impoverishimpoveris impoverished rural community and welfare was important for the family to become restored and they all went to politics on government scholarships and therefore that was her defense. and my response was that we generalize about poor people. we disaggregate them. you have people who use welfare whose character is intact like she did. it was used as an ambulance service, not a whole transportation system. then you have category two, like the woman, young mom in wisconsin, who saved $5,000 of her welfare checks to send her daughter to college and she was charged with a felon. and she reasoned, well, i made a decision, and therefore i'll stay dependent. not because she had bad character. she made a conscious decision. that's a second category. the third category, those who are poor because of the chances that they take and the choices that they make. there are character deficits there who are alcoholics, who

have babies out of wedlock and whatnot, to that last category, giving money to them only injures them with a helping hand. i said that my own niece back in the '90s was an alcoholic, living in public housing. she had a small child. i spent a year and thousands of dollars tryings to wean her off of that. found her an apartment in arlington, virginia, away from philadelphia. found her a job. and i went to pick her up at 2:00 in the morning at one of the most dangerous public housing projects in philadelphia when i went out at 2:00 in the afternoon. she was drunk. and i couldn't compete against a public housing. i couldn't compete against food stamps. it was only after welfare reform two years afterwards where she compelled therefore to go out and work. and now she is on her feet. i say that to say that it's important for us to disaggregate that and recognize that help to that third category, people on

the left tend to look at all welfare recipients as if they're category one. people on the right tend to look at all welfare recipients as if they're category three. we must adjust our interventions to meet the category of people we're trying to help. so we must frame it properly. >> thank you. and just one other question. i know this will probably come up. talk about the importance of bringing folks like jim and paul ryan and some of the other folks, talk about why you think it's so important that we as conservatives get out and do this. >> i think as conservatives we talk a lot about, people on the left, as bill bennett said, when they look at poor people, they see a sea of victims. people on the right see a sea of aliens. i think when we talk about poor people, we spend too much time talking about their deficits and their shortcomings and giving statistics about the 70% born

out of wedlock. people are not motivated to change and improve by warning them about injuries to be avoided. we as conservatives must inspire people to talk about victories that are possible. the grassroots instead of always focusing on the 70% of the families raising children in deficit communities, we should look at the 30% living in those communities that are raising children that are not dropping out of skchool or in jail or on drugs pane we should go in as scholars and ask what is it that they are doing that is different than their neighbors, and how can we then insinuate support and resources into them so that the 30% can begin to affect the 70%? so we should be the champions of the 30% as much as we are opponents to the 70%. and jim has seen firsthand what

happens when you go into communities that are character challenges. it requires an intervention by those who are living in the same cultural zip code and the same geographic zip code. nothing is more powerful to a person trying to find new direction than exposure to a witness that transformation is possible. and a witness is more powerful than an advocate. and so what we do at the center for neighborhood enterprise, and jim was talking about this, is go into the neighborhoods and identify people that are healing agents. we know the human body is oriented to the help, so the moment there's injury healing begins. and so what we must do as conservatives is go in and identify those community antibodies and find and create ways to insinuate resources, information and money so these individual antibodies

collectively become a whole immune system that that therefore the body of the neighborhood is healed from the inside/out and the bottom up. because many of those healing agents, these grassroots people are embodying conservative principles. they believe in sacrifice. they believe in struggle. they believe that the victimizer may have knocked you down but the victim has to this get up. they believe this all the things that we do. but they're unarticulated conservative principles. and so when jim had seen, and paul ryan has, when you go in there, they, they, the qualities that make them effective also renders them invisible. they're not whining and complaining or petitioning government. they're just busy doing their work. you've got to find them. they're not looking for you. and once you do, you must

recognize the strength that they have and try to build on their strengths, and enable them, rather than going in and imposing policies on them. there were many barriers that we found, for instance, in drug and alcohol, as pastor freddie garcia said, if our problems in america with alcoholism and drug addiction were economic, god would have sent an economist. if our problems were education, he would have sent an educator. but because our problems were sin, he sent a savior. but that's something else. >> thank you. thank you both. i'll ask one more question. then we'll open it up for jen. we just recently had a, you know, a lot of commentary about 50 years since the war on poverty was launched. it's been an opportunity to talk about what our solutions are as conservatives. maybe you could briefly give an assessment of the 50-year war on

poverty and talk about what is going to take for us to breakthrough with our ideas. >> yeah, can 50th anniversary of the war on poverty was january 8th. as congressman jordan has already said, president lyndon johnson very rightly said he wanted to attack the causes of poverty, not the symptoms. that's a very noble intention. but how is it born out? well, today that war on poverty comprises 80 different programs to provide cash, food, housing, medical assistance and targeted social assistance to poor and low-income americans and we're spending at all levels of the government nearly $1 trillion per year. a total price tag over the years of $20 trillion. if we were going to win this war on poverty by spending we would have done it a long time ago. we have to look more deeply at the things bob is calling us to

look at. the incentive strictures within the welfare program. incentives matter. in the same time period, the unwed childbearing rate has gone from single digit to 40% overall. we have markers that we need to this be aware of but then get very focused on the success stories that bob is talking about. that's what congressman jordan's legislation will do. it brings a food stamp work ethic into the problem. that's just one problem. in 1996 with the welfare reform that was so widely hailed, left and right, as a great success because it transformed the old aid to family with dependent children into a path towards self sufficiency. it required work and made sure that people were engaged in work activities over time. and that led to dramatic effects.

the welfare roles fell in half. child poverty reached a historic low. and that unfortunately was not a lesson to say let's we pete that success in other of these 80 programs. but too many people walked away and said the job is done. well, the job is not done. we have not done justice to the poor in the united states. we need to keep working. we need to build on the success. the next step is congressman jordan's legislation. we look forward to engaging in the new conversation about making the path to self sufficiency more clear and the incentives in federal law match that. >> i would like to add a footnote to that. the black community is often a moral barometer of the health of the nation. and prior to the 1960s, 80% of all black families had a man and a woman raising children. 85%. since the '60s and intervention, that has now gone down to 30%.

and if race and poverty spending were the cure, then the choice would be a social reform mecca. but it isn't. that is 70% of every problem spent on poor people does not go to poor people. it goes to those who serve poor people. they ask which ones are fundable this year. you will get professional service providers to serve the poor, no matter how compassionate it will be. they are having people to serve, no matter how compassioned. you're asking them to this sacrifice their own personal careers and their income in order to empower poor people. conservatives by contrast have no priority teaching interests in the existence of poverty.

therefore they have the insenttive to partner with the people suffering the problem. but we have to make that leap and demonstrate the people that we're willing to. and the final point is we must come up with nongovernmental interventions in -- for instance, in indianapolis, indiana, you have a program where -- for example, you have kurt moore. kurt spent 13 years in federal prison. came out, found christ. and didn't leave him in prison but brought him with him. so he was given a job watching cars for another member of the church for four months. he said why don't you go into business for yourself. so curt started washing jobs in

people's driveways. two years from that he now employs 15 people. he has contracts with 23 car dealerships to wash trucks. so we need to come in, john williams as a local business guy, and so now they are in partnership to talk about giving him access to capital because he has to buy new equipment but he doesn't have credit because he was in prison. but when we come in and provide access to this that, so that we can begin to establish these kind of relationships all over the country and the church has other entrepreneurs, let's provide the means for wealthy people to share their strategies for creating wealth and their business acumen so we can grow and generate jobs by building on strengths of people in those

communities. so we need to talk in terms of how can we build the strengths? when asked about minimum wage, he will have a different job than some advocate? >> great. let's open it up for questions. right here. yes, sir. >> could you pass a law to waive minimum wage for, let's say, kids under 20? >> yeah, it may not get signed by the president, but we can work on it. i think bob's comments are right on target. let's do what works. not what people here in washington have proven doesn't work. they can get them across the finish line.

>> right here, jerry. >> good morning. i'm startled by what i thought i heard. >> the statistics that flow through the programs do not go to the end recipients. but for the infrastructure that delivers it. is that correct? >> the one study done back that time. the liberty service society of new york city looked at all the various poverty programs. they concluded that says 70% that goes to social workers, psychologists, drug counselors, foster care, the care for kids. just a whole variety of services systems. it will vary program for program.

some are cash. some are social services. >> one more question for whomever. some of the things you're talking about, the perverse incentives in law, the programs that subsidize the lack of work, and this is true with many federal programs, how much recognition of the perversity of some of these incentives in the program is recognized by the democratic party? and as a barrier to getting sensible things done? >> my reaction is not much. one thing our legislation seeks to do is let's get our arms around everything that's gone on. i mentioned 77. jennifer mentioned 80. it's a lot of programs. it's somewhere in that range. you have job training, education, nutrition. you have all different categories. this agency is doing something

probably redundant with some other. just getting your arms around that could be helpful. that's one of the things we seek to do. let's find out how much we're spending and let's account for it. that's a step in the right direction. every time it's tried where you have this -- i like the way bob described the three categories of folks. but the tough love component does work. we did this when they passioned legislation federally. we did it in the state of ohio. i offered the amendment on the floor, and it was an all-out debate. they had a deal worked out. republicans and democrats, welfare reform, all these good things in there, but there was no tough love component. i was just a dumb rookie and thought i can offer an amendment on the floor. if after two years you're an able-bodied adult, we will no longer pay you for not working. two-year warning. of course, it was a big debate. i was scared to death. it was the first speech i gave and it was a major piece of

legislation. but it passed. and it worked. you know what we found? no one got kicked off. because deadlines influence behavior. think about your own life. deadlines change behavior. guess what they did? they got the skills. they found a job. they got the skills. they moved onto something better for them, better for their family. is there recognition across the political spectrum of the wrong incentives currently in law? there have been interesting moments over the last 25 years about this. there were predictions prior to the welfare reform of 1996 that we've been talking about, that there would be a million children starving on the streets. quite the opposite happened. and that brought many liberals to affirm that, wow, this kind of a strategy does work. and even on the campaign trail, some of you will remember this,

then senator barack obama at the saddle back forum for the presidential candidates that rick warren held, he was asked to say, what is one issue on which you've changed your political opinion. he said, i have to say welfare reform. i was on the side that said it would be a horrors for those poor families. but i have to admit it was a success. the there are moments of epiphany. we should apply the logic and apply it to the other programs. >> great. right down here. >> congressman jordan, you said that deadlines start action. you set a deadline for 1.7 people right now was not enacted by the senate and not going through. are these people not finding jobs because of a lack of action or lack of trying or because of a bigger issue that needs to be addressed? >> it's because of a host of things. obamacare can be doing. you have the fact that if they've been on unemployment for extended period of time, they're

not always the first applicant that an employer is going to go for. so there's that dynamic. there's a host of reasons there. and the policy will help the overall economy. we have tax policy, regulatory policy. sound policy. all contribute to the fact that we're not growing. what we need to focus on, though, is, and i keep coming back to this, policies that empower people. i was struck -- and i keep telling stories, but it reminds me of things that we did when this welfare reform initiative was moving in the mid '90s. in the mid '90s in ohio, we did a thing, school choice program in cleveland. first one went all the supreme court. constitutional on the established clause grounds. it was held up. at the time cleveland had a graduation rate of 32%.

spent $6,500 per kid. we gave the program to kindergarten, first, second grade. we gave a scholarship and offered 2,000 spots. on the initial signup day, 7,000 moms on a mission kicking and scratching to get that golden ticket lined up. keep your 6500. give me 2250 and freedom to get to a better school. and the typical family to bob's point, single mom, many of them african-american, many of them had been on or were on some kind of public assistance, but they knew one thing, they wanted a better life for their kid. so that's an empowerment model right in those neighborhoods where people could see, well my neighbor down the street got a golden ticket for their kid. i have to get one for mine. it's still going on today and can help a lot of kids.

so that has to be the focus as well. going in there and making a difference right in their family. >> you said conservatives would be the champions of third. not the 70% who aren't. an elected official has to be responsive to the constituency. how does somebody reconcile that? >> it's not a matter of ignoring the 70%. as conservatives, we need to know how many of those people born in the 70% have recovered from it? who have been redeemed? i don't see any conservative redemption studies. i took members of congress in washington, d.c. a drug and alcohol treatment program that's faith based where there were 50 marriages of people who were on drugs, in jail, but who have recovered from it, and have now restored their lives. we need to go beyond the initial 70% and say, well, how many people have recovered from this

bad start they had? how many have been recovered? what is the state of those people? we need to report on and write articles about restoration and redempti redemption, and every time you hear a conservative, instead of us always being low budget liberals, we must be the -- group that inspires people to say even though you may have had a bad start, redemption is possible. redemption is here. here's evidence of it on our banquets. meet two young ladies who were homeless. in a homeless shelter. now they're in college. one of them graduated high school valedictorian and the other saludedictorian. and they were studying by the cell phone light of their

mother's phone. they ought to be conservative champions. every banquet. every conference. young people born under very trying circumstances but triumph under these very hard conditions. we taught to be writing about them. >> bob participated in seek social justice. star parker did and others. we did exactly what bob was talking about. correctly diagnose what the challenges are and how to overcome them. and it was stories about families, about churches, businesses. so on portrayed about poverty, but really with important service to give to a community in terms of offering opportunities for work and for training. one reason bob's work is so

important, and it's important for many reasons, but he helps us diagnose the materials for the conversation. we've had too much materialistic conversation for the last half century. we need to go deeper. the challenges are deeper. and the organizations that are working with bob are ones that are building relationships. they're meeting and helping them. we take for granted the way that social capital has helped us to where we are today. and so many americans do not have that luxury. but we can give that. we can give that. not just in public policy. >> star parker. >> thank you. back to the question of wage law. i'm wondering, you know, this gentleman is questioning and rolling it in. we have the high ground on school choice.

thanks to cleveland and the supreme court decision in 2003, we are winning that in these poor communities, but wage is a challenge because work is a challenge, as you have suggested. so i'm wondering if the president is having that discussion, perhaps he could look at these hard hit zip codes and offer a way to $5. but work that has to be created in the environments. there's a competition in the at-risk communities with the illegal community at $2. so perhaps this is a food time to roll it into welfare reform. >> good point. i'll go back to my remarks. you think about those valuable ski skills and principles. it was probably working for less than minimum wage. it's something we should

certainly explore. yeah. okay. okay. i'm open to that. definitely open to that. >> i tell people who are out of work volunteers. you can't get anymore supplemental than that. and demonstrate the people that you have vled to hire you. that's what we have to do is that entry ramp. >> great point. right here. >> two points. one, i just learned that internships are under attack now. you have obligations of someone bringing on an intern, which is now scaring people from bringing on internships. my larger point is inspiration is apolitical. narrative is jobs, jobs, jobs. entrepreneurs, freelancers, small business and self employed persons are disciplines people who build success from little more than a dream. be it a baking job starting at a

kitchen table. but it's being decimated by the theft of content from the online technology companies. my toe kus tends to be i.p. and having an idea that people can start at home. so what are you doing to ensure and protect neighborhood and individual enterprise from technology stealing people's homes from moving forward? and separate from that, whatever you're running for, mr. woodson, i'm on board. >> well, god bless those who've got nothing to say and got the good sense not to say it. i'll defer to my colleagues on that one. >> technology is not my area of expertise. i think you have on the agenda -- or you had already? >> you already had some from mr. salmon in the technology area. yeah, we should protect people's intellectual property. across the board.

>> great point. >> thank you. thank you. >> right here. >> this is really a comment. i did call harry reid's office to tell him what i thought about his opinion about the cdo report. >> good for you. >> that i wasn't really that stupid. even though i am a senior citizen, and i got yelled at and hung up on by the person in harry reid's office. h he needs to hire somebody else. second point is -- >> can you work on that? >> that's the reality. >> get yelled at by the person. you pay their salary. >> he told me "i don't have time to listen to people like you." that's harry reid's office. i called a lot of people. harry reid's office was the best. my first job out of college, and i always wondered about this was the war on poverty. and i worked out on long island very high unemployment. and my job was was youth corps

job corps to send people to training programs to require skills that jobs were available for meat cutters, so on and so forth. i only lasted one year and it turned me into a conservative from a bleeding heart liberal. i certainly recruited at least 100 people to go to different training programs. at the end of the the year i discovered only two people had completed the training programs. one wound up in prison anyway. of the other 98 they kept going and coming back. what i discovered was the incentive. i, in my young heart, thought, okay, they want to get skilled and be in the middle class. which i came from total poverty. they really didn't want that. they wanted the plane ride. once they were there a couple of weeks and it was really boring and they had to learn a skill, they would quit and come back. i had to send them on another plane ride. and i've always wondered if anybody ever tracked how many people how many trillion.

do you know if anybody ever tracked that and found out if three people finished the program? >> i can't comment on that specific, but we can certainly look that up for you. congressman jordan is introducing would work. it's based on the simple premise that we should provide a hand up and not a handout. up wards of 80%, 90% of americans are supportive of the policies, based on the polling that we did a couple of years back. if you are receiving aid, you should be working, looking for work or at least preparing for work. and it's a very flexible policy. the policy would say by 2016, 4 million people need to be participating on a monthly basis in work activity. either working, looking the for work, preparing for work. it focused on able-bodied adults

without dependence. the food stamp recipient list has been growing pretty dramatically over recent years. states would be required to focus on them. to put them on the path towards self sufficiency. the to make the incentive structure in the food stamp program work on behalf of that individual's dignity. not to encourage over the long term dependency. and it would require regular check-ins. and that incentivizing that we have seen helps people in the first place look harder for work. it has a dissuasion effect at the front end. but for their future, for their resumé, and really tries to move them as quickly as possible towards productive, self-sufficient work. >> right here.

>> congressman, there was an opportunity last week or maybe before last, with the farm bill, with the food stamp program, and i don't know if there was an effort amongst members of the house to, for example, with work incentives or -- >> yes. >> or anything. and the cuts that were made were very minuscule in a program that's increased 100% in the last four years. i wonder what happened there. what sort of effort there was. was there just a fact that there's no chance it's going to pass in the senate? >> let's look at the glass half full. there were minor changes that were positive in the food stamp program. our bill makes it much, much stronger and actually mandatory.

yeah. i voted against the farm bill. i don't like the fact that we combine it. the nutrition program where the commodity programs. i think that makes no sense. split them up and have two different bills, which is what we initially had coming out of the house. obviously the bill ended up the way it did look. the years we've had recently in agriculture. and that's why you saw several of us vote against the final package. >> the policy we need to pursue is one that changes the character of public assistance so that it offered a hand up, not a handout. and that's what the food stamp policy in congressman jordan's bill is trying to do. and that's to be distinguished from what happened in the farm bill context because it changes around the edges some suggestions that hopefully a few states will do some requirements but it's not changing the character of public assistance in a way that will promote self sufficiency. >> there's no reason we can't come back to this again next year. >> right. >> it is possible that next year

you have more conservatives in the senate. you can take up the nutrition title next year alone. do it right next year. then get that through the senate. it was a tough loss for conservatives when they put the two bills back together. but we made a very strong, powerful point throughout the entire debate about ending that unholy alliance between rural republicans and democrats. >> just the decoupling is something that i think is a strategic goal of the policy. >> absolutely. >> that was big time with that -- first time it had been in 50 years where they had been split for at least going through one body of the congress. >> this lady. >> yeah. >> part of the bill, is there any incentive in there for companies to work with companies

who would hire welfare recipients to work so that that be a way of keeping track of the people who are looking for work? years ago when welfare reform had first taken place, i was an office manager at law firm, and we brought in a young lady who had -- who was on welfare. she had to go to work. and part of it was that, i don't know. we had received a letter or something that encouraged small businesses to hire these young people. and then the welfare social worker had to send the individual to a company, and then we in turn had to provide proof that they were working. and this young lady had three children. and is now the manager at the company where i work. >> yeah. >> and put her three kids through college. >> you know, the policy is a requirement on the administrators at the state level, but the smart

administrators are going to be reaching out with creative strategies just like that. and i know you have stories about this kind of thing, bob, the creative partnerships with businesses to help people work. >> it really does. it's how we overcome this vilification of wealthy people. we need to look at them as partners. but the example you gave is just perfect. and it's been echoed throughout. we did this for the whole state of ohio. if we went around the country throughout. we went around the country introducing tanif to local grass roots leaders and inspire a change in attitudes. we need to have a whole conference of just celebrating solutio solutions. so i think that we need to do that more. just have conferences where we just bring people together and exchange strategies of redemption. >> you want to encourage flexibility. in our legislation, the states doing it well, then they get

block granted dollars. that's flexibility, and that is all good. that's how you meet the needs in these communities that bob is talking about. >> we have time for one more question. right here. >> thank you, perhaps all of you could respond to this. i'm deeply concerned about, since the president made the comment a few weeks ago about marijuana and minimizing it's seriousness. and also talking about the states of washington and colorado and the experiment going on there which is against federal law. i wonder what do you -- how do you incorporate in the kinds of public assistance programs disincentives for using programs like marijuana and other mind altering drugs.

>> some states have experimented with having drug testing be part of their assistance programs and that is shown to be quite effective. >> like you, i was disappointed in the president's cavalier statements regarding the use of marijuana. i just think that's not the kind of message you want the president of the united states making. i was disappointed as well. and we're certainly open to what jennifer suggested which is a drug testing requirement. >> and fact based, if one goes to the website for the national institute of abuse, she recently had a two-hour conversation with the dalai llama in india. and they show an extraordinary

number of brain scans, and it's been determined now that individuals under 25 years old will have permanent brain damage and lose as many as ten points in their iq. these are facts that the president should have known about, didn't, and i think it will affect the whole country as a result. >> not with standing, it's interesting that the president talks about job generation. walmart, or a company comes to a city like this and they drug test 200 people, and only 10% pass the drug test. and you have city council members cavalierly saying we need to eliminate, make it legal, more access.

at the same time they're saying young people need to work. that's the kind of moral confusion that is spread throughout the society. we're just confusing young people. >> thank you, a quick programming note, next we will move to the health care panel, senator cruz will be after the health care panel, and we're going to take a brief break of four or five minutes, please join me in thanking this panel and this speaker for doing a great job. >> on the next "washington

journal," he discusses his book about president's relationships with popular culture of their time followed by assessor watson and a look at how the role of first ladies have changed over the course of the american presidency. then we will talk about the political commercial archives at the university of oklahoma that holds thousands of commercial dating back to the 1950's. we are joined by the center's director. is live at journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tuesday night, our conversation with tennessee republican senator bob corker on his early career in business. >> i started working, like most folks, when i was 13 doing all kinds of odds and ends. i migrated to being a construction laborer and rough carpenter. when i graduated from college, i

was these -- was a construction superintendent. builtfour years, i had regional malls around the country and learn how to build projects. i'd saved $8,000. when i was 25, i went in business. started doing a lot of repeat work, small projects where i could be paid quickly. the company grew about 80% a year the whole time. ended up building shopping centers around the country with retail projects in 18 states. it was energizing. it was a great place to be. the energy when you come in the front door would almost knock you down. i sold that when i was 37 two a young man who had worked with me for many years. then have done several things cents. i acquired a good deal of real estate. through the years through portfolios and other companies.

anyway, i love being in business. i have loved everything i have ever done. >> later, we will talk with the senator from minnesota on being in the senate and the mother of a teenage daughter. >> she called me and i picked up the cell phone walking into the senate. she is in tears and said they said we cannot wear a bikini at the pool party but you can wear and dad doesn't understand the difference. i go, get him on the phone right now. i walked head into lindsey graham and knocked them over practically. i felt i was not doing the balance well. for any mother, trying to balance the family and work, you never do it perfectly. anyone who says they do is lying. >> interviews on tuesday night starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

next, a hearing examining the financial status of the federal highway trust fund which pays for a number of the nation's transportation infrastructure projects. the fund is currently projected to run out of money by august of this year. the witnesses including u.s. chamber of commerce president tom donohue and afl-cio resident richard trumka who testified about possible ways to address the issue. this is before the environment and public works committee. >> we are focusing on maintaining funding for transportation and averting a major crisis later this year. we will hear from our witnesses who are national leaders representing businesses, states,

and workers who build, maintain, and utilize our transportation system. i am so pleased to once again welcome tom donohue from the u.s. chamber and richard trumka from the afl-cio. i always feel when they are together, we have a winning issue. they are joined by the honorable mike hancock, secretary of the kentucky transportation cabinet. ceo ofsident and american roads and transportation builders and the president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers. i want to say to all who are here that there will be devastating impacts felt across our economy if the highway trust fund is allowed to run out of funds later this year. we must not let that happen. here are the sobering facts. dbo and