.n.f. and the welfare was capped.on.

they were unable to respond. a paper i wrote showed that we're down to thecl lowest numb of children in a decade, in t.a.n.f. it's led to caseloads that barely responded to the i recession at all, that went dowo overall, have gone down overalll since the good times and that an puts states in a bind where their need -- family need goes up when state budget goes down and their four states contain l. children.pread the spread a among states got larger. >> just from my experience in ce new york city, we came out of the recession much earlier than the rest of the country. we were large components of food stampsst supports for working people. our caseload goes almost to 1.9t million. as weo came out of the recessio it did not drop. there's no question, it is a

good work support and there arei elterrelly and children, there are an increasing number of ple children who are not working, n getting food stamps. it is a problem. may not beit as severe as mr. turner says, but it's not something we can ignore. e >> let me ask you on that point, mr. dorr, because first of all b understand that with respect to able body adults, we have time s limits on how long they can be.t >> then if that requirement wasr waived almost entirely by the obama administration for many a years. >> let me ask you.ity wh mr. erdorr, let me ask you a question please. we all would like to encourage work. as iwoas said in my opening statement, a job is the best >>e antipoverty stimulant. i hope we can all agree on that. >> we can agree. >> if you're going to say that in order to get food and nutrition assistance for a family for example that may be

working below the minimum wage or another family a that you should work, okay?willing are you willing when you have 6, 7, 8% unemployment to ensure that they have a job? and i would point out during the recession in the recovery bill there was a provision for stater to allow public federal dollars to help provide work. in fact, governor barber of bab mississippi was a big advocate . of that. you're going to require people o to work as a condition of getting food and nutrition sistn assistance when the economy is o sinking, are you going to make e sure that those who that want t work with a rejob? >> the way the requirements work is you need to be engaged in tob activities that lead toe work. there are alternatives to not having a job, job search, web j, program or work program. so it doesn't necessarily depend

on the exact existence of a job. there's a second and third eriec change.e my experience in running these programs in new york city with o very good job placement agencies, that if you leave people out of the requirement or the expectation to get into work, you're really harming them because you're not encouraging s them or bringing them into this fold that allows a case management person and operation to move into work. >> if i could j ask dr. golden to respond. look, we all want to go to workk >> two .comments. >> a job, what do you do? >> two comments. the first is that my perspective t.a.n.f. whapened in as the assistant secretary in the clinton administration implementing it is that at the time we implemented it states had resources in t.a.n.f., chiln

care, medicaid, e.i.n.c. to n invest in families and have a good economy. today what you heard from mr. o dorr is not typical of states as a whole.doar i states are very different from each other.ates a what'sre happened is that with e block grant not only is catchsh assistance at a low level but w access to training activities is at a low level.low i had a chance to look at current state expenditures. they gifted money to fill holeso in otherth parts of their budge. >> this is exactly the concern,g right? we want toto encourage folks to get into the work force, but at the same time states are cutting back? >> you need federal -- want >> mr. dorr mentioned the e.i.t.c. there seems to be consensus that we want to expand e.i.t.c. for able body adults, childless adults. that costs money.m the president's proposed that in

his budget, $60 billion.. as we have this discussion, mr.i chairman, our concersn is that remain focused on trying to address thead poverty issues. if you save money as a oduct by-product of that, that's one o thing.ing. starting with the assumption it thath you're going to save hund hundreds of billions of dollarss and then working backyard is nor the way to do it. >> thank you. the time for the gentleman has expired. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you for holding this hearing. it's really an important topic o and one that's been going on a long time. americ a is a very generous country full of compassionate e people. we've spend $20 trillion in ther last 50 years. although rates have come down somewhat, most people looking at that amount ofnd expenditure sa we should have gotten better bang for his buck. we all agree with finite resources. we all agree with that. with we all have finite resources foh

this and other things. the question should be how do w improve theth programs? th areey they working as well as ty can? mr. dorr i was intrigued by man of your comments. you mentioned that snap n oftentimes replaces work and i wish you would expand on that. e >> the feeling was that we had pushed the s.n.a.p. enrollment efforts to help people going through difficult times to sucho an extent that the caseload -- e that then as the economy recovered that there were maybe households b taking advantage o the benefit and not working. a we had a work requirement to ino push people into our work he requirements to get jobs.ook if you do look at a data there h is a portion of the workload not

senior, not children, but doesn't appear to be working.d that appeared to be a problem we awed to address. you can't live on food stamps ai incomeng alone. something was going on there inu the work push of the t.a.n.f. tn program that we all the to nd yu address. >> you saw positive results when you did? >> when we had people come in ee and be take advantage of the emy work employment programs that are tied to t.a.n.f. and we we expanded it to some food stamp e recipients, they got jobs. >> it is remarkable that as thes job go down, poverty goes up. pretty significant correlation, is it not? >> the economy is a key improvi ingredient. >> when we look ativ some of th programs that the federal feder government institution, ely

oftentimes it was positioned closely looking at the aca.ntiod there are some significant disincentives to work within to obama caobamcare, within the affordable care act. w can you expand on that please?a. >> casey mulligan has done some interesting work at the restin university of chicagog indicaty that -- and this is not actually for the poverty population. it >> correct. t >> more likely to be people muce further up the income level who are receiving a subsidy but thet subsidy is tied to their income. to the extent their income goes up they may lose more in their health care.as a there is a job reduction aspect to the affordable care act. that's a concern. y >> on the cbo direct hor beforec thisen has some disincentives. you said we should reinvigorate

t.a.n.f.invigo how would you proceed along those lines to reinvigorate a ka program that has worked in the past. >> when i c look at it, i sent the welfare reforms and work requirements. when you work at the level jason and i and dr. golden worked at, the role of federal oversight io significant. how often are they in your office, how often do they ask you why your statistics don't get better.ttin in some programs, cms and medicaid, child care enforcement, cms and medicaid. there was a significant ot involvement in new york city.he i had not seen that in t.a.n.f.h i looked at the date people were in penalty status.rtdon't thinks in penalty status in the united

states in five years which just shows that there may be less of an enthusiasm about the work rk requirement aspect of tanf. >> at this can just comment on that as well. the federal government has give encouraged states to go out ande get food stamp recipients measured as a percentage of everybody that's potentially pot eligible.eli this isgi a counter productive policy and i think it contributes to the increase in a the nonworking food stamp caseload excluding aged and d. disabled -- >> i'd add on -- >> -- from the able bodied from 2.3 to 8 point -- >> ms. moore. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have half the time that they .

had so i would hope that you would answer my questions very s quickly. how are you? >> very, very goods. g good to see you, representative moore. >> it is. it is.re.t we do have a history and so i know that a lot of your a experience and you've done you'e fantastically m your career was based on your work with tommy thompson at a time when i was a state senator.icies t i'll get in there. are you concerned that the policies you are promoting really promote women becoming a permanent under class in our county? the reason ithe ask that is bee you focused on, for example, mp, work first.work we all know sitting here, all oa us are educated in this room, c

that some kind of post secondart education gives you an opportunity. work helps your income earnings potential, the strict denial and limited educational opportunitya reallyl cuts that off. the day we passed so-called w-2 in wisconsin, 10,000 women lost their ability to go to technical college and higher education.t that's my first question. yes. and you'll also recall, senator moore, that milwaukee -- tor >> representative more now but t i'm entitled to both the titles. >> i'm sorry about that, representative moore. we the milwaukee poverty rate went from 34% to 25% in the first year of w-2. >> let's back up though because the economy is not doing well.

>> yes, but that's because so many people were going -- they were streaming into the labor force. just because they're not enrolled in a program doesn't am mean people don't take jobs. >> we didn't keep data and statistics, mr. turner, on whether they were going into work or andnot. that was a deliberate activity.r i was there. let me ask you another question. when you talk about the 29% of t.a.n.f. dollars don't go for l benefits and you saydo that they're going for more productive uses, what was your thought of the $18 million in profits that went with that first round of w t.a.n.f. dolla? what productive use was that inp therodu milwaukee area?e and i ask that question because i believe that all it did was incentivize people from getting benefits. remember we had diversion sion specialists? you could walk in there with a g

big belly, 9 months pregnant, two kids hanging on you and it was their job to deny you as many benefits as possible. man so i guess i want you to respond to what productive use this $18 million was. pr >> well, the 29% figure, representative moore, is the current proportion of t.a.n.f. o federal funds that go to cash benefits. that means that 71% of all t.a.n.f. block grant money is going to child care for workingt families, some of it's going org into the state v.i.t.c. >> good.state. one more question because my time is waning.example you talked about -- you gave us an example of section 8 housing. $16 billion fo r section 8 to provide people with stable housing opportunities, low oppor income people,tu and they've be receiving these benefits for tog

long. there's sort of moral hazard dependency. what kind of dependency does te $70 billion a year we spent on d the mortgage reduction, which io certainly look forward to every year, what kind of moral hazardt is it and what productive use is the mortgage interest deduction of 70 billion versus the 16 billion in our economy?ou >> well, as you may know, if yot get a section 8 certificate thah can be worth 1/4 million dollas in net present value yet there'o no connection between what on happens once b you get -- you te a voucher like that and your lie obligations to go to work or toa moveti on. >> i mean, do we have to go to work to get the mortgage history reduction? how can we reform the mortgage interest deduction to make sure there's no moral hazard in that? i'm dependent on it >> well, that's outside of my area of expertise. >> it sure is and thank you, m time has expired.

>> all right. ms. wright? ms. wright? okay. mr. williams? >> thank you for coming today. i appreciate t. i'm a small business owner from texas, stilr employ people, over 100 people i forne 44 years, families 75 yea so i appreciate you all being hereal today. and i guess my statement would be this. you know, the best way to tackle poverty we talk about today is e to create a job.bout we all agree to that. however, you create a job through opportunity, not througp a guarantee.a a guarantee is not a job. an opportunity to grow and expand is. and increasing hiring is up to the private sector, i believe, not the -- not the federal th government. the private sector offers. you n opportunity. the federal government offers fa you a guarantee. now my -- i guess we talked about distractions in hiring today and i can tell you big

distractions in hiring. i'm glad to hear some of my colleagues on the other side agree that the economy is not good. it is not good. distraction in hiring would be minimum wage increase. minimum wage increase does not e cost jobs and make prices go up. we should not be a country of i. minimums, we should be a country of maximums. a high tax on business is another job destroyer where deso small business owners, they're plain too high taxes. then obama care is a real disaster when it comes to smalls business owners, what we can plan, who we can hire with not hiring this many people so we o don't have to be involved in the program. so there's no work unless businesses can hire and small businesses i can tell you as ons of them, we're playing defense every sickle day.ngle we don't know regulations, we ln don't know rules, we don't knoww where we e are. we're not hiring people.people. so i think the idea we talk about states and statesab compet competing is alwaysin a good thh to reduce employment.

i guess my question would be to you, mr. dorr, based on your experience with the welfare thel reform, do you think that thesek programs t we're talking about well-intended as they may be have the effect of trapping people, trapping people in poverty and creating incentivesi for them tong become dependent the government.n in other words, focus t on havi a guarantee in their life rather than opportunity in their life?n >> i think they can if they're not run well, if they're 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 had 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 seeking assistance that really wanted t work. and we ntedalso, i think we sho point this out, we were successful because the people we asked to go to work went to wor and they did it and they wanted

to do it. ha and i think we have to set up at circumstance that says to folks in need, we have high hopes and high -- we believe in you and wn believe in your ability to go into employment.r we want to make every opportunity available for to you do that. t we have to tell h small business owners that it'so okay if you make money,wn it's e okay to take some risk, it's okay to get rewarded and hire people because i can tell you, i as one peperson, i want to hire people but i'm afraid to hire ee people unless they're on commission. that's a real a problem in our country. thank you for yourth testimony. all of you. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, what strikes me is when all else fails, we always go back so i ask you, drw goldman, to finish what you were trying to say before when you were not allowed to say it actually,tr what is your take o that and be as brief as possible? >> my take on the a.c.a. as it

affects families in poverty is e that those states that have tht taken the medicaid expansion me havedi removed one of the worstn disincentives to employment forr parents because in those states that have not taken it, the eligibility limit for health tym insurance for ait parent is typically 50% of the poverty level or less. so if you're working at minimum wage, more than a few hours and you get the chance to work steady part time or full time, , you're placing your health yourh insurance atea risk. if a state takes the expansion,n you have the ability to keep k that healthee insurance and sle secure at night knowing that you have it. >> thank you. dr. dorr. >> in your testimony today you state the earned income tax e credit, child kara sis tans, public health insurance, food c stamps and child support ood st enforcementam collections can a be important work supports thatl

make earnings go farther for a a family. they said love is not enough. sometimes work is not enough, correct? >> what do you mean?ec >> well, your job may not pay t what you really need to support your family. >> that is absolutely true, y in wages can sometimes be lower bu. that's why we have work ve the supports. >> i think that's seimportant. we acknowledge how difficult it can be for americans to have owg jobs and are working for low wages and how important a robusa safety net is for those folks. d what you're trying to do is reposition the chairs on the stinking titanic. it seems to me that if we want to look at ways to reduce our ce spending on these safety net programs, one of the most obvious ways is to raise wages

to the point where families no longer need public assistance. h i didn't ask a question yet.by we can do that most effectively by raising the minimum wage. unlike your position, let's use an example. you like to use examples. i like that.examples let me use an example. many americans would be surp surprised to learn that walmarta the nation's largest private -- 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 and why do they need public

assistance? there's nothing more than corporate welfare that allows in walmart to continue to pay po 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. dorr, do you believe that federal spending on means tested safety net programs for walmart employees w would be reduced of r these employees wer earning a higher wage? that's a question. >> okay. there's a tradeoff. if the wages go up and the tradf people's ability to get in the d labor force is diminished, they're going to come to welfare. they needd assistance without e work, and the question is do they have a safety net built to help them.rough what we've built many years, er bipartisan effort,t is a work st support systemha that shores up

low wages and that's what we do. it's i think more successful than having more people out of work depending on a safety net system that won't support them.a >> mr. dorr, they could be ng working at a job that does not m afford them the income they neet to raise a family and therefore they're going to have to look tt public assistance. >> public assistance is not a simply for someone swho's totale out of work or a child or an a older person who can't move.sono do you agree with that? >> that's what -- yes.that? that's what a work support work system is. >> thank you very much.>> tha i'm glad you support the system that exists. thank you, mr. chairman. >> par for the course. mr. akita. chairman.i th also thank thean witnesses for their compelling testimony.s if we had time i'll try to get back. mr. dorr, do you have any final response to the last -- >> no, r i'm fine. >> may i just say that -- >> i ma i resnond. >> go ahead please. >> sometimes -- sometimes we have single entry bookkeeping

when we focus only on wages. walmart is one of the greatest wealth creators in this country because of the pressure they puy on suppliers and producing low prices. when you takeices away their ri to have a low priced economy, you're also hurting the people s that are consumers there and d y they're low income people. opl >> i think that's a great point. thanks for adding it to the record. i'd also add speaking with the ceo of mcdonald's, you know, most -- most, maybe half the franchisees, a good portion, nonetheless, of the franchiseese of mcdonald's started oute as a cashier, a minimum wage paying job.minimu i would cite that company as on of this country's most -- the n best and most efficient, most successful upward mobility pror programs to raise folks out of a life of poverty. >> may i also comment on upward mobility for low income workers? >>. >> yes. harry holzer who's a professor

at georgetown looked at a data set and took people that were working less -- earning less st than $12,000 for three consecutive years and looked at what happened to them six yearso later, these three consecutive years were in the early 1990s. only 29% of the people that were in that category were still loww wage six years later and the median increase in their income was 86%. the point here, getting on the ladder is going to move you up . wage wise. a manufacturer told us we hire e our $18 employees from the ranks of proven $9 employees not from folks who have been through a e government program. >> mr. n'dorr's point, if you raise the minimum wage you can't get on the ladder. speaking of mr. dorr, i noticed

when representative holland wash questioning you there was greem agreement thankfully that the best bestanti-poverty program wi job. i appreciate that that was recognized. he saidco there weregn time lim put on welfare recipients, maybe it was the food stamp program, s.n.a.p. program. you said, well, most of the states wave that. can you expand on that?ogram. you were cut off. the >> in the food stamp program ng there's a long standing policy of able body people who should be working but during difficult times states are given the iffiu option of waving that requirement and i think in the -- >> given -- req under the law o the administration? >> the law. >> well, under the law, but the? in the -- in the -- in the first act of the obama administration they extended it for the whole t period of the recession. and most states took advantage of that. one place that did not was new york city. we kept the requirement because we felt that our -- first of all, the economy, we felt it had

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

view. >> please expand. >> when i was commissioner in new york city we had 138 employment vendors which rereduced to 13 prime providersi withme subcontractors and they were only paid if they got th people jobs and retained them. when we did that in the first full year after we switched swc performance contracting, which included for profit vendors, ou, total budget for employment and training went down by 1/3 and d our recorded placement doubled.c noemw some of the money that wer for that purpose went for profits, but it's not like non-profit organizations don't have profits of their own. l they have a different accountin system for it.have they call it indirect costs, but it's the same thing. but you have to make a profit if o k you're going teo run an operation. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i wondered -- i have two w questions but i wonder if dr. golden would like to respond. i know you were trying to to respond on a question of work wavers under s.n.a.p. >> yeah, the main point was that the law allows states to not have a work requirement for the able bodied individuals when whn unemployment is high enough and that problem will be solving itself over the next few years as state unemployment rates get stronger so that's -- it's -- it's part of the statute and reflects a reasonable responsiveness to state economic circumstances. >> thank you. i wonder, dr. sive golden, if y might also comment. one of the questions that e of t congress has been wrestling with that has an effect on poverty or at least puts many americans ins jeopardy of moving from the wor force intowo long-term poverty d the lossed of federal unemploymt benefits. in michigan, for example, governor and legislature rolled back from 26 weeks to 20 weeks of unemployment.rom

it26 typically takes a working . person, we're talking about wok people who are in the workin foe who have lost their jobs about 37 weeks to find that next opportunity. and i just amxt really nervous about what happens to those families in the 17 weeks on 17 average that it takes them to o survive on nothing and whether or not that potentially really puts those families at risk of f entering a cycle of poverty that they otherwise would be able toi avoid? if you can quickly answer ly because i have other questions. >> sure. so, yes, losing unemployment benefits is damaging to families and to children. unemployment insurance is important as a way of keeping f families out of poverty.fa and i think one of the things i would highlight about our whole conversation today is that 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 e at the time of the war on poverty about the lifelong effects of not having economic

stability so i think you're ght right to worry about the immediate and longer term effects for families. >> thank you very much. i wonder, mr. dorr, there's been some discussion about minimum wage. i wonder if youm it was your position, i believe, that raising the minimum wage would have negative con uence consequence on the youngon works trying to enter the work force.k is it your position that the f. current federal minimum wage is precisely correct in order to accommodate entry into the work force or would it be your force? position that we should reduce thebe minimum wage? in orderwe to increase, by theo, access to the work force. >> it would not be my position that we should reduce the minimum wage. i also support, and not having s the federal government determiny the minimum wage for the whole m country. >> no minimum wage whatsoever?ry.

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

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

i think the commissioner's point is, you need to get a job first and the concern is is that a more disincentives to hiring will lead to fewer opportunities for people to get on the ladder going up. opportu >> thank you. mr. rice? >> thank you, mr. chairman.mr. thank you to the panelists for being here today. i'm curious. i think the stated federal list, unemployment rate is 6.3%. do you think that is an accuratu picture of our unemployment rate, mr. turner? 6.3%? >> i don't know what it is right now, sorry. >> do you think that's an accurate reflection? >> oh, no, because it doesn't include individuals who are not included in the unemployment de rate.not and, for instance, the disability case load has gone through the roof.ability the food stamp case load has roh gone up, but people who are noth actively looking for work are pe not counted.ly >> thank you.r >> so, our employment rate has been going down.

>> do you think it's reflective of the national unemployment? >> no, it's not a complete picture. the better b picture is the labe participation rate, which is remarkable low. >> is that a wh reflection of o federal -- >> i think it helms us see trends. every recession we've had, the recovery for those on the bottor takes longer than for those whor are better off. so, for low income mothers raising kids, it takes longer tt come back than it does for the s average across all 6.3%.ss a >> mrs. golden, you said that the aca medicaid expansion was a a -- took away a disincentive. it just moves it further up the income level. if you are at 130% of the federal poverty rate, and you are considering a job, you still lose that subsidy. >> not until 400%, which is a pretty decent level.400% in other words, you have support through medicaid and then you ve have support through the subsidy

on the exchange and the law's a. designed so that by the time that help phases out, you're probably in a better position to take care of your family's needs. >> but there is still is some e disincentive, once you approachc that 138%. >> i'm not a health economist. i look at these issues from the poverty perspective.po i think it will depend a lot on the specifics of how your statei has organizedcs that exchange. in the states i'm working with, they're trying hard to have a smooth transition, but i don't a know the answer to exactly -- iw also suspect it would be different by person, exactly hod it would play out. perso but then key design of the law, when a state takes the of the expansion, is that there's the ability to get help phasing outt all the way until you are secure enough to be able to pay for it. >> mrs. golden, what's the living wage in san francisco? >> i don't know the answer to n that't numerically. i would say -- >> what is it in south carolina. >> it's interesting. i'm doing some work in south >>i

carolina. i would sail that what people share around the country, and le it's one of the reasons why i think increasing the minimum wage around the country is the s need to be able to feed their families, have secure work, have good quality care for their ser children, which also --e >> housing, all those kinds of things -- >> right.ca but i think we've been hearing, it's not only from the minimum n wage. it's the intersection of a nim better minimum wage, which will help low income people reduce poverty. >> san francisco -- is the living wage in san francisco >>n as -- >> i think we've always had a fr federal level that we thought a achieved ad decent standard of living ever where andcent highei levels in some place. >> a living wage is the same --i >> no, it's not. sa >> mr. turner, is the living >>. wage the same in san francisco as it is in south carolina? >> of course not. >> inso, once size fits all federal mandate of a living l wage, does that fix our s,

problems? won't it cause a disincentive? >> yes, it will.okay >> all of you mentioned that work is the best aleleviation ff poverty, right? and we need to do away with federal disincentives to hirings and federal dissin tennives to work. can you name the primary federa disincentive to hiring, mr. turner, in your opinion? f >> oh, i mean, i don't even kno> where to start ithere, but certainly the excesses of the great society taken as a whole havef weakened families, driven men out of the labor force and o are responsible for some of thee social problems, much of the social disillusion we see today >> that's a disincentive to work. mr. doar, can you name your primary disinessential tisecent? >> i just want them to hire people that are in trouble

economically. i think on the federal policy, i've looked at the work and unemployment insurance extensions are a principle culprit, followed bypl some prc concerns about what's happeningw with eddisability insurance andh frankly, the welfare programs are not as significant players in this disincentive to go to ni work as they might vebe.work a >> thank you. >> mr. cardenas. >> okay, it's on. dr. golden, did you want to ca answer that last question? >> sure, i was going to highlight that a key issue for employers is the quality of workers and their skills and so, i do think that when the federl government doesn't invest enough in early childhood education iny k through 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.entive t failing to invest sufficiently is one of the things we should have on the list.ings >> so, early investment seems te pay very well whenar it comes tl the economy, on the macro levelc down to the individual worker level and individual household i level, correct? >> yes. >> so, on that note, is yes. walmart -- they were given an example, the biggest private employer in the country.er in would you say they are more of a short-term investor in our economy when it comes to what s you justto described or are thee long-term positive or a short-term positive? or >> well, again, i'm not an economist expert in individual firms, so n maybe i'll comment lowell wage work more broadly -- >> a disproporti shutiodispropoe on public assistance. is that a short-term or long-term effort, so it seems? >> it's clearly, i guess i'd say

two things, the first one is that i do think that having a safety net that's able to provideo, for example, health 's care, no matter if your employeh provides it or not is an important place to be. not so, i wouldn't -- so, i think o that's -- part of it is havingi the public safety net. in terms of the employer like walmart, clearly when 'em mroit is unstable and low wage, i think one of the other issues that we've been working on thate is a contributor to big problems for families is schedules that make it impossible to raise a child and work, right? so, your hours are constantly changing. when employ earls carry out those practices, low wages and a whole set of other, lack of who benefits and bad practices, they're not successfully invest income the work force they needy in the long run, so, i would san from that perspective, it's no long run either for them or for the country.pect >> one of the things that i -- really bothers me is