>> with the minute i have left i want to switch gears a little bit and talk about the work opportunity tax credit. miss tiller, miss reynolds, will r the two of you familiar with this? a lot of folks come to my office and say it's a good thing, it's effective in helping people -- incentivizing employers to hire low income people or folks that might have been -- that are an ex-felon or something like that and they get a credit for hiring and then training and keeping them on the job. it seems to me like a good thing then there's others that say "not so good." so i wanted to get your impressions of the program. let's start with you miss tiller, is it complementary to the work you do in training folks? is it a better incentive? >> we make sure if america works that we inform all of our participants, all of the individuals, about the work opportunity tax credit and i've heard both sides as well. with the ex-offenders that i work with consistently, there's some embarrassment because of the way the application process

is. when you're filling out an application for an employer some of these questions are asked repeatedly "what is your felon status?" "what is your misdemeanor status"? so i think we would have to re-evaluate how in essence we are getting to the point that the business would accrue that credit. thank you, time has expired. gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. let me make an opening statement just given that last exchange between one of our colleagues and mrs. gaines-turner with regard to dependency. just recently -- and friday we'll work on another tax extender where apparently we are going to extend $614 billion in tax extenders on a permanent -- make them permanent and put businesses on a permanent

welfare. these bills -- the latest, the bonus depreciation, was temporary in nature to stimulate the economy. as you remember, targeted temporary and timely was what we tried to do to stimulate the economy but yet they want to add $287 billion to the deficit. i'm going to put this in the record with your permission, mr. chairman, just to clear that up. i also want to clear some other things up without objection. clear some other things up about the -- because i feel like we've had great testimony from all three of you but the conversation was sort of trying to steer some of our witnesses into saying that they're just absolutely too many programs and if they had more flexibility that they could do a better job. i certainly agree, for example,

ms. reynolds, the case management approach. certainly agree with what america works that has recently come to milwaukee. some of the things that you do. but be clear: when they talk about flexibility they're talking about cutting the $299 billion medicaid program that you may need in order to help situational or generational poverty or the infirm or disabled people. the testimony you read for us ms. tiller, the young woman, i think she was probably still on medicaid after she got her job at the fast food restaurant. so you, you know, i don't want you all to be sort of lulled into supporting gutting this while we pay $614 in corporate welfare. i do have a question for you miss reynolds about the mind seth of the individual. don't you think we have to change the mind seth of the community, too?

an example of come up with, if you run into a client, for example, who found themselves in the county jail because they had a bar fight and when they come out, don't we have to get the business community to hire people who might have a public record, for example? >> we in fort worth have been very fortunate to work with the business community, we have developed a living wage tool kit at our organization. everybody at catholic charities fort worth makes a living wage and several of our local businesses have adopted that as our own choice -- >> thank you, i don't have ten minutes like the chairman did. so that's the point. not just changing the individual mind seth, the community has to brace it, too, other wide you have permanent to unemployment. i'm so happy people get educational opportunity through your program because miss tiller you focus on work first programs and sometimes it's very difficult. we have skilled match in this country. how do you deal with skills match when you don't allow

education, one of my main critiques of the program. >> well, it's not that we don't allow education. a lotz of times we'll take the skill set that the individual comes in with, see if we can transfer it to some type of employment is that simultaneously not only will they be working and beginning to provide more for their families but then they can start to attend educational programs. and we at america works encourage college, accredited degree programs -- >> now do you -- do you worry about this -- the femme anization of poverty. since tanf is primarily utilized by women and and everybody here is educated in this room. we all know that an associate's degree, bachelor's degree is necessary in this economy to have a job. don't you worry about that? and i'm going to ask you another question, too. your model, your business model, america works, you've come into milwaukee and it's sort of putting the nonprofits and

public sector out of business. how does your profit delivering these services how does your business model enable you to provide services to clients that are adequate to get them out of poverty? >> well, we're able to turn around those profits and reinvest in new programs to help additional individuals. >> you use profits back into the program and not to the shareholders of the for-profit company? >> well, both. but we want to reinvest because then we're able to begin more programs, do more research and help additional population. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. williams? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank all of you for being here. this is wonderful testimony, you have wonderful stories, we appreciate you greatly. i'd like to say miss ronalds, we call call fort worth our home and we're both tcu horn frogs so go frogs. [ laughter ] miss reynolds. you said -- we've been talking about a term that you use which i think a good term "generational poverty."

it's a mind-set. you talked about that, no goals, no future. do a lot of the people you work with, do they trust government more than they would the private sector. >> absolutely not. the majority of people we serve come through our doors because they trust catholic charities. catholic charities is a strong brand throughout the community and i believe each person who comes into a catholic charities anywhere throughout our mission is met with such dignity and care i think folks would rather come into our warm inviting offices than usually governmental offices. >> well, i agree and being from fort worth i know the great things you do and i appreciate it very much. >> we try relationships with people, maybe better than relationships with government as a whole. people can help bet than in many cases the federal government. just going in another direction real quick, i want to thank you for the work you're doing on the border. i know what you're doing down there and you're really, really

making a difference with some challenges we have there. miss turner, i thank you for your testimony, i appreciate that. what i heard you say earlier was that actually government delivers negative incentives to you. in order, the government is rude. the government says don't have a savings account. the government says don't make any more money than what you're making. do you think with that being said that actually we should be more like the private sector where it allows for growth and unlimited success? >> did i say government or did i say case workers? >> well, i assume that you're talking about government programs and so forth. >> i was talking about the case workers that work for the government. >> so that's the government. >> well, no, i don't think we should go to the private sector. i don't feel like i need someone else to tell me how i should be spend mig benefits or where the benefits should come from. so no i don't feel that we should go that way.

i feel like that i should be in charge of what's good for me. i feel like i should have a say so on what comes down the pike which is going to affect me and my family and my children and so many americans. that's what i feel. i don't feel like the government should tell me i have that this and this is what you're going to do with it and if you don't do it then you will be penalized. that's how i feel about that. >> so you don't think the government should tell you that? >> no, i don't think the government should tell me that. i feel like when i go into an office and i sit down across the table i should be treated like a human being. i should be looked at as a human being. i shouldn't be talk down to. i shouldn't be looked at as someone who wants to just rely on government programs. that's not true. i'm very strong, i'm very independent, i'm very smart and i know what's right and wrong for me and my family. >> well, you sound like a private sector person talking. [ laughter ] i appreciate that. back to you, miss reynolds.

what would you say are the biggest barriers that your clients face and they're trying to move out of poverty. what are the biggest barriers? >> that leap. a lot of the families we serve, 80%, are working. they're just the working poor. so they don't make enough to get out of poverty yet they make too much to qualify for any governmental assistance and too often the federal system incentivizes people not to work and to backslide because you become -- it's financially better, they're more financially astute about how that should look. for us the thing that would be beneficial would be more of an incremental decrease of losing benefits as well as case management that can work hand in hand with families to remove barriers to get them where they need to go. while i agree everybody who comes to services -- be it government, be it the private sector -- should be treated with compassionate dignity i do believe accountability is incredibly important and i think support is incredibly important. i learn how old to balance a checkbook from my father who's a cpa.

a lot of the families who walk through our doors have no clue what to do. no clue how to get to that next level. we talk about pell grants. it's a great benefit. at the same time, only 10% of students who start -- low-income students who start community college nationwide ever finish. something's wrong. and what often it is is a small situation, child care issues, barriers with some families spiraling out of control. they need the support, that push, they need that help to make that leap out. >> and you're doing that anded with that being said i yield bac back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm old enough to remember george bush being sold to us as a compassionate conservative. and i appreciate five, six hearings here about poor people but i'm not sure we really understand and miss gaines-turner, you are someone we can learn from about how it actually works. now everybody up here makes

$170,000 a year. so we don't have much contact with what you go through on an average month. could you tell me what your educati education l education level is? >> i graduated high school. >> so you have a high school education. >> yes. >> and the federal government describes poverty level for a family of five -- that's three kids and a couple of parents -- at $27,900. can you tell us what your income as a family -- monthly after taxes or yearly after taxes, can you give us an idea of where you are? >> my husband gets paid every week and makes $8.25 an hour. after taxes he clears about maybe $170 a week. >> $170? >> $170 a week. >> okay. >> i get paid $10.88 an hour. just recently june my hours were cut down 12 hours a week due to

the budget. my paycheck was $222. for two weeks. for two weeks. >> two weeks? >> yes. >> so that would be about $111 for a week. >> yes, sir. >> okay, so that's -- so that's what your money is. now tell me about how the food stamp thing interacts with that? what level is that -- is that based against your salary whether you get the food stamps or is it the family level? >> it's me and my husband's income. it's based off of what we receive for food stamps. >> and you have to report each week or each month. >> you have to report each month. >> each month. so when you're dropped you reduce yours and you get more food stamp money. >> that's the way it's supposed to work. that's not how it always works. so in june my income reduced and i went into the county assistance office and gave them that information and my food stamps stayed the same so it was supposed to rise but it didn't

because the caseworker said she didn't get the paperwork so now that i'm back to my full-time hours in july my income now -- my food stamps will go back to $380 is what my food stamps will be. >> so we're looking at a family that right now is making about maybe $300 a week. that's $1200 a month. you're living on that amount of money? >> yes. that was for the month of june. yes. >> do you get any cash money from any other source? from tanf? >> no, i'm not on cash assistance? >> no cash assistance sir? >> no. >> the only thing you have is the food stamps on top of that? >> yes. >> tan f. >> and how much do you pay for rent. >> my rent is $277. >> so a quarter of your money -- well, not a quarter, a fifth of your money goes to rent.

and do you have a car? >> no, i take public transportation. me and my husband. >> and how much are your utilities a month? >> my utilities vary. you would figure one month i might get a water bill for $230. then you have to think about the gas bill which is maybe another $107, something like that give or take. then you have to think about the electric. like i said, i have three children with medical disabil y disabilities so i don't have a choice but to turn on the air conditioning and make sure my house is cool in the summer months so that my children don't have seizures. in the winter i don't have a choice. when the temperatures drop i have to turn that gas on so i'm always -- we're always trying to climb up. there's a constant climb. and that's the one thing i think is important for me to be hire today is for people to

understand. you just broke down my whole -- everything. can any one live off that amount of money like i do, me and my husband, everyday, every month, every week? it's difficult. it's not something we choose to do. of course we want to get a full-time job. of course my husband wants to go back to school. he has a mason's degree. of course i want to go back to college. i'm a smart, intellectual, independent person. unfortunately my circumstances don't allow know go to school and to also work and to juggle our family. i have things that i need to do. i run t a t-ball program, volunteer. i'm a girl scout coach. i have things that i do to contribute to my community. >> i thank you very much for being open and willing to expose your financial situation to us. it takes great courage to come here and talk about what line is really like. thank you. >> thank you. many rice? >> i want to thank all three of

you for being here today. it's really interesting and an honor for it to be in front of you and what each of you do for your community and i appreciate it very much. i was very fortunate to be involved in home shelter and transitional people from either situational or generational poverty and into success over a 20-year period and it was certainly a very awarding thing. one thing i worried about in our particular facility in terms of the accountability aspect, we always saw thats a as extremely important. we didn't want to encourage people stay on this. so we limited the time period of people who can stay, we said they had to be working or looking for work when they came in. and that wasn't always the most successful model but it was the most successful -- the successes we had we were proud of. in terms of the case management aspect, that's something that's always worried me. the manager of the house took it

on himself to take people around to apply for this maze and myriad of potential benefits that may or may not be applicable to each person and may or may not help the situation so i would love to put them in touch with you and get your advice on how we can getter handle the case management at myrtle beach haven. mrs. turner, you said something that intrigued me or made me curious earlier. you said the federal programs, welfare and food stamps and -- you said they're not working. what do you mean by that? you said these federal programs are not working. what did you mean? >> what i meant was the federal programs in which we have right now they do work, but the problem is that once you get to a certain platform you are knocked back down. that's the cliff effect, that's

what i was speaking about. i didn't mean what that they're not working. what i'm saying is they need to be improved. i feel like we need to get a task force -- and i'm stating it here for the record -- we need to get a task force that will pay attention to food stamp programs, to savings, to education and to medical and they need to be monitored. that's what i meant. >> not just a myriad of unrelated programs that -- you're saying more like case management, right? when you say "monitored," you mean somebody that needs to be looking at them and see how they're effective? >> i think someone needs to be looking at them to see how we can improve them to make sure they're not cut, to make sure they're not billions and billions of dollars taken away from a single mother who relies on food stamps to feed her child. or a wic program or a head start program. >> or money spent ineffectively when they're such a limited amount of noun go around. we don't want money spent ineffectively, either, money that doesn't work to transition people to being independent.

isn't that correct? you want to make sure our money is used effectively. >> of course we want to make sure it's used effectively. >> i think you agree that the only path out of -- will federal programs -- if people rely totally on federal programs, does that take them out of poverty? >> no. >> will it ever? >> i think some people just naturally make it but overall a reliance on federal programs solely is not going to move someone out of poverty. >> mrs. tiller, do you agree with that? >> no. >> it will never take them out of poverty? >> no. >> and mrs. turner, do you agree with that? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the question clearly. >> if people just rely on federal programs, the things we're talking about, the generational poverty, if they just simply rely on federal programs and they don't try to make themselves better, go out and get a job, will they ever get out of poverty? >> i don't think anyone ever wants to just rely on federal programs. i feel like people want to go out and get a job.

>> do you agree with me that that's the path out of povr any. >> if they are capable of going out to get a job, sir, and have the necessary things to do that, then, yes. but you also have to think about there are some people who are not capable of going out to find employment because where they live there aren't any jobs. let's think about it. we just -- there's a recession right now. how many jobs are there? and good-paying jobs. let's make sure we keep that in mind. good-paying jobs. >> all i'm saying is that if you rely on federal programs you're never going to get out of poverty. the only way of get out of poverty is to be self-reliant and find yourself. i've got 20 seconds left and i want to ask you one other question. you mentioned earlier that the limit on hours in the affordable care act, you said there can't be limited on hours? >> i didn't stay affordable care act. what i said was that limited hours is that you have employers that won't pay if that's what

you referring to what i said. employers won't pay their workers enough hours to give them medical insurance. that is a big problem. that is something we need to address. why is it that a person can work for a company for 32 years and have to wait a whole year just to get a quarter raise? that's what i'm talking about. why is it that big companies and corporations can only pay a person 30 hours and not give them four hours to receive medical benefits? >> the time for the gentleman has expired. ms. lee? >> thank you very much. first let me thank you mr. chairman and ranking members for this very important hearing and this very important panel and i want to thank both of you for inviting these witnesses, especially miss gaines-turner because it's so important that we hear from americans who are most impacted by the policies that we discuss at this committee. so i want to thank you very much

for this. let me thank all of the witnesses. i just want to mention, mr. chairman, and to the ranking member that next tuesday i'm co-hosting a bipartisan poverty similar tlags will allow members of congress and their staff just a small glimpse into the lives of families living in poverty everyday. it will be just a brief example of what this experience is like. we're trying to raise awareness around if country as what ms. gaines-turner, what her life is like so we're inviting democrats and republicans to participate with us and we'll get you the information. we'd love for your participation. let me first to mass gaines-turner. let me talk to you -- we were just breaking down the numbers in terms of your salary. we figured you and your husband both make a little over $14,000 a year and with snap benefits and your income you're probably

at about $23,000, $24,000, which is is below, again, the poverty level of $27,900. now you're living on the edge. that's very clear, millions of americans are living on the edge. you both are working, you both are outstanding citizens and you're dealing with all kinds of issues in your life and i want to just commend you, first of all, for juggling so much and for your advocacy and for being here today but also i want to just ask you how -- so many people view people who are on public assistance or who need government assistance, not that government assistance and relying on government assistance is going to lift everyone out of poverty, it's a bridge over troubled water. >> exactly. >> i was on public assistance and food stamps and i thank my government for being there for me but it was a bridge over

troubled water until i could figure out what to do next and how to get my degree, take care of my kids and move on. what's your perspective now on people living in poverty -- below the poverty line and who are working. and who some consider lazy or reliant on public assistance to just get over. and let me ask my second question to miss tiller. the federal ban on food assistance, and thank you very much for your testimony. the federal ban on food assistance, which is a critical piece of the safety net. this ban for those convicted of a drug felony for life, lifetime ban on food stamps and public assistance. i want to get your comment on that and to ms. reynolds let me thank you again. i'm a social worker by profession and i believe and understand case management is so important for those clients that you serve, what happens if the safety network cut in terms of case management and what happens

if there's a reduction of about 30% of federal assistance as proposed in the ryan republican budget. ms. gaines-turner. >> thank you very much for your comments and thank you for your support in points out how difficult it is because i feel like a lot of people don't know how difficult it is. i don't know one person maybe in this room that can juggle the things me and my husband have to juggle every single day with having three children on medical disabilities going back and forth to work maybe have to taken a under-the-table job just to bring in extra money. there's not a lazy bone in my body. there are many people who live in the inner city under thorty level that are not lazy. we want to be part of the conversation and have full time jobs and go to school and college and things like that and i actually believe that people put that stamp of lazy on us to

put a smokescreen up to not see what's really going on, to point the finger at us, to look down at us, to try to humiliate us or twist our words. i feel like we are the most strategizing people in there is. effort we wake up and cut coupons like everybody else and get up and go to work and strive for that american dream because that's what everybody strives for, right? the american dream. that's what we need to get back to is the american core and that's where if you strive harder and you work hard and you do your just diligence that you will be able to get ahead no matter what race, gender, creed or where you come from, inner city or out of inner city. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to have a second go round? >> we don't even have -- we have a lot of colleagues that showed up. >> well, i skeed for a response. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i so much appreciate the fact that you have taken on this issue of poverty and that we are really trying to get to the bottom of it. i have my own story of my own

about poverty and i sit here today because there are a lot of folks who help med to get to where i am so i'm interested, miss reynolds, because i have gone back and worked with a number of programs of to t poverty and the generational poverty in particular is what i'm going to speak to and i'm sorry that i wasn't here for all of your opening remarks but i did read the piece that you gave us, the printed piece, and you have in the here "generational poverty had its own culture, hidden rules and belief systems." and that's what i've run into as we've had programs that have tried to help people get out of poverty because you said generational poverty needs a deeper level of case management because it requires a mind-set change and what i have seen in my experience and not in all cases but some that have broken my heart where individuals have gotten an opportunity to actually be able to get a skill or a degree and then slipped

back again because of anxiety about can i make it on my own, will the paycheck come? will i lose my job? so you say you're happy to provide examples to show how you've been able to work through that can you give me a brief idea of how your case work helps to move people from being in poverty and having that dependency and the fear of being on your own. >> it is about getting jobs but it's about getting people who maybe grew up on federal benefits, people who maybe grew up in a situation where they never saw a parent go to work for a variety of reasons, it has nothing to do with laziness or motivation, it has everything to do with helping folks understand that they can rewrite their life story. and although i have never been in poverty my family has been closely impacted by poverty and i've dedicated my life to poverty and studied it quite closely and i they is so needed with generational povr city

helping with that mind-set shift of you can rewrite your life story. this does not need to be where your life story ends, we can look at something different. because often when you're in survival mode your theory tells us you're focused on surviving, you're focused on today. our case managers lift folks up and help folks see a tomorrow. >> so thank you very much. i appreciate that and i'd love to off shrine a little more conversation with you and talk about the programs i'm involved in back in my community. ms. gaines-turner, thank you for being here today, thank you for sharing your story. thank you for helping us to have a glimpse about what's happening in your family and i respect the fact that you and your husband are raising three children together. families are, i think, something we have forgotten about as an equation in this poverty situation we know one of the number-one indicators of poverty for a young child is to be a single family home so thank you

for what you and your husband the r doing. i just want to ask you, do you any there were case work involved as catholic charities is doing with the people they're helping to pull up and i think miss tiller what from what i'm reading here you are doing the same kind of thing where you're working beyond just the job piece but helping them with all the other life situations, either in your situation or those you know and you see around you that are in that situation, do you think if we did a better job at the government level with more case work and helping people to find the jobs, understand how to balance the budget and that kind of thing, would that help? >> yes. it definitely would help. it would help a great part. i'm not saying that case management doesn't work and i'm not saying that all case workers are nasty and all people that work for the government are nasty. that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that we immediate to make sure that we support the programs that support the people that do work and that's what my colleague

has -- not my colleague but the other witness. >> i think we've found something that is very common in what you're all saying in the case work because i've experienced it in getting people to get from dependency to independent. it's difficult for them, the anxiety that's produced and that's one of the nuggets that we ought to take out of this and looking at what we ought to do to help people. thank you so much for this. >> ms. jeffries? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i think the ranking member both for your leadership on this issue. we know that 50 years ago, january of 1964, i believe, president lyndon johnson came to the floor of the house of representatives before a joint session of congress and declared a war on poverty. that war on poverty has largely been successful in helping millions of americans lift themselves out of an impoverished condition and set on a path toward the

middle-class but there's still a long way to go although it does seem in this town that there are some more interested in a war on working families than a war on poverty but that's something we'll ultimately have to overcome as well. in the context of this present hearing, i thought i'd start with miss reynolds just to kind of explore the perspective that you've laid out as i believe in your experience you've laid out three broad categories of poverty, is that correct? >> correct. >> and those are chronic, generational and situational poverty. >> correct. >> now, i guess your view that with respect to each category there's a different preferred strategy in order to arrive at a successful resolution, is that true? >> correct. >> and i think you've testified that you believe generational poverty requires a mind-set adjustment, correct? >> sometimes situational poverty

can require that as well. >> and can you elaborate just on sort of the mind-set that you believe exists in the context of what you describe as generational poverty and what type of adjustment you believe needs to be made? >> sometimes people in poverty have been beat down in a lot of things. they've tried to get up and fallen back down. negotiation that, some people living in poverty have maybe never seen a different side of life. have never seen what opportunities exist or frankly never believe in themselves so they can get there. >> if i can stop you there. individuals trapped in generational poverty are beat down by -- what would be an example of something that has beat them down to create this type of mind-set? >> it can be a whole series of things. it can be a lack of opportunities, it can be observing others. it can be a family members. we see that often sometimes, too. >> is it fair to say that individuals trapped in generational poverty aren't just affected by a mind-set but it's

a mind-set that was initially brought about by substantive barriers or obstacles that they confronted in their life? >> absolutely. >> and you define success in three different ways, making a ways to support the family, correct? that was one indication of success? three months of savings. second indication of success. and i think no doubt is the third? >> and no public assistance. >> no public assistance. >> now, with respect to sort of the current minimum wage that exists in america, $7.25 per ho hour, now is that a twhaj enables a family or an individual to lift themselves out of poverty? >> no. >> in your view? so based on your own practice, i believe, where you support the concept of a living wage, do you think it's good public policy in

america to have a wage that exists to allow individuals working hard 40 hours a week throughout the entire year to actually be able to support their family? >> sir, being in fort worth, texas, and being with catholic charities fort worth and i'll speak on behalf of catholic charities fort worth our focus has not been on policy reform at the federal level because there are multiple complexities with that. for us, our focus has been making sure clients are trained in jobs that pay a living wage. that's our focus. and encouraging local corporate responsibility, we have great partnerships with corporations who do pay living wage bus support our mission in an incredible way. >> but a living wage is good public policy, correct? >> a living wage is an important element to get a client to. >> okay. i think you also mentioned in your testimony the importance of a college education in addressing poverty. is that correct? >> not just college education, no, sir. associate degree and

certification programs can also help. in our local community, getting an associate's degree to become an aviation mechanic, you start out $50,000 a year, that's moving families out of poverty as well as a growth industry in the dfw marketplace. >> but in terms of a pathway out of poverty, a college education is a component if not the best way to achieve that pathway. >> education, yes, always important. >> do you think a $260 billion cut in higher education funding is a responsible way to address poverty in america? >> what i'm concerned about is the result that happens with those dollars so what i want to make sure happens is any money we're investing in college, pell grants, anything like that, that it's having a large return. that's why we have invested in case management along with low-income individuals to ensure graduation. if we're spending money on making sure college completion happens it doesn't get people out of self-sufficient and poverty. >> thank you, mr. kilby?

>> thank you very much. i just want to follow up a bit on mr. jeffries but let me just make a couple of comments. i think one of the things to keep in mind is that while in here in near tri notion of many of the federal programs, at least as what i understand some of the theory that's been presented on folks on the other side and some of the testimony that some of the federal programs may, in fact, have the effect of propagating or somehow supporting what's been referred to as a culture of poverty. it does cause me to sort of question what -- this is where i follow on mr. jeffries comment. what is it -- what are the factors that cause folks in chronic poverty or generational poverty to feel as if they're

beaten down. in the sense that i get from folks that i talk to is that that is manifest in the belief that there is no hope. that there is no way out. that there isn't a path forward for them. i think we have to acknowledge that there are places in this country. in fact, i represent a couple of communities that -- where this condition is present there are places in this country where for many of the folks in poverty virtually everything they see around them reinforces the lack of hope. i represent two communities -- flint and saginaw -- that have experienced incredible job loss, high rates of poverty, concentration of poverty, abandonment in some of these urban communities with half of the population having left in the last few decades. not only is there there a lack of work with unemployment flats

the 30% and 40% level but there is a deterioration of the landscape, there's empty houses, empty buildings. the notion that -- that those individuals would feel beaten down and sense a lack of hope is one that's clearly understandable, right? so the question is in part -- it's an interesting question as to whether or not there's a culture that surrounds folks within generational chronic poverty. but the challenge before us is so what do we do about that? and i fully understand and embrace the notion that supportive case management -- which the way i view it is a way to help individuals in poverty navigate, assist them of support and opportunity, ladders of opportunity they can create a pathway for those folks -- are comprised of a couple of things. and it seems to me that we need

to focus on both. one is sort of the method, how the engagement occurs. whether it's through active case management or whatever. but also it does come down to resources to a certain extent and so i'm curious and, ms. reynolds, perhaps you can comment on this because i think you made reference to it, the difficulty that individuals, particularly in chronic or generational poverty have in achieving educational outcomes. i think you mentioned something like 20% of those in poverty that choose to enroll in higher education are successful which means the vast majority are not. i'm curious as to whether or not you think the simple act of decreasing pell grants, for example, would increase the success rate for people in poverty? do you think that that will have

a positive effect on the success rate of those in poverty who are seeking higher education? >> i think we need to measure the success of pell grants on -- in terms of those who complete their education. i think that's what's most critical and what we have seen is actually in a community college standpoint the national average hovers around 10% who start complete, many which are on pell grants. often times the reasons students drop out, students we have worked with and understand, is because of very simple things -- child care issues, transportation, complicated things like a health care crisis going on or even something like getting a bad grade and not understanding how to cope with that. so that's why i believe that although it can cost a little bit more money, bringing case management along this education is starting to prove to actually work and then in the future you can reduce these benefits because you're moving people out. >> and i guess with the few seconds i have remaining, the

point that i would make is that in active case management one is not just managing the individual because you don't manage the individual, you help them manage themselves. >> thank you, mr. huffman? >> i would yield my time to my colleague barbara lee. >> let me thank the gentleman for yielding his team. i really appreciate that, mr. huffman. i wanted to ask first, miss tiller, to respond. once again in your testimony you mentioned the importance of attaching ex-offenders to work as it relates to reducing recidivism. mr. chairman, i want to mention and i want to mention this to the panel that in the welfare reform bill, both democrats and republicans -- this was a bipartisan fiasco, if you ask me. >> you're talking about the '96 bill, right? >> yes. president clinton signed it into law but there's a lifetime ban on snap benefits for those convicted of a felony drug offense. not homicide, not armed robbery,

felony drug offense, lifetime ban on snap and public assistance. primarily african-american and latino men. let me ask you. what if this ban were -- i've had legislation for years trying to lift this. fortunately states can opt out and my state just opted out this year. what would the work that you do with formerly incarcerated individuals, if that ban were lifted as it relates to federal drug offenses, felony drug offenses, how would their transition into the work world be? would bit easier? would bit harder? would it help reduce recidivism? would it stay the same? being able to apply for public assistance and food stamps until they receive -- they get a job? what would that do to that population? and let me ask ms. reynolds just one more thing with regard to the federal grant and safety net with your clients and with catholic charity, what would happen to your clients if, in

fact, there's a 30% reduction in the safety net while you're trying to help people through the case management process become self-sufficient, get a good job, live the american dream. what would happen? okay, thank you very much. thank you again, mr. huffman. >> well, thank you for your question. and while i'm not familiar in its entirety, we can't deny individualism to it and i can only hope that if it were lifted throughout the nation that it would ease the transition for an ex-offender into employment. we don't want people to recidivate because they need to feed their family. but also what we focus on, and i do a lot of pro bono work with ex-offenders here in washington, d.c. and bring them into my office and, again, listening to them but also creating resumes and skill profiles and introducing them to employers where potentially this may never affect them. something that i've heard repeatedly is reference to building relationships and i do

that with every participant that comes in but equally as important with the community. because without those employer partners, without the community-based organizations, without the government, without having those strong relationships and those strong ties, regardless of any legislation, we might not be as successful. >> and regarding safety net services and clients, as a fellow social worker myself i do want to say we both, i think, would agree a strengths-based approach to pulling a client out of poverty is really what our profession is all about. regarding safety net services and the cut, i'm not here to talk about this current budget. what cybill that if we -- >> no, i understand that. i'm talking about just in general, a 30% reduction. >> of course. my per speck stif that what we need to do is we need to case manage clients to get them out and set our definition of out of poverty differently. i think over time you'll be able

to cut public benefits because of the savings you receive. >> all i'm asking, though, is if we cut, say, snap benefits by 40%, does that make your job easier? or if we cut medicaid or if we cut section 8 or if we cut those services, the safety net that, for instance, ms. gaines-turner talked about until they can find a good-paying job, what does that do to the clients that catholic charities services? >> i think we do need to have a safety net throughout our country. >> okay. let me ask you one more question about the safety net. >> yes, ma'am. >> in terms of the safety net, the clients who you you see and, again, i know catholic charities very well, are they clients who want to stay on government -- the government safety net through their lives? are they looking for a job in? do they want to live the american zpleem what's their life like? is there life like --

>> that's a great question. some are and some are not. some of them don't understand what living the american dream ever would look like because they have never seen that in practice. and so for us, yes, some of the families that come through our door who are on public benefits see it as that temporary bridge-gapping get you out of poverty thing. but unfortunately a lot of the folks we see have been on public benefits programs, some of them, that you can be, for life. and saw mom and grandmother and others be on public benefits as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm probably going to repeat some of the stuff that's been discussed already this morning. but i want to follow up on my colleague miss lee. in case managing and doing any kind of social support, it only has an impact if you have things to case manager to. i mean the big problem we have

is there's no place to discharge anybody to. you don't have any of those social sports, whether they're government-focused and paid for or familial, they don't exist. so when we talk about the safety net, i'm not even sure people understand what that means anymore and that most case management folks and most social workers, in fact, are very effective at the thing that you do for that particular client. maybe it is food support. maybe it's housing. maybe it's access to specialty medical care. maybe it's transportation. and when you have to be broad about all those things and because they differ from state to state, it is a very challenging circumstance for the person who's doing that case management and, in fact, i don't think it's very effective because it's not very integrated. and then because you have to work with private and public sector benefits and supports, getting them to work together and even having their rules work very will together on behalf of your clients is incredibly challenging and i want to get something that you just said,

ms. reynolds, and there are generations of poverty and it becomes very difficult to change that dynamic. and we case manage or we engage in a social service environment usually when there's a crisis and not before and we don't stay. once the crisis -- and the crisis could be we don't do transportation, we can't do food but we'll do housing and then we walk away. then we go -- when there's an issue, an arrest, a protective service issue we walk away and wonder why it's expensive and difficult and i also want to highlight, 91% of all the entitlement benefit spending goes to the elderly, the disabled and working households. less than 10% of federal spending on any of these programs goes to individuals who could, in fact, work. and yet we focus on that 9%, a debate back and forth how we'll do it, whether we should do it at all. we need to start realizes we have a population that's going

to need generations of support and a whole new dynamic in terms of what it means to be a working household and be lifted out of poverty. and so really i'm hoping thaw might with whatever time i have left i'm going to go to miss gaines-turner. i think drawing on the experience of folks who were working and who understand these difficult decisions between supporting a sick child and paying the utility bills and the notion i think given its 9% that too many of policymakers, not just here in congress but policymakers in general i think assume that once you are working, your financial issues and your issues with poverty disappear, but that's not an accurate statement. >> thank you so much for your comment and, yes, that's definitely not an accurate statement. just because you contain a job and you have two people in your

household working like me, that doesn't mean that everything is solved. that doesn't mean that you don't still need assistance. whether it be food stamps, medical, section 8 housing, which we live in section 8 housing which in philadelphia i was on the waiting list for ten years and being homeless twice with three -- with my son who is now 10 and my twins, you know, there are so many different things to go along with hunger and poverty, you know, you can't just pinpoint one thing and say, well, this isn't working, so this isn't going to work. that's not true. once you start working and once you get your foot in the door and continue to work and there's something else that comes up, so as you said, generations and generations and generations, it seems like if you're constantly as you said beat down and pushed to the back of the line and told you're not worth, there is no hope, you know, i wonder how

many people who actually walk through your doors will say, you know what, i'm going to go in and apply for a job and i'm going to look and then be told, you don't qualify or they get sent out to the job itself and they can't compete because they don't have any work history. so actually sometimes they're not given the opportunity to ever get their foot out the door. >> or get their foot in the not the right door. >> exactly or they get to the threshold and then they're knocked back down so i think that's an important point. >> and -- i've got four seconds left so what i heard and i got some nods, mr. chairman, with your patience, is that the safety net, the way in which we describe that may not really accurately reflect what is needed to support families in poverty to get out of poverty and feel like they're getting what they need to actually live and have the american dream. >> thank you. thank you. ladies, i want to thank you very much for sharing your morning

with us. very helpful and informative and i think the members got a lot out of it. so i appreciate you taking the time with us and theiring your stories and experiences. this hearing is adjourned. the house veterans affair committee looks at how mental health care is given to veterans. live coverage here on c-span3 begins at 9:15 a.m. eastern. then you can share your comments on facebook and twitter. and later a senate

appropriations committee on the rising number of uncompanied immigrant children entering the u.s. then the obama administration's request a $3.7 billion to respond to the problem. that's at 2:30 eastern. and we want to hear from you on our facebook page and on twitter with the #cspanchat. >> let our republicanism so focused and so dedicated not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels. i would remind you that extreme ism in the defense of liberty is no v ichlt krchice. [ cheers and applause ]

thank you. thank you. thank you and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. [ applause ] >> senator goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 republican national convention. this weekend on american history tv's real america. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

the environmental protection agency has proposed rules to change the definition of waterways under the clean water act. the epa's deputy administrator was at the hearing of the science committee and lamar alexander chairs the 2:15 meeting. the committee on science space and technology will come to order. welcome to today's hearing entitled navigating the clean water act is water wet? recognize myself in opening statement age then the ranking member for hers. a year ago this committee issued its first subpoena in over two decades because the epa refused to make public the data it claims justifies its costly air

regulations. the epa admitted in many cases it didn't have the data it uses to support its billion dollar mandates. now once again they have avoided open debate and its rush to implement the president's radical agenda. the epa wrote its new waters of the u.s. rule without even waiting for the expert advice of the agency's own science advisory board. the science advisory board exists to give expected advice to the epa and congress. the job of these experts is to review the underlying science. not only did the epa publish its rule before the board had an opportunity to review the report, but when this committee sent official questions to the board as this review began, the epa stepped in to prevent the experts from responding. the obama administration continues to undermine scientific inquiry in order to fast track its partisan agenda. even though clean water act

jurisdiction is a legal question, the refusal to wait for the science undercuts the opportunity for informed policy decisions. the epa's rule is so vague that it does little more than extend an open invitation to trial lawyers and government drones. meanwhile, they've offered empty assurances and ended with a disclaimer saying its statements are not binding. the american people are tired of an administration that makes promises with its fingers crossed behind its back. the epa does not provide real clarity about what is or isn't water. instead, the agency gives itself extraordinary power to pick and choose on a case-by-case basis. in fact, the proposed rule is 370 pages. but never defines water. the streams they claim to regulate aren't always wet.

the epa states these places often only become wet in rain events and in some cases are so tiny or temporary they don't even appear on maps. the agency's website says, "they could be a drizzle of snow melt that runs down a mountainside crease, a small spring-fed pond or a depression in the ground that fills with water after every rain and overflows into the creek below." the practical implications of this new rule are troubling for private property owners. how do we even know when and where these tiny drizzles of water might appear? americans deserve to know what is punishable so they can live without fear of arbitrary persecutions. take a look at a map from the epa's draft report and this is on the screen to either side of us. the image shows tributaries in red and larger streams in blue

that the epa could consider claiming in the western part of the u.s. before they invade they should tell us what they're doing. it was about water and not land but the epa's rewriting of the law is a terrifying expansion of federal control over the lands owned by the american people. the epa is on a regulation rampage and this new water rule proves it. now, that concludes my remarks and the gentlemen woman from oregon is recognized for her opening statements. >> thank you very much, chairman smith for holding this morning's hearing to discuss the rule proposed by the army corps and the epa to define the term waters of the united states in the clean water act. i'd also like to welcome deputy administrator mr. perciasepe. access to clean water is essential to economic growth.

a study by the world health organization found every dollar invested in water and sanitation yields economic benefits of between 7 and $12. most are lucky to turn on a tap and have water to drink. rough, this is not the case everywhere. although it's difficult to put a specific figure on the value of water to the united states economy, studies have then that clean water is a prerequisite for nearly every industry from agriculture to manufacturing to commercial fisheries to tourism. with 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams more than 100 million acres of wetlands and almost 40 million acres of in the united states, managing the availability and quality of this finite resource can be a challenge. and though it may be a challenge, it is one that we must accept. as we will no doubt hear today,

excuse me, the streams, lakes and wetlands offer wide variety of benefits to her constituents. for example, wetlands can reduce the possibility of flooding by storing excess water after heavy rain, they can also be a source of water during times of drought. wetlands and streams improve water quality by trapping sediments and filtering out pollutants and serve as a critical habitat for fish and other aquatic life increasing diversity. according to the epa, more than 100 stakeholders from state and local governments to industry and agricultural associations to environmental groups have all asked the epa and the army corps to provide clarity. what waters are and are not within the jurisdiction of the clean water act and that's mr. chairman why i'm glad we're having this hearing today to discuss the need for that clarity. and although i know that not all of these organizations are

supportive of the proposed rule, the goal of the agencies is to provide all interested parties with the clarity that they need and deserve. mr. chairman, some of my constituents have expressed concern about the potential impact of the proposed rule while others have expressed strong support for the rule. i welcome the opportunity provided by today's hearing to learn more about the details of the proposed rule. i know that the comment period is going on until october. and this gives us an opportunity to clarify some of the misinformation circulating were the proposal and provide an opportunity to let the public know about the intent of clarifying what clean waters are within the clean water act. i yield back my time. >> let me put in several letters we received from the texas and southwest cattle raisers association, the texas winery,

texas association of business and the texas farm bureau. and let me now intro deuce our only witness today, and he is mr. bob preciasepe. he was appointed by president obama in 2009. mr. percia sepe served as a top epa official under bill clinton who appointed him as the top water official and senior official responsible for air quality across the u.s. prior to being named to his current position, he was chief operating officer at the national autobahn society and included secretary of environment for the state of maryland. ranking member

mr. perciasepe, we welcome you today and look forward to your comments and please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and madam ranking member. i believe that americans want clean and safe water for ourselves, for our economy, for our environment and for the future uses that we will need. and as we're talking about today, epa and the u.s. army corps of engineers are undertaking a process to clarify the scope and improve regulations that have been in place for 30 years. the existing regulations have been on the books for 30 years and the proposed rule provides family, manufacturers, farmers, recreation -- outdoor recreation, energy producers with clean water.

the written testimony that i submitted will provide more details about the proposed rule including the agency's goals to respond to requests of stakeholders across the country and make the process of identifying waters protected under the clean water act easier to understand, more predictable and consistent with the law and recent supreme court decisions. we believe this rule-making will minimize the delays and costs and improve predictability, clarity, consistency for everyone who may or may not need a clean water act permit. it's important to note that this is identifying of where we will regulate the discharge of pollutant, not what we regulate what's going on on the land. i will focus my opening remarks here on trying to address some of the disinformation regarding potential effects of this rulemaking and i'm concerned that that -- that information that is incorrect is having the effect of distracting a real

public and national debate and discussion that needs to take place on the legal policy and scientific underpinnings of how we run the clean water act and the protections for clean water in the country. the agencies are continuing to meet with americans across the country including farmers, the administrator gene mcor think in missouri meeting with farmers today. energy companies, small businesses, local governments, sportsman, developers and others to get their comments, remember, this is a proposal. to answer their questions about this rule. we are hearing from the public directly, personally and how to improve the rule. but some of the misinformation is something that we have to cut through and i'm hoping we'll have some chance to do that today. i've heard personally, for example, on when we're out talking to folks this regular lalregular regulation will make dry washes that carry water only once a thousand years protected under the clean water act and make

land or floodplains subject to clean water act jurisdiction. i can say categorically none of those statements are true. many in contrast there are some key examples of what the proposed rule does and does not do. and adherence with the supreme court, it would reduce the scope of waters protected under the clean water act compared to the existing regulations it replaces and would not assert jurisdiction over any type of waters not previously protected over the last 40 years. the rule does not apply to lands. whole floodplains, backyards, wet spots or puddles. it will increase transparency consistency and predictability in making jurisdictional rules and reduce delays. it represents the best peer review science about the functions and values of the nation's waters. and the agency and this is important to your opening comments, mr. chairman. the agency will not finalize this rule until our science advisory board is complete with its review of both the rule

itself and the science documents that support it. it will reduce clean water act jurisdiction over ditches compared to the previous 2008 guidance. the rule would maintain all existing clean water act exemptions and exclusions. in addition we are trying to clarify agricultural conservation practices which we do not want to inhibit that are conducted in waters that do not require a permit under the clean water act. so we've got a proposed rule not a final rule and currently taking comment on the proposal and expect tremendous and are getting tremendous public response from a broad range of interests and working actively to meet with a wide range of stakeholders. this outreach has been tremendously helpful and is helping us understand the concerns and discussing effective solutions that will need to improvements in the final regulation. we're going to continue working hard listening more effectively and to understand the issues

better. additional aly in preparation, the epa was able to review and consider more than a thousand peer review scientific papers and other data and the epa's office of research and development prepared a draft peer review of these scientific documents and the nature of connectivity and the effects of tributaries and wetlands on downstream waters. this report informed the agency's development of the proposed rule and following earlier external peer review the report is currently undergoing peer review led by the epa science advisory board. we expect that the s.a.b. will complete its review later in the calendar year but we will not finalize this rule until they complete their review of that document and have their comments available to us to finalize the rule. let me conclude by emphasizing my strong plaintiff that what's good for the environment and clean water is good for ranchers, manufacturers, home

builders and small businesses and we look forward to working with all stakeholders and the public to reflect this moimportt goal when we get to that point. thank you for this opportunity to comment. i apologize for running over. i just looked at the clock. >> we weren't going to hold to you that let me direct my first question in regard to the map t looks like what the epa proposes is regulating 99% of these western states whether those areas in some cases are wet or dry. do you agree -- i mean this is a map from your preliminary report. do you agree with what the map says and that it would cover about 99% of those western

>> this is similar to what the current regulations would be covering and what that map is showing is the full drainage areas, not the actual water. >> that's my point but your regulations could cover those areas that are the drainage areas not just the actual water and that's why so much of that map is either red or blue. >> the regulations, keep in mind this is just where the jurisdiction is. you would be affect fundamental you wanted to discharge pollution into the waters. >> right. >> that might be in those red area. >> but the epa could, if it wanted to, regulate the area that is colored red and blue in this map? >> we would not regulate the land in those arias. the water that is in those areas that has stream bank, that has a b bed, normal high water mark, those would be the places that would be covered, not the land. >> rite. to the extent that the water

traversed the land then that land itself would be impacted by the regular laces, would they not? s>> the water, the water tributaries, the bodies of water that are in those areas would be subject to regulation if you discharge pollution into them. it would not be the farm fields. it would not be the backyards. it would not be the area, the land areas, it would be the discharge of pollutants into the waters in those areas. >> a quick example. to the extent that there was a runoff from a stream or from even one of those puddles, rain puddles that i referred to, then you would be able to regulate that area, would you not? >> i'm -- could -- we are

proposing in this rule that tributaries to navigable waters and also in the supreme court decision that have a significant effect on the downstream navigable waters would if you wanted to discharge pollutants into those or fill them in, you would have to have a permit under the clean water act. >> suppose we're not talking about that blue talking about rain rainoff or that drizzle in your report or your report where you might have literally areas only wet after it rain, those areas would be covered whether or not they're pollutants involved or not. >> the stream would be covered, not the land area. the stream -- you wouldn't be able to discharge into the stream and if -- and including streams that are intermittent. >> correct. that might be dry today. >> might be dry someplace. >> might be wet another time and that in my opinion is at least what gets into the lapd and goes beyond the water.

if you're talking about dry streambeds that is lapd, that is not water and i think that concerns a lot of farmers and ranchers and lapd owners. >> i understand that and we're certainly talking to a lot of them about those concerns but we've tried to define which of those would be covered or that you would have to get a permit if you filled them or discharged pollution into them if they have the characteristics that water flows in it enough times that it creates a bed and a bank an an ordinary high water mark and that is a hydrologic science kind of determination. >> going back to my main point once again you all had the authority to regulate in many cases dry land, in many cases intermittent streams that would cover most of that area covered by the red and blue which again i think is about 99% of the western states, but let me go to the states -- i understand you have maps of each individual state that are in greater detail than the map that's on the board

and that was in your preliminary report. can we get access to those state maps that are more detailed? >> if we -- i'm not aware of how detailed the maps we have, but, again, i want to be really clear here. we -- all that red area is not going to be regulated by the clean water act. they would only be the water bodies that are or the tributaries that are in those areas. i don't know how many times i -- i don't know what else to say about that mr. chairman because i really do understand the concern but i want you to understand. >> is this map accurate, though. >> they're regulated under the current regular laces. >> you had the authority to regulate. it just hasn't been regulated before and i think you're getting ready to expandz your authority in a far greater way than in the past. >> no, we're not. >> nothing beyond the current regulations. are you true about that. >> i am. >> okay. we'll hold you to that. and i understand that the epa does have these state maps in more detail so if you have them you'll get them to us.

>> i will -- >> my last question goes to the science advisory board. >> yes, sir. >> you heard me mention that in my opening statement. they by law provide advice to the epa and provide advice to congress. we submitted several questions to the science advisory board intercepted by the epa and the science advisory board was not allowed to answer our questions. that's not the way i read the law. we don't have to get the epa's permission for the science advisory board to give us answers to your questions. why did the epa intercept our questions and why was the science advisory board prevented from answering your questions? >> well, let me say a couple of things about that. first of all, our intent is to make sure -- we want this committee and other committees, the jurisdiction to benefit from the advice that have body. >> the law doesn't allow to you screen the science advisory board's answers or to intercept our questions the way i read the law. >> the members of science

advisory board are volunteers and they volunteer to provide their scientific advice and expertise to the american public through the government. and volunteering they become special what's called in the hr system special federal employees and so they are actually employees in that regard, although they're volunteers. and we feel that -- >> do you think -- >> there kneads to be a process -- >> do you think -- do you disagree with the law that says we can get answers direct fry from the science advisory board and do you think the law says we can intercept our questions and prevent them from giving you answers. >> we have given all your questions -- they have those -- >> but you haven't allowed them to answer your questions. >> what we're trying to work out and i think we're making really good progress is how you take federal employees, federal employees and have a defined -- so they understand what the process is on how they would go

about -- >> i think that's a pretty paternalistic almost more so attitude to say you have to dell the employees what to do or educate them. they're experts in their own right. we have a complete and fundamental disagreement on that. i think it was totally inappropriate for the epa to prevent the board from 'ing our questions. you apparently disagree with that but that to me is the law. that concludes my questions and the gentle woman is recognized. >> thank you for being here and your abilities bringing your expertise to discuss this issue so i have several questions. first i wanted to confirm something you said in your testimony. you said under the proposed rule the current exemptions are maintained. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> thank you. i want to start by discussing the issue of green infrastructure. city and county governments in my district have been replaced so-called gray infrastructure with green infrastructure

including some day-lighting storm water pipes to create swales, vejs stated swales and by constructing wed wetlands an can classify them as tributaries and thus define them as waters of the u.s. so asoviet unioning the epa wants to avoid the unintended consequence of green infrastructure how can the proposed rule be clarified to support the continued development of green infrastructure such as these swales. >> our intent is certainly not to stop that. they're a great advocate of green infrastructure. we think it is a bona fide solution to some urban runoff and pollution issues we have. you know, if you have a storm drain somewhere in your municipality o or county or town and discharge pollution in it

and goes downstream, you would have to the discharge would have been regulated. we're not going to regulate in any different way a day-lighted storm drain or diversions of gutters into a tree pit which has vegetation in it that we want percolation of the groundwater to take place there. but these things that are not jurisdictional now would not be jurisdictional under this proposal. >> thank you for clarifying that and i happen to represent a district that's diverse so i don't just have urban areas but rural and agricultural areas so one concern i've heard about from my constituents in the agriculture industry is that the proposed rule may lead to the regulation of any activity on a farm that simply has the appearance of effecting a water of the united states even if that activity does not include a discharge or involve a potential pollutant so for some groups they're very concerned and want

to express a concern about how ditches will be regulated unthe proposal. ray number of groups oppose the inclusion of ditches under the definition of tributaries so could you please discuss how the epa might clarify this question for stakeholders who are concerned about the proposed rule leading to an increase for which farmers must seek permits. >> two parts. one is the water jurisdictional? and the second is, does the activity itself regardless of whether it's jurisdictional require any action under the clean water act. so the farmers of this country who are working very hard to produce the food that we all need, they have to think about both of those because if you can plant, plow, i think the sequence would be plow, plant or no till, and harvest crops today on your land, this will not change any of that.

those activities are exempt from clean water act permitting under the clean water act. under the law itself. one of the things that we're trying to expanned on and be clear about are the conservation practices that many farmers also do during different times of the year and do it with hunting organizations like the durks unlimited and others and we want to make sure that those activities are also, you know, best management practice that you would do to do conservation on your land because farmers are primary stewards of the land and want to make sure -- we can understand the plowing, planting and harvesting but also want to make sure those conservation practices are not inhibited. >> i just -- sorry to interrupt but i want to follow up, running out of time. i want to talk about ditches and how they may be treated differently compared to current practice. ditches, it's a big, big issue in the district.

so can you talk about whether they're exempt under the proposed rule. will farmers be able to maintain drainage and irrigation ditches without getting a clean water act permit and will local governments need additional permits to maintain roadside ditches so if you could clarify that, please. >> roadside ditches, ditches that are on upland areas designed to drain that water off an upland area, all of those we try to be really clear, they are not included in this jurisdiction as a jurisdictional water or feature even. when we talk about that we're probably talking about constructed activity. now, if you channelize a stream and make it look like a ditch but it's a channelized stream that's running all year long, that would require, but the ditches that you -- that people are using to drain their farm fields or make sure water runs off more efficient lir off an industrial property or at the side of a road those are not

jurisdiction and would not be jurisdiction under this proposal and we have tried to clarify that. now, if we didn't get that right i'm telling you what our intent is. if we didn't get to that right that's what we're hoping to get comment on. >> i yield back. >> thank you, miss bonamici. the gentlemen from north carolina. >> i'm from north dakota, but it's very close to north carolina. [ laughter ] >> pardon me. >> i have received four different letters that i'd like to admit to the record if that's okay. >> without objection they'll be made a part of the record. >> i need to get very clear something that i heard -- i think i heard anyway during the chairman's questioning and let me ask you the question this way. do you believe that the law allows the epa to intercept --

to intercept this committee's questions to the advisory board and/or somehow regulate their answers back to us? do you believe that the law allows that? >> what i believe is that the committee's processes and a.s.b.'s processes teed to be protected in the way there's a structured approach to how we act and we want to do that and we want to have these employees of the federal government to have a knowledge on how they would go about what the process they would go through, so i'm comfortable with just saying let's get that worked out. we're working hard to do that and i have high confidence we will. >> oh, okay. i can appreciate what you want and as you said, the chairman, how you feel. that's all fine stuff for social

scientists but we're talking about the letter of the law. do you believe the law allows you to intercept the questions from this committee to the science advisory board? i believe it does not. but -- >> we've provided all the correspondence you have given us to the science advisory board. >> i think the correspondence was to the science advisory board and that's the point. you have it, not the science advisory board or that -- >> they're employees. >> before it goes to them. all right. we're not going to get anywhere on that one. this -- the epa and the corps keep talking about the need for clarity. quite frankly the clarity you seek is more permission, not clarity. i think to me it's every bit as clear today as it's ever been what your jurisdiction is and more importantly what it is not. it seems you are speaking permission not clarity. as i read the rule, i don't see or the proposed rule i don't see it being clear at all. one area that concerns me the most is other waters and

definition of them. other waters is so open-ended as to create ambiguity not clarity in my view. can you explain why there need to be a category called other waters? >> the existing regulations that are on the books use a very general test that's oriented toward whether there's an effect on interstate commerce or a potential effect on interstate commerce which is not a science-based test and it's not in adherence with what the supreme court laid out in their decisions in the last decade so what we're trying to do and, again, i'm totally open to the fact that we may not be achieving, you know, what we're in setting out to do here is take what the supreme court has said, you got to move away from this sort of general thing because under the existing regulation it's much more

open-ended as to what a field technician might have an effect on interstate commerce not that a biologist is an expert on that matter, which you might agree with me on. what we're trying to do is get it back to a science-based -- science of hydrology so we have in most -- in most cases and i promise to get to the others in a minute, we tried to define normal hydrologic features that a good normal, you know, science-oriented field technician can figure out. there are other places that have those characteristics that have this other issue that has to be dealt with whether connected or not. each this is the other issue that the supreme court asked us to try to deal with. and so what we do in this -- under the current regulation they're all case by case. under this one we're trying to define an approach that we would take whether it's a watershed approach or an ecological approach and ask for comment on that and we have to work, get to

the point where we really understand how anything that has characteristics of being water like a standing water or a w wetland and how we go about dealing with that as opposed to case by case. i'm with you. we need to detine that better ev and think we got to most that have but this one we're still asking questions on. >> my final question for now at least. the epa has stated it's consulted with the states. how is that coming along or a lot of states jumping on board with this rule or how many of them support it? have you heard from any that have concerns about it? what's the status of the support of the states? >> so, a couple of things on that. first of all, in our own supreme court filings back in the middle of the last decade, 35 states were ameek cuss wiicus with us supreme court. currently about -- and i can provide this for the record -- >> that would be good.

>> probably a number of individual states and a number -- most of the state organizations including the state association of ag directors and what -- have asked us to do a rule-making so we've -- we have a lot of states saying do a rule-making. a lot of states saying -- supporting us in front of the supreme court and now we have a proposal out there and a process going on with a number of those state organizations including the environmental council of the state, the state environmental commissioners, just last week i was in denver and met with the ag directors including from north dakota and the state environmental commissioners, getting their input is very informative to me according to the things i was just mentioning where i know we need to do more work so we will not get this rule finalized before -- without having a defined process with our co-regulators, the states, between now and we have ample evidence beforehand of them

asking us to do a rule making? >> doing a rulemaking and the outcome of it is two very different thing. >> i thank the gentleman from north dakota. mr. peters is recognized. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. two topics. first in general, we know that the proposed rule is estimated to cost between $162 million to $278 million for additional mitigation and pollution reduction falths while -- it lists benefits including reducing flooding, filtering pollution, providing wildlife ab at that times and supporting fishing and resources ground water with benefits of $514 million annually and i wanted you to give us some sense as to how those benefit numbers were calculated. >> well, we use a variety of methods in economic analysis to do that and one of the things we did for this economic analysis and getting a lot of comment on this, as well.

is we looked at actual determinations or jurisdictional determinations that were being made by the corps of engineers in the field following the 2008 guidance and how they were making those determinations and would they be different under this proposal then we looked at that and we looked at studies that wiare available related to the values of different flood control approaches and wildlife habitat benefits, the benefits of hunting and fishing in the united states and we -- and we did the economic analysis around that the cost numbers are related to mitigation that might be required from permits for discharging fill or for the permitting processes themself. >> no, we hear about the costs. we just want to get a sense of how you think the benefits are. we're sensitive that the balance sheets from which the costs are paid respect always the balance

sheets to which the benefit s accr accrue. i did practice law for some time and worked on the clean water act and i think i'm still the only former epa member in congress i suspect so i may have too much dangerous knowledge. but, you know, what i guess i'm -- sensitive to the need to encourage kind of the right kind of drainage as a matter of fr infrastructure and to phrase her question differently, is there any jurisdictional distinction between a concrete drainage ditch which conveys to an undisputed navigable water of the united states on one hand and a swale that has in its own filtering, natural filtering elements in it that might also lead to the same water. >> well, if it is a channelized

stream with concrete or gabions or riprap and it runs, you know, with the proper perennial or intermitt tent characteristics, then it would be jurisdictional under this and if you wanted to discharge pollution into it you would have to get a permit. >> right. >> on the swale, it becomes a different matter. i mean, there are swales in farm fields that are not jurisdictional. there are, you know, drainage off of a commercial property that has to move the water efficiently. those are not going to be jurisdictional so it's hard to say specifically here. >> the fact that there's sort of a filtering built into it, does that make a difference in having to comply with the law?

just that -- >> again, the -- i'm going to say -- as a general merritt swales are not going to be -- drainage swales will not be jurisdictional but that doesn't mean you can't consider whether you're going to be discharge in pollution into them. >> that's a good point that there might be -- one of the things we're talking about in theory in planning theory is now building drankage that has in itself -- that incorporates fill filtering. miss bonamici's question, if we don't encourage that we won't encourage it at the local level. >> we don't want to create disincentives for green infrastructure or other drainage systems built at -- to help storm water management and particularly from a pollution control perspective. city -- in many respects when you have -- in your district in both ways, cities are beginning

to learn from what farmers have been already doing and i thinks this is an interesting time for that kind of storm water management work but we do not want to create impediments to that. >> i invite any of your lawyers who wanted to follow up with two pages on that to me, feel free to do so. >> we will follow up. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, administrator, for being here this morning. obviously this rule has caused, you know, quite a bit of controversy and particularly in a lot of uncertainty with my farmers and ranchers, i've received letters from both the farm bureau and local chamber of commerce in my district. very concerned about, you know, the mixed signals they're hearing from when they read the rule and what the administration is saying and but it says all waters in a floodplain are regulated unless specifically

excluded. now, there are a limited number of exclusions for ponds that are used only for stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing but there aren't any exclusions, for example, of standing water in a field, rainwater, puddles, wet spots or ponds that have other uses. now, i know that administrator stoner has in her blog indicated that water in fields, ponds, rainwater are excluded from a regulation under this rule. and i think that's also repeated on the epa website. but i think what we keep hearing is when people hear what you're saying and then they go back and see what it written in that rule, they think that there's a conflict there. can you show me in the rule where these areas that miss stoner and others are saying that are excluded because we're not finding them. >> we've heard this ourselves

from a number of people. again, i was mentioning just previously that i've been personally talking to some ag commissioners and what they're hearing on the ground from farmers an the associations speaking to the soybean association this morning after i complete work with you all this morning and here's how it works and here's how we need to make it clearer. the floodplain concept is to help identify whether or not it is adjacent to a navigable water so you get a floodplain from a navigable water and have you water -- i'll come back -- in that floodplain area then we're saying that that should be considered adjacent. the trick here is it's not any water in that floodplain. obviously the floodplain will be flooded in the spring if it's a typical floodplain. that doesn't make the floodplain itself jurisdictional.

what it makes -- what we're proposing in the rule is that if there had a water as otherwise defined. a stream with a bed, bank and normal high water mark or wetland that has hydric soys, a puddle won't have that. you know, a wet field isn't going to -- is not jurisdiction dicti jurisdictional under any circumstances so i think our intent here is to use the concept of floodplain which is a solid hydrologic concept of aja djac djacency. that doesn't mean everything is jurisdictional or any other activities so we need to do a

better job of how to explain that that's the best i can do right here. >> for example, my district we have a lot of lakes. and while those lakes sometimes have water, sometimes they don't but they are not adjacent to other bodies of water that would meet the original intent of congress and that would be a navigable waterway. so i think -- one of the things hopefully during this comment period that you're hearing from these people but i think it willen important that the epa take a necessary step to make sure we clarify, you know what, is covered and what's not because i think it's leaving a lot of uncertainty. i want to go back again to miss stoner. she said permits will not be applied for the application of fertilizer to fields or surrounding ditches or seasonal streams. it says that the specialty side general permit only requires it

when pesticides are applied directly to the waters of the united states but looking at the rule i don't see how she can make such a broad statement because the rule is pretty clear and says all barth in a floodplain and all seasonal streams are fairly regulated waters of the u.s. and so the application of fertilizer or pesticides would seem to apply here and require a permit. >> i'll just try to -- because this is something we need to work on. the floodplain is a geography, you know, it's under the science of fluvia geomology and using that to say if there's a water in that area it could be deemed as being adjacent to the mainstream or traditionally

navigable water but it still has to be a water as defined in the rest of the regulation which is again a stream with a bank, a bed, a normal high water mark, a wetland that has high direct soils and hydrofittic vegetation so the chances are pretty high that those are not going to be farmed to begin with but if you have a field and you've been farming it before this rule, you're going to be able to keep farming it and if it does get wet and if you are a farmer who so inclined to spray fertilizers and pesticides on a wet field which doesn't make it very effective but you will not need a permit to get -- to do that. you will not come under the general permit that is out there. you have to avoid spraying it directly on those other waters

there. >> thank you for yielding back. misskelley. >> thank you. i guess i wanted to follow up on what some other colleagues mentioned. there seems like there is so much misunderstanding and misinformation and rumors about what this new ruling would do and i just encourage you to do everything you can to work with the farmers, my district people always surprised when i say i have more farmland than city land and i was with one of them yesterday and made me stop at different places and say that is going to be covered by the rule and they're very, very concerned so whatever can you do to make it clearer to all of us, i think that would be very helpful and go a long way. the other thing is, in its testimony before the house transportation and infrastructure committee last month, the american farm bureau federation suggested that the exemption for agricultural storm water and irrigation return flows would be severely

undermined by the proposed rule because the proposed rule that regulates as waters of the united states the ditches and drains that carry storm water and irrigation water from farms. can you please comment on this statement and the impact of the proposed rule on the exemption for agricultural storm water and irrigation return flows? >> our intent is those remain exempt. we have not changed the exemptions. we're struggling to find out how people -- you know, to understand how people make that interpretation but whether it's p play playas or ditches, these are not jurisdictional wean we believe we have not changed that but we obviously have to make that clearer or somehow convince the people who want to help continue the confusion, we can get that be a little more focused on what

we need to do to fixle rule. >> sounds like communication is such a big issue. >> yeah. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, misskelley. mr. collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i am going to be submitting for the record a letter dated may 1 that i sent to miss mccarthy and the honorable john mccue signed by a majority of the members of congress, over 230 members, republicans and democrats simply asking this rule be withdrawn, withdrawn. now, obviously your administration denied that. i've only been in congress 18 months but i will say as i've heard you say again and again here, there is confusion. it is our intent, we need to do a better job. we should make that clear. the problem s. the public doesn't trust the epa. the farmers don't trust the epa to not overreach.

congress doesn't trust the epa, and what we have here today is a proposed rule, adefective. as you've said we need to make things clearer but the rule is out there and the very fact you intercepted our questions and thought you had the audacity that you had that control, none of us trust for two seconds that the epa isn't just going to let this train roll right down the tracks in saying all these good things and putting things on your blog doesn't make it so epa when what you've shown is a disregard for listening. you don't listen. and if you don't listen, what's going to happen so you're saying you're getting this input. frankly, congress doesn't trust you. the farm bureau or counties don't trust you. the public doesn't trust you to simply ignore all that you're hearing and when you say that

these puddles and streams aren't regulated and then you put on your blogs they're not regulated but it's not clear. so i don't understand why in our very simple request withdraw the rule, send it back to the agency. then if you come out with a proposed rule as you say to take this further, at least it would be there. it's not there now. all these things you're claim areikat not intended -- i mean, do you agree? >> they're just not there now. >> there's a difference between making it clearer because others are trying to make it unclear and whether i believe the rule we propose does what i say because i believe it does. so i -- i do. >> we don't. >> i believe it does and meets the intent of what i'm saying, but -- >> do you care that a majority of the members of congress,

republicans and democrats alike, don't agree with you? does that -- apparently that doesn't -- that's the arrogance of your agency. you're just displaying right here in front of you. >> i'm not being arrogant. you me what i believe and you're trying to tell me what i believe. i'm telling you that i believe we need to do a better job of explaining -- >> so why not withdraw the rule and start over. >> because i believe the rule does what i'm saying. >> congress distaoesn't agree w you. i also have a supreme court saying we need to do rule making. i have hundreds of letters say we should do rule making. >> this one is so defective all we've asked is withdraw it. at the end of all of your fact gathering you come up and say we think it's just fine. if you're saying right now you think it's just fine but then again you say we need to owe do better. it was our intent. we need to make it clear so you're almost contradicting yourself that you're saying the rule is fine but then you're

saying we need to do a better job. if it's fine why do you need to do a better job? >> want to say again there's a difference. i'm not being disrespectful. there's a difference between explaining and perhaps writing it more clearly than saying that what we intended to do we didn't do. we intended to exclude conservation practices. people read that differently. i think they are reading it too narrowly but we will even expand on that. >> this is what goes on in a normal comment period what you do administrative process. >> i will just state for the record the problem is we don't trust the epa. we the people don't trust the epa. conpress doesn't trust the epa the rule making is rolling down the tracks. we have a reasonable request signed by a majority in republicans and democrats this congress that have said withdraw the rule. sent it back to the agency. if you want to come out with a

new rule have these exclusions in it. right from the get go at which point we would trust what you you are going to do. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. collins has a uc request to put a couple of letters into the record. are there any objections. no objections heard. so ordered. >> thank you very much. thank you for being with us here today. i'd like to turn a little bit to climate change and the expected impact or possible impact and how that would tie into these regulations an the agency's a thinking. according to the third national climate assessment. droughts are expected to intensify in most regions in the united states. flooding is expected to increase in areas where total precipitation is expected to decline. the basic message being climate change will have a dramatic impact on water use. can you comment on the proposed rule and protecting the nation's water supply in light of these projected impacts of climate

change. >> thank you. well, i think stepping back just a little bit, recognizing that from surface waters in the united states in the tributaries about 100 million people get their drinking water from surface waters. it's more than 100 million but i will just use that number. the quality of the water coming in their siystems effected by hw development takes place or pollution is discharged above the streams where they receive it. this is one of the key things that the science advisory board pointed out to us that you have to look at that connection and so having proper jurisdiction and availing of the pollution control programs that are in the clean water act to those areas is a pretty important thing to protect drinking water. opt wet land sides, when you have more irrattic,

meteorological events or weather events, wet lands provide a very effective flood control and flood mitigation function. again, well established in science. these are key things that also are very strong reason why as states and cities and counties are starting to look at how they can be more resilient in the face of climate change that they also are looking to not only do they do some additional work with with green infrastructure but also how to maintain the existing natural systems so that they can get the attenuation from those. so those are some quick points on that. >> i hail from the state of connectic connecticut. we both along our coastlines have been looking at these issues around the coastlines where we've been seeing with the

weather events. in your testimony you discussed the porimportance of clean wateo the nation's economy. can you elaborate a little bit on that how the agency is thinking not -- is the agency looking not just at health effects but also at economic impacts for those industries that actually utilize clean water. >> well, i think -- three sectors in the economy who absolutely rely on clean water is agriculture, sports -- outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing, and manufacturing. i will say coca cola on pepsi cola or some other drink. they need supplies of clean water and this is where there's a natural partnership with our

colleagues in the agricultural community because they are stewards of the land and they need to have that same objective in mind. so, you know, our approach here is to build on their ability to do conservation work and that is what we want to be able to encourage. so these are pretty broad sectors but clean water is pretty important to them. i might add that manufacture of our developed parts of the country, cities, have turned back to the water fronts as a way to spur on economic development and revitalization of their communities. baltimore just northeast of here. the potomic river, cleveland. all of these places have had a resurgence of the vitality of their community around cleaner water than it was 40 years ago. these are pretty important aspects. >> if you could quickly comment on the inclusion of all adjacent

water rather than adjacent wet lands. this is an issue i've been yessed aboyes questioned about at home. thank you. >> there's two -- three perhaps kinds of adjacent waters. waters is a more general term that you could have an intermittent or a perennial stream that has the characteristics of a bank and normal ordinary high water mark. you could also have wet lands which have soils and hydra vegtation but you could also have a standing lake. all of those would be waters. determining where they are adjacent to a navigable water are the tests we're trying to develop here in this proposal. >> my time has expired.

thank you. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. perciasepe. thank you for joining us here today. i'd like to take off a little bit on the exchange that you had with my colleague mr. collins. let me tell you why i believe that congress in general and the american people specifically don't trust the epa. you made a statement just a few minutes ago, you said the supreme court has said that the epa needs to do rule making. i think that's what i heard you say. i think what the supreme court actually said is that under the law, you have the authority to do rule making. i think that's what the supreme court said. i think what the american people who by the way all three branches of the federal government is subject to, the american people, i think what they expect the epa to do is to provide a responsible, regulatory environment that

protects public safety, protects public health, but that does not disadvantage american businesses and american workers and cripple our economy. from the shut down of the coal industry through epa regulations, through the strangle hold that epa regulations have over our manufacturing sector, you name it. that's why the american people and congress don't trust the epa. let me go into a few questions here with you. you know there's enough new definitions and new ideas in this rule making that it's obvious that agencies will spend money figuring out how to actually implement this rule. it's clear that the epa is driving the bus even though the ar army corp of engineers will also be effected. it's also apparent that other agency's programs could be effected given the rule reaches all corners of the clean water act and not just the wet lands

programs. so as the epa consulted with other federal agencies that have administrative responsibilities under the clean water act as well as considering the cost that these agencies will incur when the rule is implemented? >> in order to put out a proposal under the administrative procedures act and under the executive orders that we operate under in terms with the office of management and budget, our -- all proposed rule makings that epa or my other agency does goes through a review process for 90 days. >> what feed backs have you gotten from other agencies. does the epa know how other agencies will interpret this rule or require more resources to understand how this rule effects their ability to administer their programs. have you reviewed that from other agencies. >> we took it into account when we did the prol.