year is good, even for me, the guy who owns the pillow business. it is just common sense. host: the house of representatives is just about in. if you want to read our guests writing it is on "political magazine." you can find it on our c-span website as well. "the pitchforks are coming for us plutocrats." guest: thank you for having me. host: that is it for our program. the house of representatives is setting up to meet for session. the next program for "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow morning. see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. july 9, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable kerry l. bentivolio, to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority

leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue:11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. we have an unusual prospect tomorrow where a proposal to raise money for the highway trust fund is opposed by the very interests strongly identified with the need for more transportation funding. how did we get to this point? why do we need the money? and why would the very interested seem to benefit oppose it? this is a strange saga of congressional irresponsibility on transportation funding that started when the last congress refused to meaningfully address

the funding crisis. you see the funding has fallen out of the highway trust fund that's based on gallons of fuel consumed. though the need continues. the united states is now spending far less on infrastructure than our competing countries, and the vital federal partnership, which can be a third or more of the funding in our states, is falling further and further behind. congress put its head in the sand. there's not even been a hearing on the needs of transportation finance by the ways and means committee which is the house committee with primary jurisdiction. i'm afraid my friend, dave camp, the chair of that committee, has it exactly wrong. he's proposing a short term fix tomorrow saying it's time for the committees of the entire house and senate to have the influence they deserve by kicking it into the next congress. wait a minute, by refusing to have a hearing for 3 1/2 years

on transportation financing, this has produced the backroom maneuvering with no public discussion that he says he's opposed to. now the results of the last congress' failure to deal meaningfully are coming sharply into focus. the already inadequate highway trust fund will not even last through the end of the 27-month extension which expires september 30. by draining every last dime out of the highway trust fund, they lost the capacity to manage it, and the federal government is preparing to cut back. that means state and local projects will be on hold later this summer. this pending crisis has finally sparked action, but because we never bothered to listen to business, to labor, to terry o'sullivan of the laborers, tom donahue of the u.s. chamber, rich of the afl-cio, bill

graves of the trucker -- these are people who could have told congress why it is actually could be even worse allowing the trust fund to go dry to punt this into the next congress. we have a long-term funding crisis. to kick this can to the next congress makes it a virtual certainty we will continue to wrestle far beyond the next two years. remember, next congress the senate will be more evenly divided no matter who is in charge, will be in the middle of a heated presidential campaign, which seems like it's already started, and half the members of the other body are running. there's no realistic opportunity for the meaningful help america needs. it will be put on hold until another presidential election is passed and hopefully a stronger congress elected. but that's three years or more. america deserves better. that's why almost without exception the people who care the most and know the most

simply want a solution that gets us past the summer shutdown, enough money to tide us toward the end of the year so this congress can act, so this congress can take action that's sustainable with dedicated funding, that is robust enough to have a six-year transportation bill that america needs. you now, there was a time when transportation and infrastructure brought america together to produce the finest roads, bridges, transit, railroads in the world. we can do this again. it's time to start down this path. i have been working with these stakeholders for years. we are open to solutions to the transportation problems. let's listen to the needs that others have. let's reject a proposal to punt to the next congress. let's get down to business and not adjourn this year until this congress has made its -- met its responsibilities.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. . brooks: mr. speaker, sometimes the gap between political hype and reality is so great it demands a rebuttal. the obama administration's border security hype is a case in point. in february, 2013, homeland security secretary janet napolitano proclaimed, quote, the border is secure, end quote. rarely has the gap between hype and reality been so great. similarly, my democrat friends and their media allies repeatedly boast about obama's border security prowess. for example, pbs recently ran a fluff piece boasting that, quote, in one term the obama administration has deported roughly 80% the number of immigrants that george w. bush

administration deported. end quote. pbs failed to mention that deportations are only half the border enforcement picture. the other half is catch and returns, whereby border patrol catches illegal aliens at the border and promptly escorts them back without the time consuming and costly deportation process. so how does the obama administration stack up if the full picture is examined? according to homeland security data, in 2012 president obama's catch and return record was way below average, with border patrol catching and immediately returning 230,000 illegal aliens. in contrast, in 2008, the bush administration caught and immediately returned 811,000 illegal aliens, almost four times more than obama in 2012. similarly, in 1993, the clinton

administration caught and immediately returned 1.2 million illegal aliens, more than five times than obama in 2012. why are obama's catch and return numbers so bad? a border patrol agent told me on capitol hill that obama pushes catch and return illegal aliens into the much slower and far costlyier deportation process to inflate obama's deportation numbers to artificially make obama's border security record look better. the best indicator of a president's border enforcement record is the whole picture, deportations plus catch and returns. in 2012 the obama administration deported or caught and returned 649,000 illegal aliens. in contrast in 2008, the bush administration deported or caught and returned 1. million illegal aliens, 80% more than president obama in 2012.

similarly in 1993, the clinton administration deported or caught and returned 1.3 million illegal aliens, 98% more than the obama administration in 2012. according to department of homeland security data, and contrary to what my democrat friends and media allies would have the public believe, obama's border security enforcement record is the worst in more than two decades. but there is more. president obama repeatedly promises amnesty to illegal aliens. as 1986's failed amnesty experiment proves, amnesty begets more illegal immigration. mr. speaker, amnesty promises must stop because they make things worse not better. further, this administration must stop paying foreigners to illegally cross our borders. this is a no-brainer. america cannot give free food, free clothing, free shelter, free health care, free

transportation and billions of dollars a year in fraudulent tax returns and refunds to illegal aliens and then wonder why we have an illegal alien crisis. these failings contribute to america's pourous borders and produce millions of illegal aliens competing for american jobs. thereby creating income inequality via wave suppression and lost job opportunities for american citizens. mr. speaker, to solve the immigration problem, america must vigorously enforce immigration laws, stop promising illegal aliens amnesty, and stop giving illegal aliens stuff paid for with tax dollars forfully taken from struggling american families. if america will be smart and do these things, there will be no immigration crisis. there won't be illegal aliens competing with americans for jobs, and american families can better participate in the american dream. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. i connolly: mr. speaker, want to talk about transportation, but i must say to my friend who just spoke, there is a more humane and enlightened approach to comprehensive immigration reform that would address the issues she's concerned about. railing against people because of their status when there are 11 million people who are here without documentation, a problem that's hardly initiated with this administration. i don't think it's helpful. it may rile up one's base but doesn't solve problems, and it's not the best of america, especially as we celebrate our independence day. the urgency for congress, mr. speaker, to address the shortfall in the highway trust fund grows with every passing day. road and eventually mass

transit improvements in every state are at risk of grinding to a halt in the matter of weeks in the heart of summer construction time. secretary fox notified all states last week that their federal funding will drop by an average of 28% starting next month. in my home state of virginia, nearly every mode of transportation will be negatively affected. more than half of next year's road and transit projects were supposed to be funded with federal dollars. if we don't replenish the trust fund just in virginia alone, 149 bridge replacements will be put on hold. a 75 aging buses and train cars will not be replaced. 44 smaller transit systems will not be able to maintain service. 350 transportation projects will grind to a halt. when i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say, no, no, we are concerned about jobs. well, 4 ,000 jobs in virginia

alone -- 43,000 jobs in virginia alone will be lost if we do not replenish that trust fund. many states have advanced projects based solely on the federal government's participation, including private activity bonds used to finance such projects. if that money dries up, states would have to put projects on hold or redirect other precious state resources to cover the debt service or risk default. i was relieved when my house republican friends backed away from their reckless proposal to hold the highway trust fund hostage unless the demands were met to eliminate saturday mail delivery service of the postal service. stand aside for the moment that paying for an on-budget transfer with offbudget cuts to the postal service violates both pay-go and cut-go budget rules here in the house. that fundamentally flawed nongermane proposal would have undermined a trillion dollar american mail industry that supports more than eight million jobs and represents 7% of our g.d.p.

there's simply no nexus between funding transportation and the postal service. despite the efforts of republican leadership to suggest otherwise. while the focus now shifted to finding a short-term funding fix, i'd argue simply patching it over will not help our safety o.t.'s which need more certainty and long-range planning. transportation is not a short-term proposition. it's long-term planning, long-term investment streements that are needed. the federal government historically has been a partner in funding our nation's infrastructure, a key partner, but that level of investment has eroded over time. just look at the transportation appropriations bill. it provides less funding for highway and transit construction than last year, and far less than the administration proposed for 21st century transportation system in america. public spending and infrastructure now is half what it was as a percentage of g.d.p. in the 1960's and 1970's.

to great country can walk away from infrastructure investment and stay great. i commend senators murphy and corker on a bipartisan basis for tabling a proposal to increase the gas tax by 12 cents over two years and index it to inflation. it's been more than 20 years since the federal gas tax was last adjusted, and those dollars have lost 40% of their value in that time period. i know some of my colleagues will cringe at such a proposal, but funding for transportation is not going to miraculously fall from the sky. many of us have supported efforts to advance innovative financing solutions, but at the end of the day what we really need is more funding. the 495 expeace wlains here in the nation's capital built under a public-private partnership in my district, is considered a model for innovation, but four out of $5 used to fund that project were federal dollars in some fashion. whether it was federal trust fund dollars, federally subsidized loan, or the sale of

bonds that received federally preferred tax deduction. again looking at virginia, last year the virginia general assembly, a republican house of delegates, a democrat senate, and a republican governor came together for the first time in over 27 years and actually funded transportation long term, a multibillion dollar effort. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. connolly: if the virginia general assembly can do it on a bipartisan basis. so can we. the speaker pro tempore: choir. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, r. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we must achieve stronger economic growth. we must train and educate americans to succeed in a modern economy. last year the house advanced with the supporting knowledge and investing in lifelong skills or skills act. another house passed jobs bill which reforms our federal work force development programs and

would help america acquire the skills and education, the training that they need to climb the ladder of opportunity. despite senator leader reed's opposition to acting on any of the more than 40 house-passed jobs bills, recently saw light at the end of the tunnel. when it movement began on a compromise package on federal job training reforms. in late may congressional leaders announced a bipartisan agreement on this package which passed the senate in june and will be considered by the house today. as a member of the house education work force, higher education, and work force training subcommittee, i'm proud to have worked to help advance these commonsense reforms. i also want to thank my friend and colleague, subcommittee chairwoman, virginia foxx, for her tireless work on this legislation. job training is the best strategy and solution for opportunity and access to jobs. and america's competitiveness depends on a qualified and trained work force.

mr. speaker, i also rise today to remember william r. ralph. as we walk our way through life, many times we meet individuals who have an impact on our lives in significant ways. bill was such a person. he was a 1947 graduate of sumbery high school and bucknell utah. he was an eagle scout and following college he worked as a boy scout executive in various locations, including the council that serves the pennsylvania counties of center,00ington, and mifflin. it was on this journey our paths crossed. when i was a scout growing up, bill was a counsel executive. as i advanced into youth leadership positions in the council, hi the good fortune to work with bill. his commitment and love for scouting as evident, continuous for more than 70 years. after ending his professional service with the boy scouts, he

and his wife owned and operated the award center in state college. he attempted the first united methodist church in lewistown. as a member and past president. he lost a battle with alzheimer's on june 10 after a lifetime service -- lifetime of service to others. he is survived by his wife, daughter and son. happy trails and well-done, scouter. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, i'm here this morning to talk about good government. i'm here to talk about a program that everybody in this chamber should be proud of. indeed every american should be proud of. it is usda's summer food service program. this is a program, to put it simply, that attempts to make sure that no child in this

country goes hungry during the summer months. for a lot of kids, mr. speaker, who received free or reduced breakfast or lunch during the school year, huger doesn't magically go a -- hunger doesn't magically go away during the summer months. this program is important on a number of levels, but it is important for my colleagues to understand that hunger and food insecurity in this country is also a health issue. kids who don't have enough to eat, who miss meals on a regular basis, who don't have access to nutritious food are more likely to get sick. kids who don't have access to good nutritious food are not able to learn. in school. and too often kids who are struggling in poverty end up filling their stomachs by relying on junk food because that is the cheapest food available in so many communities across this country. the summer feeding program that

usda champions tries to change that. tries to make sure that kids not only have good access to nutritious food during the school year, but also during the summer months. and i had the great privilege on monday to tour through my congressional district in massachusetts to visit a number of the summer feeding sites. i was joined by local leaders, leaders in the usda, representatives from a number of n.g.o.'s. we also had the secretary of health and human services in massachusetts join us as we went through various sites throughout massachusetts. we began at a ymca in greenfield. we then went to -- had an event at the pavilion at silver lake. we then went to the spanish american center, and we ended up at the worcester public library in worcester, massachusetts. what we have learned is that it

is important to make sure that these feeding programs are where kids are at. and we have a program at the library. because kids come to the lie brare -- library during the summer months to read and partake in other activities. we were at the ymca because a lot of kids go there. this program only works if the eligible kids can take advantage of it. and while this has been very successful for those kids who have been able to take advantage of this program, nationwide on average only about 18% of the kids who are ligible for free and reduced breakfast and lunches during the school year take advantage of this program. part of the challenge has been in the past that it's been difficult for families to get their kids to the sites where food is kitchen out. in massachusetts, community leaders are working with usda to make sure that they give out food at sites where kids are

at. and so in massachusetts we can see the enrollment rate during the summer feeding programs increase. we are told, mr. speaker, that nationwide enrollments in this program have increased. but the fact of the matter is still one child in seven who need food in the summer are getting it. that means a whole bunch of kids aren't getting it. i would urge my colleagues to do what i did during -- on monday, it go throughout your district. to remind people that this program exists. to make sure that people understand how they can take advantage of this. i would urge my -- those who are listening to make -- to go to usda's website and to learn more about this program. the website, usda.gov, and look up the summer food service

program. learn about this program. learn about how you can get your kids access to this program. learn about how you can encourage other kids to get access to this program. mr. speaker, let me close by making this observation. we live in the richest country in the history of the world. yet we have close to 50 million people who are hungry or food insecure. 17 million are kids. we all should be ashamed of that fact n this country we should make sure that everybody has access, not just to food but to good nutritious food. that's what this summer food program is about. that's what the school feeding programs are about. that's what snap is about. that's what w.i.c. is about. that's what these nutrition programs are all about. we should make sure that they are properly funded and we should make sure that every eligible person takes advantage of them. next year this congress will be re-authorizing the child nutrition act. i would hope that we would learn from the best practices across the country and

implement them so we have maximum participation. i want 100% of those eligible for these feeding programs to be enrolled. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, for five minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's time to get america back to work. the people of my state, west virginia, want to work. they want to provide for their families, and they want to build a better future. but in today's economy, finding a job has been very, very difficult. that's why i'm pleased to support the work force innovation opportunity act, which the house will vote on later today. we'll make sure that american workers will have the training they need for the jobs available in their communities. efficient use of the resources so that that will be the best way to train for the jobs of too many. employers want to hire in their communities. workers want to have the skills and training to secure good-paying jobs in their

communities. in west virginia, this means getting additional resources to train workers for jobs available in our growing natural gas industry or to provide health care services nor our elderly -- for our elderly citizens. we can use existing resource like community college. career and technical centers to offer group training that directly addresses the needs of local employers as this bill would do. by aligning worker skills with employers' needs, we can help get west virginia and america working again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. clarke, for five minutes. ms.clark: thank you, mr. speaker. in my home state of massachusetts and many other states across the country, we are battling a crisis that is blind to income, race, gender, and politics. that crisis is opiate addiction. and it is happening at a deadly

rate across the country. increasing by nearly 60% over the last decade. today i want to focus on the youngest of those affected by this epidemic. every hour a baby is born in the united states adicted to opiates. in massachusetts the number of babies born with this condition has ridden to five times the national rate. -- risen to five times the national rate. in kentucky, the rate has increased 30 fold. in ohio, sixfold. and in colorado, as many as 6% of the babies born will experience these addictions -- addiction symptoms. babies born with a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome, or n.a.s., are born into the pain of opiate withdrawal, which adults report as the worst pain they have experienced in their lives. these babies may suffer from

seizures, breathing problems, fevers, tremors, or difficulty feeding. these symptoms can last for months and lead to weeks of hospitalization. one boy suffering from n.a.s. in my district experienced such severe seizures that he suffered a detached retina. an urgent response to the surge of n.a.s. diagnoses, hospitals across the country have begun piecing together the best methods to diagnose and treat n.a.s. but incomplete and uncoordinated data collection ham bers a state's ability to identify the scope of the problem and apply solutions and treatment effectively. i am asking my colleagues to join me in taking a critically important first step in caring for these newborns by supporting the coordinated recovery initiative for babies act, known as the crib act.

i have partnered with my good colleague from ohio, mr. stivers, to introduce this bipartisan legislation. the crib act is the first proposed bill to take proactive steps to help hospitals treat newborns suffering from opiate dependency. it will give the department of health and human services one year to collect the data necessary to assemble a portfolio of the best prack -- practices. the final product will be based on the most successful models in the country, and will be accessible to every state and the medical community. in addition to being the right thing to do for newborns, this bill will save us money. n.a.s. births are five-times more expensive than healthy births, and medicaid has been paying for 75% of these costs. this bill will help us identify the best ways to diagnose and treat these newborns, and

provides an important tool for addressing the opiate epidemic. i urge my colleagues to join national medical groups such as the american academy of pediatrics and the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists and support the crib act. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. holding: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize tom suter, a sports reporter for wral news in raleigh, north carolina. recently he was induct food the north carolina association of broadcasters' hall of fame. he was honored for his long successful career filled with quality work and many achievements that include two regional emmy awards and 17 overall nominations. mr. suter was hired by the late senator jesse helms, who was

then the vice president of wral. mr. suter later became the station's lead sports anchor in 1981. over the past 33 years his coverage of all levels of sports from high school to college to pro has made him a local legend in raleigh and the triangle. he is the host of the award winning sports show football friday, which airs coverage and highlights of local high school football games on wral. the television segment will be in its 34th year this fall. mr. suter makes a point to recognize the achievements of high school athletes both on and off the field. during a segment each week he hands out the extra effort award, recognizing a local student for their achievements not only on the playing field, but in the classroom and in the community. referring to his love of high school sports, suter said, i had such a good experience playing high school sports i felt like there was a need and we should highlight these kids

who work so hard every day. mr. suter has interviewed numerous legendary coaches such as ucla's john wooten, and duke's coach k., in his time at wral, he covered 37 a.c.c. basketball tournaments and 25 final fours. he did so with passion and professionalism and influenced the community greatly. suter's passion and support of athletes of all levels make him one of the many bright stars in our community back in north carolina and i extend to him heartfelt congratulations. thank you, tom suter. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. snyder, for five minutes. mr. snyder: thank you, mr. speaker. 70 years ago -- mr. schneider: thank you, mr. speaker. 70 years ago, the serviceman's readjustment act became law. this was a tremendous step forward in the care of american

veterans and the economic development of our country. it opened new dors to veterans and allowed them to reach their potential and inject food our economy talent, skills, and creativity. we know this law better as the g.i. bill. for 70 years those words evoke our commitment to the brave and women -- brave men and women who defend our shores. today i'm happy to celebrate our history and contribute to that legacy. i introduce the g.i. intern shl act -- internship act, to allow veterans to collect benefits while participating in an internship program. these internships will allow our veterans to learn the practical skills and gain valuable experience, and they will help our employers overcome the skills gap and find uniquely talented proven leaders to high hire. that's the win-win proposition

for veterans. 70 years ago the g.i. bill opened new doors of opportunity and helped our country secure success in the second half of the american crentry. today we need another concentrated effort to boost the talents and skills in our economy. and like always, i think our veterans are yesterday toy answer the call. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> there's the chairman, paul ryan, they are holding a hearing on the impact of state welfare and private charitable programs in reducing poverty. they got under way about 20 minutes ago. and we will stay here live as the hearing continues. >> metrics and things like that. we see government agencies, we don't want to be chasing just some spread sheet so that you say, gee, my job is is done, by want the outcome. are they tapping their potential, are they in a

self-sufficient lifestyle. how do you do that? >> i think one of the most important ideas with that is not just evaluation and outcomes, you have to pair that with rigorous research. that's why we are partnering with notre dame. in fort worth, we have a control group and treatment group. most of us in the nonprofit sector, we are saying no to people every day because their resources are limited. we automatically have a control group. random selection we can provide. so what happens is we bring, for example, the economists at notre dame, what they are able to do is see not just does this program matter, but because of -- if they didn't have this program, then what would have happened? having a treatment group an invention group, if not for this intervention the families would not have improved. federal investment in more rigorous research and evaluation with large sample sizes, if we are seeing something, for example n. fort worth working,

how do we scale that up and get it to community colleges throughout the nation so we can see does this work? if it does, let's -- >> don't put me in a program that is proven to fail. that pushes me through a program to say you have done it. >> that's right. >> my time expired. mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank all of you for your testimony today. it's been very instructive. i want to start also with mr. turner, and thank congresswoman barbara lee for encouraging the committee to make sure we heard your valuable testimony. the chairman asked you and you were talking about the disincentives to stay, for example. if you put aside something to save, then you might no longer qualify for food and nutrition benefits s. that right? >> yes. >> for the benefit of our colleagues, reducing those clips, which is something i think -- cliffs, which is something i think all of us would support, certainly on the

democratic side, may end up costing more money, right? because what you're saying is that instead of being cut off from food and nutrition programs when you hit -- start saving, you would be allowed to continue to save and also continue to receive your food and nutrition benefits until you get to a point where your family's truly at a living wage independently. >> exactly. that's exactly what i'm saying. i want to be very clear here on what i'm saying. what i'm saying is -- i have been hearing a couple things been generational poverty. i feel like that's -- the main reason i'm sitting here. one i was invited. for two, you want to break the cycle of that. that's not number one. number tue, the federal government programsing running right now, tanf, food stamps, they aren't working. i don't want to put a state, i don't want a state to be involved or to tell me when i can't do a certain program. i feel like that didn't work

before and it won't work now. and accountability, we need to hold the big companies like wal-mart and target and these other companies accountable for not paying their employees enough to where they can have medical benefits. a lot of these big companies only pay their employees a certain amount of hours so they don't have to offer them medical. that's another question we need to address. the second thing is we need to make sure there is paid sick leave. that's another thing that's very important. i just wanted to make sure i cleared up a couple thingsly right there. i didn't want anyone to misconstrue what i was saying. i wanted to make that clear. >> just on the budget point because we are the budget committee, addressing these issues requires resources. i think all of you would agree with that. and to reduce what the chairman referred to as these cliff effects, may involve more resources.

at the same time, our colleagues propose add budget that cuts these resources. while it is very important to figure out whether case management is the best approach or other approaches, all of them require resources. in fact to do some better they require more. as ms. reynolds suggested, it may require more up front to get savings potentially down the road. if you could talk a little bit about the impact the affordable care act has had on your family? i saw that on your written testimony. may not have had time to address it in your oral testimony. could you talk about how the affordable care act has helped provide additional help? >> the affordable care act has definitely helped me and my husband a great bit. i'm very appreciative. for a long period of time i was paying out of pocket to go to the doctor. so you see if i pay $75 for a doctor visit, then they give me a prescription, i don't have any medical coverage.

so now i don't have -- i pay the $75 to go to the doctor. now i have to figure out how to pay for the prescription. i went a month without getting the adequate medical i needed because i didn't qualify for medical through the public welfare department. only my children are qualified. so now me and my husband are both working, we are both working part-time jobs, our hours do fluctuate up and down, i was able to get quality medical insurance through the obamacare. it's very important. we need obamacare. i know that right now some people want to cut obamacare. they are challenging again to look into trying to cut obamacare. i would like for you to look at me and my husband as a prime example that if you cut that program, you're taking away to make sure that i'm here to make sure that i can do the job that i need to do as a mother for my children. >> thank you. i want to pick up on the point you just made. you're working now, correct? >> yes, i am.

>> your husband's working now. >> yes. >> but your combined income still is not sufficient to provide a living wage for the family. >> that is correct, yes. >> what would happen -- while you're working now, you are also receiving some food and nutrition benefits? >> yes. >> what would happen to your family, what would the impact on you and your children if you were to lose those food and nutrition benefits? >> it would be even bigger. the money i have -- i'm already struggling enough to keep -- pay the rent, pay the bills that are coming in. gas, electric. if i lose my food stamps. that's money taken away from my bills and from my children torques go out and buy food. like i said before, i don't know how much more i can say it. no one who lives in poverty wants to stay on government assistance programs. we want to be independent.

we want to work hard. and believe in the american dream that if our work -- i work every day, get up at 7:00 in the morning, and my husband gets up and we work, we will have the same jobs, benefits, wages, paid sick leave as everyone else. that is the most important thing that is to us. a lot of people say, well, they don't need food stamps. it's not working. oh, this person is abusing the program. let's not even go there. because there are a lot of different programs we can talk about that have been abused that have been passed through and they are not being held accountable. >> i thank you for that testimony. i think your testimony demonstrates why it's so important to have somebody before this committee who is currently struggling with these questions and what the impact of some of the proposed cuts would have.

ms. reynolds, if i could scurks thank you for the good work catholic charity does around the country and in over in texas. you mentioned in your testimony that the larger share of your federal funding comes from the refugee assistance area. i'd like to take this opportunity to ask you for a status report of your efforts on refugee assistance, since we are currently facing this crisis at the border. and i do want to just read for the benefit of the committee, statement made by national catholic charities, just a little earlier, one year ago today the senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. moving our nation closer to an improvement immigration pros test. unfortunately, not -- process. unfortunately, not had a chance to vote on that here in the house. we hope to have that opportunity. in the meantime, we do have this crisis on the border. could you talk about catholic

charity's view of this issue? i notice that your chapter had sent out alerts to all the members of the texas congressional delegation urging them to increase refugee assistance which would be part of the president's emergency supplemental request. just share with this committee what you're doing and your view since you're here, you're from texas, and in the middle of this issue. >> thank you for that question. our heart goes out to the kids on the border because the kids we have had the opportunity to work with have shared some of the most horrible stories you ever heard. we had 57-year-old girl staying with us in our shelter recently who talked about how her neighborhood friends would go missing and then appear dead on her doorstep with organs missing. the accounts they are giving us from what they are experiencing in south america is quite daunting. our organization's a long-time provider of refugee settlement ever since the vietnam war.

in addition to that we have a long time provider of child welfare services. because of that we were approached by the united states conference of bath lick bishops -- catholic bishops, about 18 months ago to start using our shelter for some these children. so we began about 18 months ago working with eight of these kiddos, eight beds, which usually kids stay about two or three weeks with us, and then we were approached again and we have increased beds. then june 30 of this year we did increase our beds to 32 beds for these kids actually converting some catholic charity office space into beds so we are able to do our part. with 32 beds we will think about 400 kiddos will come through next year. our main goal is to make sure those kids are taken care of. many have been trafficked. their journey has been amazing. recently we had a 3-year-old birl come. i have a 2 1/2-year-old daughter

and i can't imagine having her cross the street without me there. the journey these kids have been on is a tradgedy. it's been a blessing for our agency to step up and help. >> thank you and your organization for your work in that area. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to commend you for continuing this series on the war on poverty and what works and doesn't work. i want to thank all the witnesses for your personal story about how we are moving in the right direction. i think there is a common theme if we listen and that is that if you worked with one individual in poverty you have worked with one individual in poverty. and that all folks are -- need to be treated with an individualized regimen. that's where the case management comes in. ms. reynolds, i was impressed and thought your testimony was remarkably compelling. i want to drill down a little bit if we may, you separate out categories of poverty.

chronic poverty, situational poverty, generational poverty. can you talk about what the percentages are? do you have the percentage, break down of where people fit in those? they differ in how to solve them. >> i don't. i would say in our organization this is more anecdotal, we see about a third, third, third. for example, we have our senior housing program funded by h.u.d. in part. and those seniors are low income. many have extensive disabilities, mental health issues. we need to provide them a place to live. those are folks in chronic poverty. they are not in many cases able to get jobs, but we do involve them with volunteer work and building communities and those things. we do see a fair number in situational poverty, but large number are generational poverty we see as well. >> the success rate varies signaturely between those three different categories i would exsnect >> it does. for those in situational and generational poverty, success would look like out of poverty.

those in chronic poverty, it's more about ensuring they live with dignity. that's how we distinguish that. chronic and situational poverty, that's one of the big reasons we are launching our poverty pilot is to study that a lot more and understand that a lot more and look at lengths of time more. >> what are the incentives -- can you talk about the incentives in the current system that either support moving toward a case management system or not? that seems to make it less likely and success of getting an individual out of poverty? >> i would say the things that really help us move a client out of poverty is that case manager, motivating a client, working on the development of a service plan after assessing them after a series of assets we believe families need to possess in order to move out of poverty. setting goals both short term so they can have quick wins, medium term, and long term with that

ultimate goal of what out-of-poverty looks like. >> how does that compare to the standard federal program of anti-poverty? >> a will the of -- a lot of -- there are so many programs that are anti-poverty. it would be difficult to talk about that generally, public assistance programs which are usually more about outputnam of people on it, number of people getting the services, you have some programs like a loft refugee programs which i believe are a good mod that will is about getting to a point of self-sufficiency and no longer being able to depend on that. everything else is in between. it can be shelter beds. it can be things like helping children thrive. a whole variety of things. >> thank you. ms. turner, i am impressed with america works and your focus on work. i wonder if you would relate that to the 1996 welfare reform act and compare the work requirement and how you think that is important or not important to successful outcomes. >> well, i think the work

requirement is quite important because it allows organizations like america works to provide that individualized assistance to an individual. to ensure that we are hearing what it is that they want to do employmentwise. while simultaneously addressing any of the case management issues that we have discussed here today. i think the work requirement is important for anybody who is deemed eligible to work and that's where the government comes in where they are screening people to ensure they are eligible to work. then we are looking at folks who are receiving say social security disability, who for their whole lives have been told they can't work, but they actually want to and it's about matching them to an appropriate position and we have done that successfully for at least the past seven years with our social security beneficiaries. so i think again the individualized approach which is becoming a common theme is so important because it allows us the opportunity to hear what this individual is going through. whereas they might not be heard what they expect when they go to

apply for the benefits or go to recertify for the benefits. >> do you think your program is scaleable nationwide? >> absolutely. >> we could build it up and have greater success? thank you. >> mr. pascrell. >> there is no doubt in my mind, mr. chairman f. we put -- mr. chairman, if we put ms. turner, and ms. tiller, and ms. reynolds as a theme, ther to address the theme of these meetings that we have been having in hearings, that the three of you, regardless of your difference of opinions, and there is common factors as the doctor just pointed out, would come up with a better solution than we would come up with. up to this date. let's get this straight right now.

it's clear the two parties want to do something about this problem. neither party is privy to virtueousness, but we have widely different ideas about what direction we should go in. i hear many times the culture of poverty. you better examine the pull ture of the congress -- culture of the congress, because the culture of poverty means that there is an essential part of poverty which will continue inevitably. on the other hand, i have heard, how do we become -- how do we help folks become self-sufficient? that's an interesting term. self-sufficient. how do you become self-sufficient? how do children 3, 4, 5 years old living in poverty become

self-sufficient? later seniors in their years, how do the infirmed, the chronicallyllenged, unemployed? i have self-sufficiently coming out of my ears and it doesn't do what you three people do day in and day out. so thank you for what each of you do. according to -- not my analysis, budget thatsis, the this house of representatives of the budget 69% cuts, which is $3.3 trillion, over the coming years, it cuts it from programs for people with low or moderate incomes. so you can pontificate all you

want. let's deal with the reality of what we have to deal with. i listened to you very, very carefully, ms. reynolds, about what you need and what -- very familiar with catholic charities. great job you do all over the country not just in fort worth. those cuts are vital. vital for us to understand. ,n medicaid, culture of poverty snap program, you know what the snap program is, all of you? you deal with it day in and day out. social services block grant, which provides states the funding for meals on wheels programs. incidental programs. and childcare for low-income workers. it includes $125 billion in cuts with pell grants, which gives low-income students the ability to break the cycle of poverty.

culture of poverty. we will hear this. we are always going to have poor people and we always will have poor people. that should not be our incentive to try to do something about the mess that's existing out there. with children and the infirmed and with those people who are mentally being challenged. ms. turner, let me ask you this question since i only have a little time left, your children receive health coverage through the chip program, correct? >> no. my children receive medical through a medical assistance program through philadelphia. >> can you explain how that works? >> my children receive medical through the department of public welfare, they receive keystone first? >> what would happen if we cut that program and you couldn't do that? >> my klee children who suffer all from medical disabilities, i have three children with seizure disorder, my twins take life sustaining medication twice a day.

all three of my children have asthma who take medication every day. >> i want to thank the three of you for testifying today. but please try to help us change the culture in the congress of the united states. we hope we listen to all three of you. thank you very much. thank you. >> mr. rokita. >> i thank the chair. i also thank the witnesses for their testimony. this is the fifth hearing we have had on this and related subjects. i learned a lot. and it's no different today. i believe from hearing all the testimony that one of the foundational reasons government welfare programs can never and will never be able to match the kind of service that is you provide to the community is lack of relationship. the government program cannot love. a government program can't demand an expectation. it can't break the cycle

necessarily. i want to talk about that a little bit. ms. gaines-turner, if i understood your testimony correctly, we want to break that cycle. everyone wants to break that cycle. you want to break that cycle. but we don't want to get off these programs necessarily, either. i understand the cliff, and there's ways to soften it, perhaps, but if i understand you right, if we were to increase by $300%, 400%, 500% all of these programs and get more money into the pockets of people, by definite they would then be out of poverty, and that would be a good thing or bad thing? >> it would be a good thing if they were out of poverty and moved out of poverty in the right way. don't push them out of poverty. what i mean by pushing them out of poverty, having these programs that you put in order, and then you put them. >> that's the cliff. >> that's the cliff. >> take my theoretical example,

increase these programs by 500%, people would be out of poverty, and that would be a good thing. >> yes. if the program works. yes. >> but the tendency would certainly be there which you also don't like. >> what? >> the cycle of dependency. you wouldn't be independent. >> i'm independent now on the program. i'm -- yes, i consider myself to be very independent. i work just as hard as anybody in this room. and i'm very independent. >> i'm not challenging you -- you're independent but you are here testifying you have to have these programs and you need these programs -- >> no. i didn't say i had to have these programs. what i said was these programs work to help people who are you in struggling situations. if pearn loses their job and they become unemployed --. .

>> what is your job? >> right now i work with young children in a recreation center. i have to make sure they're doing their home work, after-school program. my husband works at a -- >> what's your pay amount? >> my pay is $10.88 an hour. >> your husband works at a grocery store and that's full time as well? >> yes. my job is full time. but my job is also limited. i'm a seasonal employee so i work for six months with my job. >> ok. is that by choice so you can spend more time with your kids in the other six months or have you tried to find other employment? >> i have had to find other employment but due to health issues i have not had -- >> your testimony you're a ward chairman in philadelphia's inner city. is that a paid position? >> no, it's volunteer. >> is that a partisan position? >> i do and make sure that

people understand the importance of votes -- >> member of a republican party or democratic party? >> i'm a democrat. >> it's volunteer. it was a precinct? >> yes, volunteer. >> with the minute i have left i want to switch gears a little bit and talk about the work opportunity tax credit. ms. tiller or ms. reynolds, are any of you two familiar with this? justice a lot of folks come into my office and say it's effective in helping people -- incentivizing employers to hire low-income people or folks that might -- that are an ex-felon and they get a credit for hiring and training them and keeping them on the job. seems to me like a good thing. and then there are others that says it's not so good. i want to get your impressions of the program. is it implementry to the work you do? is it a better incentive? >> we make sure 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 the way the application process is when you're filling out an application for an employer, what is your felon status, what is your misdemeanor status, things of that nature. potentially i think there could be a benefit down the road. i think we need to re-evaluate in essence how we're getting to the point that the business would accrue that credit. >> thank you. time has expired. the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. let me make an opening statement given the last exchange between one of our colleagues and mrs. gaines-turner with regard to dependency. just recently -- and friday we are going to be working on yet another tax extender where apparently we are going to

tax $614 billion in extenders on a permanent -- make them permanent and put usinesses 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 want to put this in the record with your permission, mr. chairman, just to clear that up. >> without objection. >> 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 -- and ms. reynolds, the case management approach. certainly agree with america works which recently came 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 infermed 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. want you know, i don't you to be lulled into supporting, gutting this while we pay $614 billion in

corporate welfare. i do have a question for you, ms. reynolds, about the mind set of the individuals. don't you think we have to change the mind set of the community too? an example i 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 we -- catholic charities fort worth makes a living wage. several of our local businesses have made a choice. >> ok. i don't have 10 minutes like the chairman did. it's not changing the individual minds. the community has to embrace it too. otherwise you have permanent unemployment. i'm so happy that people get educational opportunity through your program because ms.

tiller, you focus on work first programs. sometimes it's very difficult. we have skills match in this country. how do you deal with skills match when you don't allow education, one of my main critiques of the tanf program? >> well, it's not that we don't allow education. a lot of times we'll take the skill set that the individual can come in with, see if we can transfer it into some type of employment so simultaneously they'll begin to provide more for their families and attend educational programs. and we support college -- >> do you -- do you worry about -- the femininization of poverty? tanf is primarily utilized by women and, you know, everybody here is educated in this room. and we all know that an associates degree, bachelors degree is just necessary in this economy to have a job. don't you worry about that?

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 in the public sector out of business. how does your business model enable you to provide services to clients that are adequate to get them out o additional popul. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> thank you, all, for your time. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank all of you for being here. you have wonderful stories. we appreciate you greatly. first of all, ms. renlts and i call fort worth our home and we

are both t.c.u. horned go, frogs. >> ms. reynolds, you've said -- we've been talking about a term you said which you termed generational poverty. it's a mind set. he talked about that. no goals. no future. do a lot of the people that 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 has a strong brad throughout the community and i believe each person that comes into catholic charities throughout our nation has a lot of care. and they have warm -- >> being from fort worth i know the good things you do and i appreciate it very much. >> thank you. >> and also, we try to tell many cases relationships with people, maybe better relationship with government as a whole. people can help better than

many cases the federal government. just going 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 i want to thank you with the challenges we have there. ms. turner, thank you for your testimony. i appreciate that. what i heard you say earlier was that actually government delive negive incentives to you. in other words, the government's rude, government says don't have a savings account. 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? >> i don't -- did i say government or did i say caseworkers? >> i assume you're talking caseworkers that work for the government. >> well, that's the government. >> no, i don't think we should go with the private sector.

i don't feel like i need someone else to tell me how i should be spending my benefits or where the benefits shall come from. i don't feel we should go that way. i feel like i should be in charge what's good for me. i feel like i should have a say so on what comes down the pipe which is going to affecte 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 that i have 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. >> you don't think the government should tell you that? >> no, i don't think the government should tell me that. i feel like if i go into an office and 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 talked down to. i shouldn't be looked at as someone who just wants to come and rely on government programs because 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. >> you sound like a private sector person talking. i appreciate that. back to you, ms. reynolds. what would you say are the biggest barriers that your clients are trying to face, and they're trying to come out of poverty, what is the biggest challenge? >> that leap. 80% are working. but they're just the working poor. 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've become -- it's financially better. they're more financially astute about how that should look. as the thing that would be more beneficial is an incremental decrease as well as losing benefits as well as the case management that could more quickly work hand in hand with families to remove the barriers to get them where they need to go. i say that anybody that comes to services should be treated

with compassion, dignity. i do believe accountability is incredibly important. i think support is incredibly important. i learned how to balance a checkbook from my father who's a c.p.a. a lot of our families who walk through the doors have no clue what to do, no clue how to get to the next level. we talk about pell grants. it's a great benefit. but at the same time only 10% of students -- low-income students who start community college nationwide ever finish. something's wrong. what often it is is a small situation, childcare issues, barriers, some families spiraling out of control. they need that support, they need that push, they need that push to make that leap out. >> you're doing that. with that being said, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. mcdermott. >> 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 about poor people but

i'm not sure i really understand. ms. 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 education level is, how far you went in school? >> i graduated high school. >> so you got a high school education? >> yes. >> and the federal government describes poverty level for a family of five -- that's three ids and a couple 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 where you are? >> so my husband gets paid every week and he makes $8.25 an hour. 70 a taxes he has about $1

week. >> $170 a week. >> i get paid $10.88 an hour. just recently in june my hours were cut down to 12 hours a week due to the budget. my paycheck was $222. for two weeks. for two weeks. >> for two weeks. that would be about $111 for a week. >> yes, sir. >> ok. so that's -- so that's what your plun is now. tell me about how the food stamp thing interacts with that. what level -- is that -- your salary, whether you get the food stamps or is it the family level? >> it's me and my husband's income. >> and you have to report each week or each month? >> you have to report each month. >> each month. so when you drop, 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 now you know, my income -- 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 $1,200, you're living on that amount of money. >> yes, that was for the -- yes, that was for the month of june. >> do you get cash money from any other source, from tanf? >> no, i'm not on cash assistance. >> no cash assistance? >> no. >> the only thing you have is the food stamps on top of that? >> yes. >> and your rent, how much do you pay for rent? >> my rent right now is $277.

>> so a quarter of your money -- well, not a quarter -- about a fifth of your money each month goes to rent, little bit more than that? >> yes. >> and then food -- do you have a car? >> no. i take public transportation to work, me and my husband. >> you're on public transportation -- >> uh-huh. >> and how much is your utilities? >> you would figure one month i might get a water bill for $230 and then you have to think about the gas bill which is maybe another $107, something like that, give or take. and then you have to think about the electric. like i said, i have three children with medical disabilities so i don't have a choice to turn on the air-conditioner to make my house is cool in the summer months so my children don't have seizures. in the winter, i don't have a choice when temperatures drop, i have to turn that gas on. so, you know, i'm always -- i'm

always -- we're always trying to climb up. climb up. there is a constant climb. and that is the one thing i think that's important for me being here today just for people to understand. you just broke down my whole everything. could anyone live off that amount of my like me and my husband do every day, 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 masonary degree. of course i want to go back to college. i am a smart, threctual, independent person. but unfortunately my circumstances don't allow me to go to school and to also work and juggle our family, you know. i have things that i need to do. i want a tee ball program, volunteer. i'm an assistant girl scout coach. i do things to contribute to my community. >> i thank you very much for being open and willing to expos your financial situation to us. -- expose your financial

situation to us. it takes great courage to come here and talk about what life is really like. >> thank you. >> i want to thank all three of you being here today. it's really interesting and an honor to be in front of you. what each of you do for your community and i appreciate it very much. i was very fortunate to be involved in homeless shelter and transitioning people -- transitioning people from situational or generational poverty and into success over a 20-year period and it was certainly a very rewarding thing. one thing i worried about in our particular facility called myrtle beach haven, in terms of the accountability aspect, we always saw that was important. we didn't want to encourage people to stay homeless. so we limited the time people could stay and said they need to be looking for work when they came in. that wasn't all -- always most

success model but the successes that we had we were very proud of. then in terms of the case management aspect, that's something that always worried me. the manager of the house took it on himself to take people around to apply for this maze and myriad of potentialal benefits that may or may not be aplickal to each person. i -- applicable to each person. i would love to get your advice on how we can better handle the case management at myrtle beach haven. you said something that intrigued me or made me curious. you said the federal programs -- well, you named them -- welfare and food stamps, you said they're not working. what did you mean by that? you said these federal programs are not working. what did you mean? had >> what i meant was the federal

programs in which we have right now, they do work, but the problem is is that once you get to a certain platform you are knocked back down. i didn't mean they are not working. what i'm saying is they need to be improved. i feel like we need to get a task force -- i'm stating 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. 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 monitor you mean somebody needs to be looking at them? >> 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 there are not billions and billions taken away from a single mother or wake program or a head start program.

>> more money spent ineffectively when there is such limited money to go around, we don't want money ton tob spent ineffectively either, transition people to being independent, is that correct? you want to make sure money is used effectively? >> of course we want them to be 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 over all 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. >> mrs. turner, do you agree with that? >> sorry. >> people rely on federal programs -- the thing we're talking about, the generational poverty, if they just simply rely on federal programs and they don't try to make

themselves better and go out and get a job, will they ever get out of poverty? >> i don't think anyone relies on federal programs. i feel like people want to go out and get a job. >> do you agree that's the path out of poverty is they have to go out and get a job and become self-reliant? >> if they are capable of going out and getting 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. i mean, let's think about it. there is a recession right now. how many jobs are there? and good-paying jobs? let's keep that in mind. >> if you rely on federal programs, you're never going to come out of poverty. the om way to come out of poverty is to become self-reliant and find yourself a job. i 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 the limits on hours, didn't you say that? >> didn't say the affordable care act. what i said is the limit on hours is you have employers that won't pay and that's what you're -- i said employers won't pay their -- they 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 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 is what i'm talking about. why is it that big companies and corporation ks only pay a person 30 hours and not giving them four hours to receive medical benefits? >> ms. lee. >> thank you very much. first, let me thank you, mr. chairman, and our ranking member for this very important hearing and this very important panel and i want to thank both of you for inviting these witnesses, especially ms.

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 once again thank all of the witnesses. before i begin my questions, i want to mention, mr. chairman and to our ranking member, next tuesday, i'm co-hosting a bipartisan poverty simulation that will allow members of congress and their staff just a small glimpse into the lives of families who are living in poverty every day. it will be just a brief example of what this experience is like. we are trying to raise more awareness around the country as to what ms. gaines-turner, for instance, what her life is like, and so we're inviting democrats and republicans to participate with us. and we'll get you the information. we'd love your participation. first, ms. 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 about $23,000, $24,000 which is about -- 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. but -- and for your advocacy and for being here today. also, i want to just ask you how, you know, 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. 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 get my degree and take care of my kids and move on. what's your perspective people living in poverty -- below the poverty line and who are working and who -- some consider lazy or relying on public assistance to just get over? and let me ask my second question to ms. tiller. i want to do this. 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, want to get your comment on that. and to ms. reynolds, let me thank you again.

i'm a social worker by profession. i understand case management. so important. but those clients that you serve, what happens if the safety net were 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? ok. ms. gaines-turner. >> thank you, ms. lee, for your comments and thank you for your support constantly and pointing out how difficult it is. i feel like, you know, 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 that me and my husband have to juggle every single day with having three children on medical disability going back and forth back to work, maybe having to take an underthe 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 the poverty level that are not lazy. we want to be a part of the

conversation. we want to have full-time jobs and go to school and go to college and things like that. i actually believe that certain people just put that stamp of lazy on us, to put a smokescreen, not really see what's going on, to point the finger at us, to look down at us, to try to humiliate us or twist our words, you know. the most -- are every day 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 where if you strive harder and work hard and do your just diligence that you can get ahead no matter what race, gender, creed or where you come from, inner city or out of city. >> second go round? >> no we don't have -- you have a lot of colleagues that showed up. >> well, i'll ask for a written

response. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the fact 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. i sit here today because there are a lot of folks who helped me to get to where i am. so i'm interested, ms. reynolds, because i have gone back and worked with a number of programs of the poverty and generational poverty in particular is what i'm going to speak to. i'm sorry i wasn't here for all your opening remarks. i did read the piece you gave to us. generational poverty has its own culture, hidden rules and belief systems. that's what i've run into as we've had programs that tried to help people get out of poverty. what we see and you say it here generational poverty need a deeper level of case management because it requires a mind set change. what i have seen in my perience -- and not in all

cases, but some that have broken my heart, where some got an opportunity to get a skill or a degree and slip back again because of just anxiety about, can i make it on my own? will the paycheck actually come? will i lose my job? so you say here you're happy to provide these examples to show how you've been able to work through that. can you give me a really brief idea how your casework moves to help people being in poverty and having that dependency and then the fear of being on your own? >> that's a great point because it is about getting jobs but it's also about making sure 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 and it has nothing to do with lazyness or motivation. it has something to do with helping folks understand that they can rewrite their life

story. and although i have never been in poverty, my family's been closely impacted by poverty and i dedicated my life to poverty and studied it quite closely. i think what is so needed with generational poverty is 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, basic human theory tells us you're focused on surviving, focused on today. and our case managers lift heads up and help people see a tomorrow. >> so thank you very much. i appreciate that. i'd love to off-line have a little more conversation with you. talk about some of 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 have a glimpse about what's happening in your family. i respect the fact that you and your husband are raising three children together. family i think is something we have forgotten about as an

equation in this poverty situation. we know the number one poverty independent cadors -- indicators is a child being in a single family home. thank you for what you and your husband are doing. >> thank you. >> i just want to ask you. do you think if there were casework involved, as catholic charities is doing with the people that they're helping to pull up -- and i think ms. tiller, you are doing the same kind of thing. you're working beyond just the job piece but helping them with all the other life situations. either in your situation or those that 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 nor casework 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. it would help a great part. i'm not saying that case management doesn't work and i'm not saying that all caseworkers

are nasty and all people that work for the government are nasty. that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is we need to make sure we support the programs that support the people that do work. that's what my colleagues -- >> thank you -- >> not colleague but other witness. >> found something that is very common in what you all were saying in the casework because i've experienced in in getting people to get from that defensey to the independencey. it's very difficult, the anxiety that's produced and i think that's one of the nuggets we ought to take out of this and looking to help people. thank you all so much for this. >> mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chair. i thank 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 for 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 pathway toward the middle class. of course, there's still a long way to go. although it does seem in this town there are some more interested in a war on working families than a war on poverty. but that's something that we're going to ultimately have to overcome as well. in the context of this present hearing, i thought i'd start with ms. reynolds just to kind of explore the perspective that you laid out. i believe, i guess in your experience, you've laid out three broad categories of poverty, is that correct? >> correct. >> and those three categories are chronic, generational and situational? >> correct. >> now, i guess your view is with respect to each category there is a different preferred strategy in order to arrive at a successful resolution is that true? >> correct. >> and i think you testified

that you believe generational poverty requires a mind set adjustment, correct? >> situational -- sometimes situational poverty can require that as well. >> ok. and can you elaborate on just sort of the mind set you believe exists as what you describe as jen -- generational poverty and what you believe needs to be adjusted? >> sometimes people in generational poverty has been beat down in a lot of things. they tried to get up and fallen back down. in addition to that, some people living in poverty have maybe never seen a different side of life. have never seen what opportunities exist or frankly never believed in themselves they can get there. >> if i could 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? >> can be a whole series of things.

it can be a lack of opportunities. it can be observing others. it can be a family member. we see that often sometimes too. >> is it fair to say that those trapped in jen agsal -- generational poverty is not affected by a mind set but a mind set that is brought by substantive barriers or obstacles they confronted in their life? >> absolutely. >> one of those substantive barriers -- you define success in three different ways. making a way to support the family, correct, was one. three months of savings, a second definition of success. and then no debt. >> no public assistance. >> no public assistance. ok. with respect to sort of the current minimum wage that exists in america, $7.25 per hour. now, is that a wage that 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 days -- 40 hours a week throughout an entire year to actually be able to support their families? >> sir. you know, being in fort worth, texas, and being with catholic charities fort worth and i'll speak on them, our focus has not been on policy reform at the federal level because there are multiple complexities for us. we make sure that clients are trained in jobs that pay a living wage, that's our focus. and encouraging corporate responsibility which we have great partnerships with businesses and support our mission in an incredible way. >> a living wage is good public policy? >> a living wage is an important element to get a

client to. >> i think you also mentioned in your testimony the importance of a college education and a-- in addressing poverty, is that correct? >> associate degree and certification programs can also help. in our local community, getting an associates degree to become an aviation mechanic, you start $50,000, $60,000. >> in terms of pathway out of poverty, a college education is an important component if not the best way to achieve that pathway? >> education, yes, always important. >> ok. 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 what we have invested in case management with low-income

individuals to ensure graduation. ifer' spending money and completion doesn't happen, it doesn't people to get them to self-sufficiency and out of poverty. >> thank you. mr. kildee. >> thank you very much. follow up a bit on mr. jeffries. let me make a couple comments. one of the things to keep in mind while in theory the notion that many of the federal programs -- at least i understand, some of the theories presented by folks on the other side and some of the testimony here 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 is -- his 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 are beaten down in? and the sense i get from the people i talk to, it is manifested 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 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 their 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 a lack of work with unemployment rates in the 30% and 40% level, but there is a deterioration of the landscape. there's empty houses, empty buildings. the notion 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 is a culture that surrounds folks within -- within generational chronic poverty but the challenge before us is -- so what do we do about that? i fully understand and embrace the notion that support of case management which i view it is to help those individuals in poverty navigate a system of

support and opportunity, ladders of opportunity that could create a pathway for those folks, are comprised of a couple of things. it seems to focus on both. one is the method, how the engagement occurs. whether it's through active case management or whatever. but also it really does also come down to resources to a certain extent. so i'm curious with -- ms. reynolds, perhaps you could comment on this because i think you made reference to it. the difficulty that individuals, particularly in chronic or jen agsal poverty have in a-- 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 will have a positive effect on those seeking higher education? >> i think we need to measure the success of pell grants in terms of those who complete their education. i think that's most critical. and what we have seen is actually from a community college standpoint the national average hovers around 10% who actually start complete. many of which are on pell grants. oftentimes the reasons students dropped out, the students we worked with and understand is because of very simple things. childcare 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. that's what i believe that although it can cost a little bit more money, bringing case

management along with this education is starting to prove up to actually work. then in the future you can reduce some of these other benefits because you're actually moving people out. >> i guess with the few seconds i have remaining, the point 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. the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. huffman. >> mr. chair, i would yield my time to my colleague, barbara lee. >> let me thank the gentleman for yielding his time. i really appreciate that, mr. huffman. i want to ask first 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 this to the panel. in the welfare reform bill, both democrats and republicans -- this was a bipartisan fiasco, if you ask me -- >> you're talking about the

1996 bill? >> yeah. president clinton signed it into law. >> there is a lifetime ban for snap benefits of those convicted of a felony drug offense. not homicide. not armed robry. felony drug offense. lifetime ban on snap and public assistance. primarily african-american and latino men. let me ask you, ms. tiller. 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 it be easier, would it be harder would it help reduce recidivism, would it stay the same? being able to apply for public assistance and food stamps until they get a job, what

would that do to that population? then me let me ask ms. reynolds one more thing with regard to the federal grants and safety net. with your clients and with catholic charities, 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? ok. thank you very much. thank you, again, mr. huffman. >> well, thank you for your question. while i'm not familiar with -- in its entirety, you know, we can't deny the individual to it. i could only hope if it were lifted throughout the nation that it would ease the transition for an ex-offender into employment. we do not want people to resid vate because they need to feed their family. what we focus on -- and i do a lot of pro bono work with a lot of ex-offenders in washington, d.c. bring them into my office and listening to them and creating resumes and skill profiles and

introducing them to employers where potentially this may never affect them. something i heard repeatedly is reference to building relationships. 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 organization, without the government's, without having those strong relationships and those strong ties regardless of any legislation we might not be as successful. >> regarding safety net services and clients, as a fellow social worker myself, i do want to say we both i think would agree that a strength-based approach to pulling a client out of poverty is really what our profession is all about. regarding safety net services and cuts, i'm not really here to talk about this current budget. what i believe is that if we -- >> i understand you're not here to talk about this current budget. >> in general.

>> 30% reduction -- >> of course. my perspective is what we need to do is we need to case manage clients to get them out and set our definition out of poverty differently. i think over time you'll be able to cut public benefits because of savings you'll receive. >> all i'm asking, if you cut, say, snap benefits by 40%, does that make your job easier or if we cut medicaid or if we cut ction 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 service? >> right. i do think we need to have a safety net throughout our country. >> ok. let me ask you one more question about the safety net. >> yes, plam. >> in terms of the -- >> yes, ma'am. >> in terms of the safety net, the clients you see -- >> yes. >> 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, do they want to live the american dream? what's their life like? is their 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. 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. saw mom and grandmother and others on benefits as well. >> yes. ms. lujan grisham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm probably going to repeat some of the stuff that's been discussed already this morning. i want to follow-up on my colleague, ms. lee.

in case managing and doing any kind of social support, it only has impacts if you have something to case manage to do. there is no place to discharge anybody to. you don't have any of those social supports, whether they're government focused and paid for or if they're familial. they don't exist. if we talk about the safety net, i don't know if people understand what that means anymore. and most case management folks and most social workers are very effective at the thing 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 that's doing that case management. in fact, i don't think it's very effective because it's not very integrated. because you have to work with public and private sector

benefits and supports getting them to work together, even having their rule work very well together. incredibly challenging. i want to hit something, ms. reynolds, that you just said. there are generations of poverty and it becomes very difficult to change that dynamic. 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 cry kiss could be, we can't do -- crisis could be, we can't do transportation, we can't do health care but we can do housing. we finally get you housing and we walk away and weg come back if there is an i shall -- and we come back if there is an issue, if there is an arrest. we walk away, come back, walk away. we wonder why it's expensive and difficult. i want to highlight 90% 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% and debate back and forth how are we going to do it wlrks we should do it at all -- we're going to do it, whether we should do it at all. there is a population that needs generations of support and what it means to be a working household and be lifted out of -- out of poverty. and so really i'm hoping you might with whatever time i have left -- i'm going to go to ms. gaines-turner. i think drawing on the experience of folks who are working and who understand these difficult decisions between supporting a sick child and paying utility bills and the notion i think given it's 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 issues with poverty disappear, that that's not an accurate

statement. >> thank you so much for your comment. yes, that's definitely not an accurate statement. just because you have a job and you have two people in your household like me that are working, 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 10 years. and being homeless twice 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 once you continue to work, there's something else that comes up. as you said, generations and generations and generations, it

seems like if you're constantly, as you always say, 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 open your door and 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 they are sometimes not given the opportunity to ever get their foot out the door. >> or they get their foot in the -- not the right door. >> exactly. but they get to the threshold and they're knocked back down. i think that's an important point. >> and -- four seconds left. 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 and poverty to get out of poverty and feel like they are getting what they need to actually live and have the american dream. >> thank you. ladies, i want to thank you very much for sharing your mornings with us. i appreciate you taking the time with us today and sharing your stories and experiences. this hearing's adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014]

>> a reminder, you can watch this hearing anytime online at c-span.org. well, coming up in just a bit, we are going to take you live to the u.s. house. just a reminder, too, going on later this afternoon, going on this morning, actually, hearing under way about the southern

border in the u.s. it's on c-span3. head of customs and border protection testifying before that senate committee. that's live under way now on c-span3. you can join the conversation online. at facebook.com/cspan and also on twitter #cspanchat. d later today on c-span, nccap president and former college football player will be at a hearing about academics and athletics and whether college athletes should be paid. that, too, will be on c-span3. that's at 2:30 eastern. the u.s. will gavel in momentarily. this afternoon they'll begin work on the water -- work force training bill and begin consideration of the appropriations bill for energy and water. that rule debate later on this afternoon with votes later on this afternoon as well. we'll take you live now to the house floor here on c-span.